Master's Dissertation First Full Draft

4.4. Research questions

1. 
   Are there differences in learning (measured by the ability to correctly answer questions from each of Butler’s (2010) categories of question, with a delay of approximately one week between reading task and test) when text is read (only) on paper compared to when this is done using a tablet PC?
   
2. 
   Are there differences in learning (measured by the ability to correctly answer questions from each of Butler’s (2010) categories of question, with a delay of approximately one week between reading task and test) when text is read and notes are taken on paper compared to when text is read and notes are taken using a tablet PC?
   
3. 
   What differences exist, if any, between the results of research questions 1 and 2 and what is the nature of these differences?
   
4. 
   Are there differences in learning (as measured by test performance) if the delay between reading task and test (research question 2 – note-taking) is reduced from approximately one week to several days?^*
   

4.5. Hypotheses

1. 
   Statistically significant differences will exist between the paper and tablet reading-only conditions.
   
2. 
   Statistically significant differences will exist between the paper and tablet reading-and-note-taking conditions.
   
3. 
   The differences between conditions for research question 1 will not be the same as those observed for research question 2.
   
4. 
   Statistically significant differences will not be detected between participants with one week or 2-3 day delays between reading task and test.
   

4.6. Sample

A volunteer, convenience sample was used for this experiment. Participants were recruited from six sites, all within the Gauteng area, all of which hosted secondary school students in grades 11 and 12. These six sites represented different parts of the demographic spectrum in terms of socio-economic status and mother tongue/home language spoken, among other factors, strengthening the external validity of this study. Participants completed their assigned experimental tasks on one or more of paper, a tablet PC, laptop/desktop PC, or an e-ink e-reader. A more balanced designed across a number of conditions was originally intended, but recruitment and other practical challenges made this unachievable Because of the very small number of respondents in every condition except paper and tablet, as well as the fact that the primary focus of this experiment is comparing these two devices, only the paper and tablet conditions are examined here. Table 1 below provides an overview of participant distribution across the various conditions.

Table 1. Participant numerical distribution across various conditions

Type	Condition	Paper (N)	Tablet (N)
Between-subjects (one-week delay)	Reading-only	33	12
	Reading & note-taking	59	26
Within-subjects	Reading-only	27	27
	Reading & note-taking	42	42
Between-subjects (two-to-three-day delay)	Reading & note-taking	16	9

As illustrated in Table 1 above, the data is partitioned into three distinct samples – between-subjects (one-week delay between reading task and test), within-subjects, and between-subjects (two-to-three day delay between reading task and test). Apart from three cells, the sample sizes obtained compare favourably (either similar or larger) with those obtained for similar experiments such as Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014), whose sample size averaged approximately 27 per cell.

Basic sample characteristics for each of these three partitions are provided below; more detailed presentation of demographic information is provided in Chapter 5 – Results.

Between-subjects (one-week delay)

Table 2 below provides an overview of participant demographic information for the paper and tablet between-subjects (one-week delay between reading task and test) condition which will be analysed as part of this experiment.

Table 2. Between-subjects (one-week delay)

	Reading only		Note-taking
	Paper	Tablet	Paper	Tablet
Total number (N)	33	12	59	26
Average age (years)	18.2 [25]*	18.4 [7]*	17.0 [49]*	17.7 [21]*
Number of male participants	12^a (39%)	4^b (44%)	23^c(42%)	9(35%)
Number of female participants	19^a(61%)	5^b (56%)	32^c (58%)	17 (65%)

N in brackets. Variable N’s are the result of missing demographic data.

^{a, b, c} 2, 3, & 4 participants did not answer, respectively

Within-subjects

Table 3 below provides an overview of participant demographic information for the paper and tablet within-subjects condition which will be analysed as part of this experiment.

Table 3. Within-subjects

	Reading only	Note-taking
Total number (N)	27	42
Average age (years)	16.45 ^1	16.75 ^2
Number of male participants	8 (30%)	24 (57%)
Number of female participants	19 (70%)	18 (43%)

1. 
   7 participants did not answer – calculated using remaining 20
   
2. 
   1 participant did not answer – calculated using remaining 41
   

Between-subjects (two-to-three-day delay)

Table 4 below provides an overview of participant demographic information for the paper and tablet between-subjects (two-to-three-day delay) condition which will be analysed as part of this experiment.

Table 4. Between-subjects (two-to-three-day delay)

	Note-taking
	Paper	Tablet
Total number (N)	16	9
Average age (years)	16.8	16.7
Number of male participants	3 (19%)	2 (22%)
Number of female participants	13 (81%)	7 (78%)