Research Design
This study adopted a descriptive research design and reports data collected via an online survey of the home literacy environment provided by teenage mothers.
Participant Recruitment Process
Following ethical approval by the University of Canterbury Educational Research Human Ethics Committee (ERHEC), contact details for all Teen Parent Units (TPUs) in New Zealand were gathered via an online search and consequently a database was identified. Contact information was available for 16 schools. Communication was made initially from the primary researcher via an email explaining the purpose of the survey and what
participation would be required from their students. A follow-up call was made to units who did not reply to the initial email. Of the 16 schools contacted, one declined to be involved due to time limitations, and one was unable to be reached via phone. Fourteen schools were provided with the link to the online survey. From this pool, students from 12 schools participated; three participants declined to indicate their school.
The location of the TPUs varied across New Zealand. They included schools in large metropolitan cities and more rural settings. All schools were government funded and had a
role cap of 30 students per unit. The number of enrolled students tends to fluctuate and change throughout the year due to the varying circumstances of the students. The maximum number of students who received this survey was 420.
Students were not contacted directly; schools that agreed to participate following email or phone contact were sent the link to the online survey and were encouraged to distribute it among their students. All survey data was gathered via Survey Monkey (Survey Monkey, 2012). Respondents followed the link provided by their teachers and completed all survey questions via the website.
Participants
Forty-two teenage mothers responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 10%. Online surveys, while able to reach a broader audience in a time-efficient manner, have on average a 23% less response rate that those given on paper, and difficult to engage
populations have an even lower potential response rate (Nulty, 2008). Response rates of other online surveys examined varied from 1% to 53.6% (Basi, 1999; Nulty, 2008; Trenholm & Mirenda, 2006; van Bysterveldt et al., 2008). Therefore, a response rate of 10% is considered satisfactory and within the response rate of other online surveys. Of the 42 respondents, one participant did not complete the survey and their information was discounted, leaving a sample of 41 individuals. While gender information was not specifically sought, TPUs are only funded for the primary caregiver, which is almost exclusively the mother. All mothers enrolled at the TPUs are aged 21 years and under.
Respondent distribution was isolated to the North Island of New Zealand, due to intervention studies within the current research occurring at all Teen Parent Units in the South Island at the time of data collection. Distribution of responses by area can be seen in Figure 2.1. Responses from the Auckland region were across three different schools and have
been combined for ease of reporting. When comparing the response distribution to the overall student distribution of TPUs in the North Island, there are some differences. The Wellington region (Upper Hutt and Wellington combined) was overrepresented in the survey and
Auckland was underrepresented. The remaining areas’ responses are within 3% of the overall distribution of TPU students in the North Island.
Figure 2.1: Survey Respondent Distribution by Area
Information gathered on the ages of the respondents’ children indicated that age varied from birth to four years and older. The mean age of children was not collected, however the majority of respondents had children aged 1-2 years (38.1%). Five respondents indicated they had more than one child (8.2%). Socioeconomic information was not gathered in this survey; however three quarters of all teenage mothers in New Zealand receive some kind of benefit. As described in Chapter 1, all TPUs in New Zealand have a Decile ranking of 1, the lowest possible in the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s decile system (Ministry of Education, 2011). Participants should thus be broadly categorised as coming from a low socioeconomic background. It must be acknowledged, however, that students attending TPUs are drawn from a variety of different social backgrounds and circumstances and the SES
8% 32% 16% 3% 10% 3% 5% 5% 18% Taranaki Upper Hutt Wellington Palmerston North Northland Kawerau Gisborne Hamilton Auckland
status and Decile ranking of the school may not be indicative of the student’s socio-economic circumstances before becoming a parent. Information was not collected on the living
situations of the mothers (e.g. at home with their own parents, living independently/with a partner). While the amount of time children spent in childcare each week was not collected, TPUs provide on-site childcare, which children can attend full time during school hours. Therefore, it can be assumed that the majority of participants’ children were in childcare up to 30 hours per week.
Survey Design
The Home Literacy Survey used was developed based on a Developing Literacy Questionnaire from van Bysterveldt and colleagues (van Bysterveldt et al., 2008). The original survey was shortened and simplified to be appropriate for the age and estimated educational level of the young mothers. Its focus was narrowed to target primarily the reading behaviour, reading challenges and enjoyment, and television and computer usage in the homes of teenage mothers. Prior to distribution, the questions were reviewed by two Speech- Language Pathologists and the final draft of the survey was piloted with three teenage mothers. Two questions were reworded to adjust for some ambiguity noted by the pilot respondents. The final version included 22 questions, under the headings: Reading Books,
Television and Computer Use, Skills for School, and Parent’s Role. From these 22 questions,
four key themes emerged for analysis. These were Reading and Screen Behaviours, Reading Enjoyment and Challenges, Skills for School, and Parent’s Role. One question from the
Television and Computer Use section was excluded from analysis due to the ambiguity of
some answers which was not identified during the piloting process. In addition, short answer questions regarding examples of books children like to read, TV programmes/DVDs they like to watch, and computer programmes they like to play were also excluded from analysis due
to the multiple different responses received (listings of various titles of books and television programmes enjoyed by their children).
Question types included a mixture of short answer (32%), multiple choice (27%), categorical (22%), yes/no (9%), Likert scale ranking (5%) and fill-in-the-blank (5%)
responses. The short answer questions gathered descriptive information on areas such as what mothers enjoyed and found challenging about reading with their child, the types of books, TV/DVD shows and computer games their child enjoyed, and what they viewed as their role in helping their child learn to read. Categorical and multi-choice questions explored the number of books owned by both parent and child, the frequency of reading for enjoyment for both parent and child, the frequency of public library usage, and how often their child
watched or used the TV/DVDs/computer. One Likert scale question gathered information on the child’s perceived enjoyment of reading compared to other activities. A paper version of the survey can be found in Appendix 1.
Data Analysis and Reliability
As survey data was collected online, reliability for data entry was not required. A coding system for the three short answer questions included in the analysis was developed by the primary researcher. Surveys were initially examined for key themes present in the
responses and then these themes were discussed with an independent Speech-Language Pathologist who had been trained to implement the coding system. Following agreement of the themes, short answer responses were coded independently by the primary researcher and the independent coder, with an inter-rater reliability of 99.3%. Any discrepancies were resolved via discussion prior to data analysis. All additional survey response statistics were automatically calculated by the online survey tool.