‘It Depends’: Technology Use by Parent and Family Educators in the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This topic is relevant and one in which we need a deeper understanding of. Technology access at home is a issue for English as a second language and low socioeconomic families. That access and the valuing of technology in the home can be changed through family educators. What you have learned through this perspective is valuable. I have a couple of suggestions to improve your presentation of your ideas.

Define family educators in the participant section. Particularly, since you identified quite an expansive group to include as family educators. Within your different categories please explain their role in how the interact with the families. Table 1 contains non relevant data. I am not sure why or what you are comparing to receive F. I am not sure what you are comparing in the jobs categories. Is that column necessary? In the Demographics and Job Categories section you state: All comparisons were significant . . . but I am not sure what was compared and I have a feeling that the comparison would be of course these are different. Similar observations on the other tables under "observed differences". Non parametric analysis is sufficient. This data does not lend itself to a naturally occurring bell curve. Within the analysis, you included a job category of professors. I believe their actual work environment is completely different from other family educators. As a result, that group is impacting the results within the tables. Are there other groups within the participants similar with jobs that lend themselves to having more reason to use technology and therefore greater access? Table 5 does not meet APA standards. Line 357 says, we the results. That makes no sense.

Wishing you the best.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Greater attention has been given to a definition and description of family educators. I have expanded on the explanation of the professional of family educators in the US, how agencies such as the National Council on Family Relations (which provides certification in Family Life Education) define family education and have previously documented demographics and characteristics of those who identify as family educators. This appears in the introduction and in the explanation of the construction of the job categories.

 

I agree with the reviewer on Table 1. Showing the comparison statistics for job category groups on the table is confusing. This was deleted and the comparison information has been added to the results section.

 

Regarding the statement on comparing job categories, the reviewer is correct that the original manuscript misspoke the facts of the analysis. Indeed there were a number of factors on which significant differences occurred. This has been corrected.

 

Regarding the analysis on the variables reported in the analysis, and variables compared by job category, tables 2-5 have been revised to reflect means test comparisons, F statistic and post hoc testing of the subgroups to determine which groups vary. Similarly variables in which the job category comparisons are done yet not reported in tables have been means tested, with post hoc comparisons.

 

A concern was raised with the inclusion of university faculty (Higher Education/Administrators). This was intentional as previous study of professionals who identify as family educators include those who work as university faculty, and those who work as program administrators. Because a partner in the research was the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) who contributed a recruitment list including a sizeable number of university faculty, it wasn’t a surprise that so many in the sample were in higher education. Because these individuals are in roles to teach and prepare family educators and the study compares by job category, I felt it was especially important to look at the similarities and differences across job categories by context. In the full sample their inclusion may skew the overall view. But because they are pulled out in a comparison, their differences become apparent and can be talked about as similar or different from the working conditions of family educators in full time practice.

 

All tables have been revised to adhere to APA standards. Writing and grammar have similarly been attended to.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is well structured, the data collected are numerous and well organized. The analysis of the consequences could perhaps be better investigated, but overall the work is good.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Review 2 wanted better analysis of the consequences. I assume this means a better interpretation of the effects of having limited resources or other conditions of technology in practice. To that end, the implications section has been tightened up to include more literature and a tighter analysis of the implications of family educators variable work conditions regarding technology.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Given the sample size and effort made in data collection, this paper could have had the potential of being a valuable contribution. However, the entire analysis is not built on a valid theoretical framework and the entire paper is highly descriptive in nature. For a quantitative study, specific hypotheses need to be formulated based on scientific basis, then tested accordingly using validated measurement tools. This paper has major theoretical and methodological flaws and I cannot recommend it for publication. Please see my specific comments below:

The first thing that jumps on me is the language. The use of commas/punctuation needs to be revised. Several grammatical errors have been detected (e.g. never start a sentence with “and”; never end a sentence with a preposition). Professional English language editing is needed. What technology are we talking about exactly? The introduction and theoretical sections mention Instagram and more generally social media, but what about other technologies? You also mention online programs, but what is that exactly? Intelligent-tutoring systems significantly differ from MOOCs which in turn differ from online classrooms. Specific technology examples and their use in the family education field are needed in the introduction and theory sections. The TAM model has been around for 30 years, and technologies used today are very different from those that were used 30 years ago. Besides the author’s own research and self-citations, there has been mention of only one other study (Teo et al. 2008) that recently used the TAM framework. Please cite additional recent works that use the TAM in the context of today’s widespread technologies (social media, intelligent-tutoring systems, MOOCs, etc.). The theoretical framework is confusing. I was under the impression that since the author talked a lot about TAM in the theoretical section, the TAM survey would be the main questionnaire used in the methods. It appears, however, that many additional items were measured. Are these additional items self-constructed or adapted from literature? What is the rationale behind using those questionnaire items? Please expand/update the theory section accordingly. Generally, no clear theoretical model has been given. What hypotheses are you posing? What research questions are you testing? One should not jump into quantitative data collection and analysis without knowing what needs to be analyzed in the first place (and why!). The measures and analysis section should precede the survey/participants section or at least the Demographics table. I also found the measures and analysis section quite confusing. Why the use of such different measuring scales for different questionnaire items? Why haven’t you used Likert scales of the same length/structure across the questionnaire? Please justify the questionnaire design using appropriate literature citations. Additionally, I recommend summarizing the questionnaire items in a table rather than describing them in the text. No mention has been made of any questionnaire validation analysis. Have you conducted any Cronbach alpha tests to check if the questionnaire items measure what they intend to measure? Please conduct those tests and report the results. “Groups were constructed after sampling based on distributions present”:This to me is a fatal error. This grouping strategy is typically used for qualitative studies but not quantitative ones. In quantitative analyses, groups are typically pre-identified based on existing theory/literature/framework. Please justify. “All comparisons were significant at p<.001”: Again, on which basis have you conducted those comparisons? You have no mention of any hypotheses to be tested. The entire analysis seems quite arbitrary. In the technology use and access section, you finally provide some insights on the types of technologies you aim to analyze. This should have been done previously in the theoretical framework section. More importantly, the basis on which you chose these particular technologies is important to discuss. Did you just randomly choose these technologies? Is there any literature or framework that mentions those technologies as being the most important for the family education field? Please justify. The same goes to all subsequent findings sections. One should not report quantitative findings without justifying why those measures are being used and having some expectation of what the findings would be (i.e. hypotheses).

I believe that without addressing those previous points, there is no point in discussing or providing additional recommendations concerning the final sections of the paper (discussion/conclusion). I did notice that the discussion includes quotes from questionnaire respondents, typical of qualitative studies. I generally recommend that the author reads a book on research methods before proceeding. For instance, Introducing Research Methodology by Uwe Flick would be a good starting point.

The author has good intentions and the analysis could be reframed/redone to enhance the paper’s contribution (e.g. defining independent and dependent variables (and subsequent regression analyses), conducting t-tests/means comparisons across various groups tested). Of course, this should be done after writing a solid theoretical framework and clearly identifying what would be tested and why. I wish you the best of luck.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The reviewer expressed concern with language throughout. Careful attention to the writing has been given. In places in which the reviewer noted specific issues (e.g., beginning the sentence with “And…” or ending a sentence with a preposition, I have consulted Merriam-Webster for validation on the practice. Of course, I will comply with the journal editorial style should the manuscript move towards publication.

 

The reviewer requested more specificity when talking about ‘technology.’ Indeed there are many applications and devices even within the scope of Information and Communications Technology and education technology (the focus of this paper). I have tried to lend more specificity particular to the practice of family education and experience and context of those professionals in this sample. This is added to the introductory section setting up the study, and I have cited research that indicates the rationale for my selection of specific technologies for this study.

 

I can understand the reviewer’s confusion that the paper would use the TAM as a theoretical framework since it was the dominant conceptual framework offered in the empirical background. And because of this the reviewer expected to see hypotheses related to that model. However, the primary aim of this research is exploratory and comparative (descriptive) to help us better understand in a broad way, how our professionals may be using technology and influences on their use. Previous study (my own, but especially decades of work in education) indicates that there are psychological (ie., attitude, intention), practice (ie., learner objectives, expectations), personal (i.e., age, experience) and work context (i.e. availability of devices, training) factors that can motivate/condition use. The paper doesn’t intend to predict, but rather to describe and to compare across work types. While I felt safe in doing that with narrowly defined groups of family educators, there is too much variation and too little known about use or attitudes to test factors as predictors. Therefore the study has no hypotheses.

 

However, to clarify or help to eliminate the expectation that the study focuses on the TAM, I now introduce the TAM (and its later iterations) as one model that helps us understand factors that relate to family educators’ technology use and discuss it along with several other frameworks that characterize influences on technology use.

 

With regard to the various items used in the study that reflect factors related to technology use, I have added information in the text that indicates the source of the instrument, validity and reliability testing of the instrument, and the process of pilot testing and refining instruments that were added for this study. With regard to summarizing the items in a table, I have considered the balance of tables and text to describe the various instruments used in the study.

 

With regard to grouping the sample into job classifications, I understand the reviewer’s concern and have provided much more detail into the rationale and empirical foundation behind the groups and how the construction was performed.

 

Comparisons were tested at levels of significance appropriate to power in the sample size. In this case, because the sample is >500 I have selected the most stringent level to test and report when comparisons yield significant yet less meaningful differences.

 

I also understand the reviewer’s concern that I included quotes in the discussion section. Indeed these quotes are not taken from the participants of this study, but are taken from a qualitative study of parenting educators. It’s likely questionable practice to do this. It can be confusing to the reader (in this case, Reviewer 3 believed the quotes were from survey study participants).

 

Thank you again for the opportunity. I believe that the manuscript is significantly improved and look forward to your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper was so much better with the revisions. I suggest the article be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your assistance. The manuscript greatly improved because of the reviewer's conscientious comments and recommendations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author, 

Thank you for making an effort to improve the manuscript. Its overall quality has indeed increased, yet I still have reservations with regards to recommending it for publication. Here are the main points to consider: 

Quantitative studies can indeed be exploratory in nature, but your research philosophy/approach needs to be clearly described. I believe your work is closest to "abductive reasoning" rather than deduction or induction. Please read and cite works on the topic, e.g. Dubois & Gadde 2002 and Haig 2005.  I think that you have inherently made some hypotheses when formulating your research design even without mentioning them. In the theoretical framework, you focus on the impact of work context and environment on technology use, attitudes and motivation. You then classify educators in several groups based on their work contexts. So you are inherently assuming that different types of educators (e.g. FLEs, HE/Es, etc.) operate in different contexts, hence could have some differences in their technology use (even if we cannot determine what kind of differences. In other words, two-tailed hypotheses are needed). In other words, you have formulated 5 hypotheses assuming a difference between various types of family educators in terms of their technology use, motivations and proficiency, attitudes and skills, support and barriers and training respectively! Please document those hypotheses appropriately in conjunction with your theoretical framework. It would be useful to add a brief description to each type of family educator. Please mention and expand on implications for theory and recommendations for future research. Research limitations need to be clearly described.

Author Response

I very much appreciate the reviewer's attention to the manuscript and to the research. The revised manuscript includes these modifications: 

I have provided a substantive paragraph identifying the abductive approach as foundation for the comparative examination of technology experiences by family educator job type. This includes an explanation of the abductive approach (including reference to Dubois and Gade, 2002 as recommended) as a useful step when formulating modified theory in the study of phenomena applied to a new group (in this case, technology integration in family education). While some research has been done to inform the hypotheses in the study, research is early enough that the abductive approach is relevant. As recommended, I have provided hypotheses on the anticipated difference in technology experience by job category. The hypotheses include the five dimensions the reviewer notes, and asserts that context differences in practice will result in technology experience differences across the four job categories.  I have expanded the discussion section to include study limitations.  While I understand the reviewer's recommendation to include more description of the job categories, I feel that the methods section already provides substance in delineating how the categories vary - by construction from the dataset, and in narrative description of differences in practice. Where relevant, references are provided to give foundation to the specifics of the practice or preparation or expectations of the subgroups. For example, in discussing licensed parenting educators in Minnesota, reference is offered to the requirements of the state licensing standards. 

Again, I appreciate the reviewer's recommendations. The manuscript is stronger because of this attention. The abductive approach in particular is a most appropriate framing for the comparative element of the study.