Abstract
Studies that require participants to use educational apps or other technologies have often struggled with fidelity of implementation and even user uptake [e.g., 1]. That is, it is often unclear how much the participants have used the designated technologies at home or in the classroom when only self-reports are used to assess participants’ usage. In the event that the information can be objectively obtained using process data, the participants’ actual usage tends to be lower than what has been reported or observed via synchronous sessions [2]. Because remote studies on the impacts of technological innovations or interventions can often depend upon how much study participants actually use them independently, it is important to have strategies on-hand to increase the at-home use of these technologies. Our poster presents two years of data from a study focused on an educational app meant to improve children’s early literacy through modeling dialogic reading practices with an AI-powered conversational agent. The app features a virtual rabbit-agent who asks questions to prompt caregiver-child interactions as the caregiver reads a physical book aloud with their child. In the first year, focused on usability, we discovered there was sparse usage of the app, with 6 of the 20 participants procrastinating until the day before their post-test session to use it. We implemented four key changes–device, reading diary, text reminders, and compensation structure–to increase and incentivize participant usage of the app during the study’s second-year efficacy phase. Although we are unable to distinguish the unique contribution of the four changes implemented to increase user engagement with the app, clustering of the process data patterns suggests a clear increase in the app’s usage during the second year of the study. Our findings can be useful to researchers and practitioners facing similar implementation challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
McKenna, J.W., Flower, A., Ciullo, S.: Measuring fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Interv. Sch. Clin. 50(1), 15–21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214532348
Helsabeck, N.P., Justice, L.M., Logan, J.A.R.: Assessing fidelity of implementation to a technology-mediated early intervention using process data. Comput. Assist. Learn. 38(2), 409–421 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12621
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M.W.: Implementation of educational innovation. Educ. Forum 40(3), 345–370 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1080/00131727609336469
Gage, N., Macsuga-Gage, A., Detrich, R.: Fidelity of implementation in educational research and practice. The Wing Institute (2020). https://www.winginstitute.org/systems-program-fidelity
Dane, A.V., Schneider, B.H.: Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin. Psychol. Rev. 18(1), 23–45 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
O’Donnell, C.L.: Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Rev. Educ. Res. 78(1), 33–84 (2008)
Arnold, D.S., Whitehurst, G.J.: Accelerating language development through picture book reading: a summary of dialogic reading and its effect. In: Dickinson, D.K. (ed.) Bridges to Literacy: Children, Families, and Schools, pp. 103–128. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (1994)
Doyle, B.G., Bramwell, W.: Promoting emergent literacy and social–emotional learning through dialogic reading. Read. Teach. 59(6), 554–564 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.6.5
Hargrave, A.C., Sénéchal, M.: A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: the benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Res. Q. 15(1), 75–90 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00038-1
Lever, R., Sénéchal, M.: Discussing stories: on how a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergartners’ oral narrative construction. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 108(1), 1–24 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.002
Towson, J.A., Fettig, A., Fleury, V.P., Abarca, D.L.: Dialogic reading in early childhood settings: a summary of the evidence base. Top. Early Childhood Spec. Educ. 37(3), 132–146 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121417724875
van der Wilt, F., Bouwer, R., van der Veen, C.: Dialogic classroom talk in early childhood education: the effect on language skills and social competence. Learn. Inst. 77, 101522 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101522
Barab, S., Squire, K.: Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J. Learn. Sci. 13(1), 1–14 (2004)
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation as part of the Reach Every Reader project. We would like to thank all the participating families as well as all past and present members of the design and research teams.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lin, G.C., Schoenfeld, I., Hanks, B., Leech, K. (2024). Don’t Let Your Remotes Flop! Potential Ways to Incentivize and Increase Study Participants’ Use of Edtech. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S., Salvendy, G. (eds) HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1957. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49212-9_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49212-9_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-49211-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-49212-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)