Discussion Question
Suppose you wanted to know whether having parents read to preschool children has
a positive effect on the children’s subsequent reading achievement. Do you think it
would be better to conduct an “experimental study” or a “nonexperimental study”?
Why?
Option 1: Experimental Study
The participants in this type of study would be families with parents who did not read to their children. This seems like a very difficult category for any family to fit into. Does any parent truly not read to their child at all? Would the study accept parents who read to their children only once in a while? Are parents included who do not read children’s books but may read other things to their kids? This is seems like a tough topic to get a good group of participants for if doing an experimental study. Let’s say though that researchers were able to gather participants. A treatment would be introduced to one group of them but not the other. In this case, one group of parents would read to their preschoolers while another would not. After, data would be gathered on the achievement levels of the children in both groups to see the impact reading had/did not have on them.
Option 2: Nonexperimental Study
Parents would be given a survey about their children where they are asked to answer questions about their child’s current level of academic achievement, as well as their habits when it comes to reading to their child. Parents may be given a similar survey later on to see if their child’s achievement levels have increased or decreased. This would help researchers make connections between reading and achievement.
My Thoughts:
I chose this question because I believe an experimental study would produce the best results but a nonexperimental study would be best for the participants. It is unethical and detrimental to the children involved to conduct an experimental study on this topic. For that reason, the only option is to gather information on reading to preschoolers through a nonexperimental study where there is no “treatment” and participants are observed as they naturally exist.
Monica,
I agree. If you did the experimental study, then children would be neglected from being read to. I know not all parents read to their children. I know a few children myself (from working in a pediatricians office prior) that do not get read to, or really any other attention for that matter. I would say it definitely shows, without a study. This would be a hard study. However, my boyfriend and I read to our son every night, since he was just a tiny baby, not missing too many nights, but he is in 1st grade and reading is his worst subject. He is below average and struggles. I’m not sure why that is the way it is. He excels in math, which is something we have never really worked with him on except for the basics. Interesting to think about.
Hi Monica, I also agree with you. I think the non-experimental study would be the best route to go. I do also know though that unfortunately not every parent reads to their kids. Whether it be due to neglect or because they are so focused on work that they don’t remember. I do think it’s sad how there are some parents who don’t read to their kids. I think more parents should as it is very important.
I always think the experimental study is the best for the results but it would also be harder to find participants for the study as well. Either due to prerequisites they might need for the study or that no parents wanted to step forward. There’s quite a few different ways this study might not work out so well.
I like how you gave options and examples for both the experimental and non-experimental study. It helped break down everything and make more sense!
Monica,
I agree with your reasoning that this is a topic best served by a non-experimental study. I, too, would have reservations as to any suitable way to collect experimental data from the parents, and I agree that subjecting the children to experimentation may well cross an ethical line, no matter the benevolence involved. Besides, I do believe that there are many children out there that are avid readers by nature. A non-experimental study questionnaire would allow you the ability to separate those children out of the study from those that may or may not have been read to by their parents during their preschool formative years.
Of the two I tend to agree that the best would be nonexperimental. First of all ethically it would be wrong to potentially hamper the development of children by restricting the interactions that they have with their parents. Secondly if you were to find parents who did not read to their children ever you are likely going to find neglectful parents and in that case you have added another variable to the problem that may be the cause of the problems that are manifesting instead of simply not being read to. If you were to find parents who were too busy (potentially single parents) then again it adds another variable. I would say that finding two groups of parents in the same socio-economic category who do and do not read to their children would be a near impossibility. Because of this I fully agree that the best route here would be nonexperimental.
Has anyone ever worked with an adult literacy program? I did that for a while many years ago. The woman I helped could actually read, but she was probably at a 2nd or 3rd-grade reading level. I would think she emphasized literacy with her children but probably didn’t read to them.
An article in the Library Journal reports that illiteracy affects 12% of the world’s population but 22% of Americans (Rea, 2020). The percentages originally come from two different organizations. So, as others have noted on other topics, it’s possible that one reason for the dramatic difference could be how “illiteracy” is defined in each study.
Rea, A. (2020, April 29). How serious is America’s literacy problem? Library Journal. https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=How-Serious-Is-Americas-Literacy-Problem