Mercer Mayer's Little Critter Books Good for Dialogic Reading
Pediatrics. 2019 April; 143(4): e20182012.
Differences in Parent-Toddler Interactions With Electronic Versus Print Books
Tiffany G. Munzer, Doctor, 
a Alison L. Miller, PhD,b, c Heidi 1000. Weeks, PhD,d Niko Kaciroti, PhD,c, e and Jenny Radesky, MDa
Tiffany G. Munzer
aSection of Pediatrics, Medical Schoolhouse,
Alison L. Miller
bDepartments of Health Beliefs and Health Education,
cCentre for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Heidi M. Weeks
dNutritional Sciences, and
Niko Kaciroti
eBiostatistics, School of Public Wellness, and
cCenter for Human Growth and Evolution, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Jenny Radesky
aSection of Pediatrics, Medical School,
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Previous research has documented less dialogic interaction between parents and preschoolers during electronic-volume reading versus impress. Parent-toddler interactions around commercially bachelor tablet-based books take non been described. We examined parent-toddler verbal and nonverbal interactions when reading electronic versus impress books.
METHODS:
We conducted a videotaped, laboratory-based, counterbalanced study of 37 parent-toddler dyads reading on iii book formats (enhanced electronic [sound effects and/or animation], basic electronic, and print). Nosotros coded verbalizations in 10-2nd intervals for parents (dialogic, nondialogic, text reading, format related, negative format-related directives, and off task) and children (book related, negative, and off chore). Shared positive affect and collaborative book reading were coded on a scale of 1 to 5 (five = high). Proc Genmod and Proc Mixed analyzed within-subjects variance by book format.
RESULTS:
Parents showed significantly more dialogic (print xi.ix; enhanced half dozen.2 [P < .001]; basic 8.3 [P < .001]), text-reading (print fourteen.3; enhanced 10.half-dozen [P = .003]; basic 14.4 [P < .001]), off-task (impress 2.3; enhanced 1.3 [P = .007]), and total (29.5; enhanced 28.1 [P = .003]; basic 29.3 [P = .005]) verbalizations with print books and fewer format-related verbalizations (print 1.nine; enhanced 10.0 [P < .001]; basic 8.3 [P < .001]). Toddlers showed more book-related verbalizations (impress 15.0; enhanced 11.5 [P < .001]; basic 12.5 [P = .005]), full verbalizations (print xviii.8; enhanced 13.8 [P < .001]; bones fifteen.three [P < .001]), and higher collaboration scores (print 3.one; enhanced two.seven [P = .004]; basic two.8 [P = .02]) with impress-volume reading.
CONCLUSIONS:
Parents and toddlers verbalized less with electronic books, and collaboration was lower. Futurity studies should examine specific aspects of tablet-book design that support parent-child interaction. Pediatricians may wish to proceed promoting shared reading of print books, peculiarly for toddlers and younger children.
Shared book reading is one of the most important developmental activities parents can engage in with their children.1 Shared book reading exposes children to more sophisticated speech and noesis,2 , three and provides unhurried time to build attachment,2 , 4 in plow promoting executive functioning skills.5 Nonverbal interactions during shared volume reading, such equally parental warmth and child enthusiasm, foster interest in reading and are associated with improved literacy later in life.six , 7 In particular, parent dialogic reading practices (comments and questions that go beyond the written give-and-take and connect the story to child experiences) are believed to promote child expressive language, engagement, and literacy.eight – x
With rapid increases in electronic-book and mobile-device buying,11 , 12 a growing amount of children's reading is taking identify electronically on electronic readers or tablets. Withal, pediatricians are unsure whether to promote their apply considering previous studies suggest both benefits and drawbacks to electronic reading for preschoolers and older children.13 , 14 Previous literature has shown that electronic books may facilitate engagement, specially among reluctant preschoolers and kindergarteners who are learning to read.14 – 16 Sure embedded tools, such every bit dictionaries, may improve vocabulary and story comprehension in kindergarteners.15 , 17 , 18 However, preschoolers and kindergarteners also reproduced fewer narrative details19 and sequenced story events with lower accurateness after reading enhanced electronic books compared with impress books.13 , 20 Lower comprehension during electronic-book reading may be due to less developed verbal elaborationxiv and scaffolding16 and extraneous "hot-spot" enhancements, which may distract from story content.17 However, adult verbal elaboration and parental scaffolding is crucial for young children's learning,21 particularly regarding digital media.22 – 24
An existing gap in knowledge is how toddlers and parents interact around electronic books. Developmentally, toddlerhood (∼24–36 months old) is characterized by emerging linguistic communication and social-emotional skills as well as young executive functioning skills. These developmental differences may brand toddlers particularly susceptible to the distractions25 in enhanced electronic books. Additionally, because of their immature retention flexibility, toddlers depend more on developed scaffolding to transfer information from digital media to the existent world,26 , 27 take more difficulty learning information presented in digital media compared with in-person interactions,23 and retain information better when digital media are viewed with an adult.24 Only 1 electronic-book study has been conducted in toddlers, finding that toddlers remembered a novel word better on an electronic book compared with impress, only parents read the text and pointed more than when interacting over print.27 This study used an electronic volume without digital enhancements that was not commercially available; therefore, results practise not generalize to tablet-based books available to families.22 To our cognition, no studies have examined dialogic and nonverbal interactions between parents and toddlers when reading electronic books.
For pediatric providers to make informed decisions about recommending electronic books, more needs to be known about differences in parent-child interactions during these types of reading encounters with toddlers, a developmental range that is underrepresented in current literature. In this study, we aim to address these gaps past examining the frequency of parent verbalizations that are important to early language and literacy (eg, dialogic reading), child verbalizations, and quality of the shared book-reading experience during the reading of commercially available electronic and impress books.
Methods
Report Blueprint
We conducted an experimental, laboratory-based study consisting of a video-recorded free play, book-reading protocol, and surveys lasting ∼75 minutes. Toddler-parent dyads were assigned to 1 of 36 counterbalanced book-format orders. Parents were compensated $fifty for participating. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this report.
Participants
We recruited 37 parent-toddler dyads from the Academy of Michigan online research registry (UMhealthresearch.org) and community-based settings, including pediatric offices, child intendance centers, and community centers. To not bias recruitment toward parents with particular digital media views, linguistic communication stated generically that the written report involved coming to the University of Michigan, where "you and your child would exist videotaped while playing with toys and books." Parents contacted researchers via the research registry, e-mail service, or phone and underwent telephone-based screening. Inclusion criteria were equally follows: (1) child age 24 to 36 months, (2) child did non take a developmental delay or serious medical status, (iii) parent read English sufficiently to consummate questionnaires and consent, (iv) parent was a legal and/or concrete custodial guardian, and (5) parent and child did non take uncorrected hearing or vision impairments.
Procedure
At the study visit, parents provided written informed consent. The laboratory room was set up up to approximate a living room and contained a i-way mirror, couches, 3 books in boxes (two tablet books and 1 print book), and video cameras.
Participants first completed a 5-minute, video-recorded free play with nondigital toys. They then completed a random, preassigned reading activeness with an enhanced electronic book, a basic electronic volume, and a print book occurring in counterbalanced order (Fig 1). Figure ii includes one example permutation. Books were placed in open boxes labeled ane to 3 out of children's achieve. Parents received instructions to start with the book in box 1, that they accept "5 minutes to look at it," and to complete books sequentially as prompted.
Reading protocol. The reading protocol consisted of a preassigned sequential reading action of an enhanced electronic book, a bones electronic book, and a impress volume occurring in a counterbalanced fashion in ane of 6 volume-format permutations: (i) enhanced, basic, print; (2) enhanced, print, basic; (3) bones, enhanced, print; (4) basic, impress, enhanced; (5) print, basic, enhanced; or (6) impress, enhanced, basic. Within each book-format permutation, the order of 3 different book titles was counterbalanced, achieving a total of 36 unique permutations. Thus, all participants read the same 3 books, but non all books were read in the aforementioned format or order across participants.
Sample of i volume-reading permutation completed by a participant.
Volume Formats
Iii Mercer Mayer "Little Critter" books (Only Grandma and Me, All past Myself, and Just a Mess) were chosen because of their similar length, reading difficulty, and availability in all 3 formats. Print books were eight×viii-inch softcovers. Basic electronic-volume capabilities allowed for swiping to plough the pages and tapping illustrations to elicit the appearance of words just without autonarration or boosted features, such as audio furnishings. Enhanced electronic books contained audiovisual hot spots: borer illustrations would event in the appearance and narration of the word (eg, tapping a seagull picture resulted in the appearance and narration of the word "seagull") coupled with sound effects. Tapping other pictures or turning a page produced a sound result (eg, borer a dog would produce the sound of a domestic dog panting, and turning the page to a beach produced sounds of ocean waves). Although autonarration of the story was disabled on both electronic-book formats, borer and property downwards an individual sentence in the enhanced electronic volume would narrate that text, only this feature was but briefly used by ii dyads. Basic and enhanced electronic books were preloaded on a 10-inch Samsung Milky way tablet computer, which independent no other applications. Parents received educational activity to select "read it myself" such that the electronic book was not narrating the book text.
Survey Measures
Parents completed surveys regarding covariates for potential inclusion in statistical models, including demographic information (parent age, sex, educational attainment, household income, race and/or ethnicity, relationship to child, and marital status; child'due south age, sexual practice, ethnicity, and prematurity) and standardized measures of kid linguistic communication, social-emotional development, and digital media–use practices.
The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory (CDI) short class assessed toddler language development. This 100-discussion validated28 and reliable29 vocabulary checklist generated a percentile score from full words produced and accounted for age.24
The Brief Baby-Toddler Social and Emotional Cess (BITSEA) is a validated30 and reliable25 42-item questionnaire that screens for child social-emotional issues. Parents rated items on a 3-point Likert scale generating the Problem and Competence subscales (Cronbach α = 0.68 and 0.58, respectively).
Standardized questions assessed the frequency of home child digital media use (including tablet, smartphone, and electronic-volume usage) and parental mediation strategies (instructive, restrictive, and coviewing).31
Coding Parent-Toddler Verbal Interactions
We developed a verbal coding scheme based on previous literature on dialogic reading8 and shared electronic-volume reading.xiv For each 10-second interval, researchers coded 1 for a specific verbalization occurring or 0 for not occurring; interval verbalization counts were summed within each 5-minute book status. Verbalization categories were not mutually exclusive; parents and children could take >1 type per 10-2d interval, although each sentence was just coded in 1 category. Please see the coding definitions in Tables 1 and ii for parent and child verbalizations. Parent and child utterances were independently summed to calculate total verbalizations. Undergraduate students blinded to the hypothesis coded to reliability with Cohen's κ of at least 0.seventy.
TABLE 1
Coding Definitions and Examples of Parent Verbalizations
| Definition | Examples | Cohen's κ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dialogic | Dialogic reading techniques often prompt a child to expand and elaborate on concepts related to the story. These were divers every bit follows: parent asks open-concluded question, expands on an idea the kid has, repeats what the child says, or relates the story content to the kid's experience. | "What's happening here?" "What did they practice adjacent?" "What did you remember nigh that volume?" "Retrieve when you went to the beach with Dad?" Kid says, "Here is a wagon," and parent replies, "a big, red wagon." | 0.77 |
| Nondialogic | Nondialogic reading techniques were related to story content but have not been previously shown to elicit the aforementioned quantity of child verbalizations as dialogic verbalizations. These were defined every bit follows: parent labels something, asks a elementary question requiring only a proper noun or label, makes a pointing request of the child, makes an attention prompt, or talks nearly the process of reading. | "What is that?" "Testify me the cat." "Look at this!" "There'south Grandma!" | 0.74 |
| Text read | Parent reads directly from the book text. | "We went to the beach, simply grandma and me." | 0.86 |
| Format related | These are verbalizations that are related to the book format. Parent comments on, asks a question well-nigh, or adds a directive regarding an aspect of the print or tablet interface. | "Great job, you're turning the page!" "Can I hold the book or tablet?" "Go alee and turn the page." "Yous tin can push the button here." "Swipe with your finger." | 0.84 |
| Negative format-related directives | Parent makes a negative directive that is related to the book format. For instance, the parent tells the child non to do something related to how the book or tablet functions. | "Yous tin't continue pressing the back button." "Don't turn the page." "Don't rip the book." "Don't turn the book up." "Don't touch that button." | 0.fourscore |
| Off job | These are unrelated to the book content or volume format and include all other parent verbalizations that are non categorized as to a higher place. | "Yous can have your goldfish later." "We are going to the store after this." | 0.79 |
Tabular array 2
Coding Definitions and Examples of Kid Verbalizations
| Definition | Examples | Cohen's κ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Book related | Child labels a film, answers a parent question, repeats what the parent is maxim, or talks about a function of the book. | "I desire to read this." "I press the push." "Look, a spider!" | 0.81 |
| Negative | Child says no or makes a comment in a defiant or negative manner. | "No, Daddy, I do it." "I concur information technology." | 0.71 |
| Other | These are verbalizations that do not autumn into the to a higher place categories. Unintelligible utterances that are not clearly related to the book were besides included. | "Can I have h2o?" "I want to go home." | 0.72 |
Coding Parent-Toddler Nonverbal Interactions
Nosotros developed 2 global coding schemes based on existing literature on shared print-book reading to appraise parent-toddler nonverbal interactions: shared positive bear on32 and collaborative book-reading experience.33 – 35 Codes were applied on the basis of the full 5 minutes per book condition on a calibration of 1 to 5 (Table three). The 5-minute costless-play session was also coded for shared positive affect and examined as a potential covariate representing baseline parent-kid interaction quality.
Tabular array 3
Nonverbal Coding Definitions
| Shared Positive Affect | Collaborative Book Reading | |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Quantity of shared enjoyment between dyad | Quality of shared reading feel |
| Intraclass correlation | 0.84 | 0.75 |
| Code 1 | A score of 1 was marked by piffling positive shared bear on or enjoyment, several instances of negative affect that occur more often than instances of positive bear upon, and/or the child having a tantrum or refusal of prolonged duration or high frequency. | A score of 1 was marked by greater altitude betwixt the parent and child, the parent making few attempts to engage the child or being overly directive and/or intrusive, or the child missing social bids from the parent or being confrontational and/or defiant. |
| Code iii | A score of 3 was marked by small-to-moderate amounts of positive affect between the dyad with brief simply unsustained instances of negative bear on, or the dyad may be primarily affectively neutral. | A score of iii was marked by some instances of shut dyad proximity with some instances of greater distance between them, some attempts of parent-child engagement but less in frequency than a lawmaking 4 or v, and/or the dyad seeming more focused on the reading task than on each other. |
| Code v | A score of five was marked by frequent displays of shared positive touch with the dyad showing definite pleasance with each other (eg, loftier frequency of grinning, laughing, praise, and warmth). | A score of 5 was marked past the dyad existence comfortably nestled together with a shared view of the book, a highly responsive parent, and an actively engaged kid who exhibits minimal disobedience. |
Analysis
Nosotros conducted Poisson regressions using Proc Genmod to compare each verbal outcome by book format, adjusting for total elapsed time, given the occasional variation in reading duration. Proc Mixed was used to compare differences in positive affect and collaborative book reading past book format. All models included a repeated measures statement to permit for inside-subjects comparison of verbal and nonverbal outcomes past volume-format status. Although the counterbalanced pattern accounted for between-subjects variance in factors known to influence book-reading behaviors, such as sociodemographic characteristics, nosotros included covariates in final models with P < .05 to amend model fit (eg, order of book presentation, parent income, race and/or ethnicity, child sex, CDI or BITSEA score, and dwelling house media practices). A sensitivity assay excluding 1 participant who cried during the entirety of one volume-reading condition did non reveal differences; therefore, all participants were included. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).
Results
As shown in Table 4, children were 29.ii months old, and parents were 33.5 years sometime. Of the parents, 81% were mothers, 76% had a 4-year college degree or more, and 89% were married. Of the children, 54% were boys, 57% were not-Hispanic white, 16% were non-Hispanic African American, and 27% were of other race and/or ethnicity.
TABLE iv
Participant Characteristics (N = 37)
| Sample | Issue |
|---|---|
| Kid age, mo, mean (SD) | 29.ii (4.ii) |
| Parent age, y, hateful (SD) | 33.five (iv.0) |
| Parent relationship to child, n (%) | |
| Mother | 30 (81) |
| Begetter | 7 (nineteen) |
| Kid sex activity, northward (%) | |
| Boys | twenty (54) |
| Girls | 17 (46) |
| Child race and/or ethnicity, n (%) | |
| White, non-Hispanic | 21 (57) |
| African American, non-Hispanic | half dozen (16) |
| Hispanic or other | 10 (27) |
| Parent education, n (%) | |
| Some college courses | 4 (11) |
| 2-y college degree | five (13) |
| four-y higher degree | fourteen (38) |
| More than 4-y college degree | xiv (38) |
| Parent marital status, due north (%) | |
| Single | 4 (11) |
| Married | 33 (89) |
| Child has used tablet to read a volume, due north (%) | |
| Almost never | 23 (62) |
| Rarely | two (5) |
| Occasionally | 4 (11) |
| Often | 6 (sixteen) |
| Almost of the fourth dimension | 2 (5) |
| Daily time spent reading books together, north (%) | |
| Not used | 8 (22) |
| <30 min | 16 (43) |
| thirty min–1 h | 9 (24) |
| 1–2 h | 3 (eight) |
| 3–4 h | 1 (3) |
| CDI percentile, mean (SD) | 52.ix (33.4) |
| BITSEA Problem subscale, mean (SD) | half-dozen.7 (iii.8) |
| BITSEA Competence subscale, mean (SD) | 19.1 (2.ii) |
Effigy 3 shows the number of intervals containing each type of parent verbalization. Parent dialogic verbalizations were greater with print (eleven.nine intervals [SE = one.1]) versus either enhanced electronic (6.2 intervals [SE = 0.7]; P < .001) or basic electronic books (viii.three intervals [SE = 0.9]; P < .001). Parent nondialogic verbalizations were greater with impress (17.7 [SE = 0.7]) versus basic electronic books (fifteen.vii [SE = 0.8]; P = .008). Parents read the book text more with impress (xiv.3 [SE = i.0]; P = .003) or bones electronic (14.4 [SE = 1.i]; P < .001) compared with enhanced electronic books (ten.vi [SE = 0.9]). Parents fabricated fewer format-related and negative format-related directives when engaging over print books versus enhanced or bones electronic books (Fig 3). Parents had more full verbalizations when interacting over print books (29.v [SE = 0.2]) versus enhanced electronic books (28.1 [SE = 0.4]; P = .003) and more than so over basic electronic books (29.3 [SE = 0.3]; P = .005) versus enhanced electronic books.
Adjusted means for the presence of parent verbalizations occurring with enhanced electronic, basic electronic, and impress books. * P < .05; ** P < .01; *** P < .001.
Figure 4 includes the number of intervals containing each type of toddler verbalization. Toddlers' book-content verbalizations were greater with print (fifteen.0 [SE = ane.two]) versus either enhanced electronic (11.5 [SE = 0.ix]; P < .001) or basic electronic books (12.5 [SE = 1.1]; P = .005). Toddlers had no differences in negative verbalizations across all formats merely had more off-task verbalizations with print (ii.iii [SE = 0.iii]) versus enhanced electronic books (i.3 [SE = 0.3]; P = .007). Full toddler verbalizations were greater with print (18.8 [SE = 1.i]) versus either enhanced electronic (13.8 [SE = 0.9]; P < .001) or bones electronic books (15.3 [SE = 1.0]; P < .001).
Adjusted means for the presence of toddler verbalizations occurring with enhanced electronic, basic electronic, and impress books. * P < .05; ** P < .01; *** P < .001.
Figure five includes nonverbal outcomes past book format. Shared positive touch was like across all book formats. Dyads' collaborative book-reading scores were higher with impress (three.1 [SE = 0.2]) versus either enhanced electronic (2.vii [SE = 0.ii]; P = .004) or basic electronic books (ii.8 [SE = 0.2]; P = .02).
Adjusted means (5 = high) for dyad social-emotional outcomes occurring with enhanced electronic, bones electronic, and impress books. * P < .05; ** P < .01.
Discussion
Developmental benefits of shared book reading have been attributed to the quality of parent-child interactions occurring around books, particularly in prereaders such as toddlers, who rely heavily on parents to sympathize story content.8 These interactions include the quantity of words spoken, how parents tailor content to children'south experiences to support learning, and asking open-ended questions to promote child expressive linguistic communication.5 , 8 Our findings suggest that high-quality dialogic practices are less common, and parents and toddlers speak less overall and in a less collaborative way, when reading electronic books compared with print. Parents read the text less in enhanced electronic books, making more format-related comments and negative directives when reading electronic books.
Similar to previous studies in preschoolers,17 we establish that electronic-book enhancements were likely interfering with parents' ability to engage in dialogic reading. Dialogic, parent-guided conversation promotes toddler expressive-linguistic communication development and supports preliteracy skills, which are crucial for independent reading,eight far more than reading only text or making simple (nondialogic) comments, although these are also important.ane Parents strengthen their children's ability to acquire knowledge by relating new content to their children's lived experiences.21 , 36 In that location is a large body of literature showing that this type of adult scaffolding is specially important for toddlers to transfer information from digital media to the real world because toddlers in detail larn and retain novel data better from in-person interactions than from digital media.22 – 24 , 26 , 27 , 37 However, such practices occurred less frequently with electronic books, which raises the question of whether electronic books have lower educational potential for toddlers.
Parents besides asked fewer simple questions, commented about the storyline less, and read less during electronic-book conditions compared with print. These behaviors are important because they promote child receptive language by exposing children to novel vocabulary and more circuitous syntax than conversations occurring during daily activities.ane
Fifty-fifty interactions over basic electronic books contained fewer dialogic and full parent verbalizations compared with print, suggesting that affordances of the tablet (and not only the interactive design) may be influencing parents' behavior. Parents and children may anticipate tablets as being individually used rather than shared objects. Indeed, 1 study revealed that children tend to create solitary spaces when engaging in tablet play compared with traditional toy play, leaving less space for their parents to coview and ignoring parent bids for attending.38 Similarly, parents reported a sense of pride and relief when their children independently engaged with a tablet device without help,39 and we acknowledge that this independence may exist perceived as a potential do good of electronic books. Nosotros hypothesize that the tablet itself may reduce opportunities for parent-child interactions during volume reading.
Children changed their behavior equally a function of book format, verbalizing more when reading the impress book. This finding may exist related to greater parent dialogic reading with print books versus electronic books, which provides positive reinforcement for toddler speech communication. Children'due south tendency to become occupied in repeated borer or swiping on electronic books may too take supplanted speech production. Repetitive borer and swiping may not constitute sufficient engagement to learn new concepts considering it is thought to represent cause-and-outcome play rather than "minds-on" activity.21 Truthful meaningful engagement (active involvement occurring in a rich social context without distractions) fosters the most effective learning from media.21 Previous enquiry in preschoolers supports this concept because distracting digital enhancements interfere with parent scaffolding, which leads to reduced child story comprehension and fewer child verbalizations.13 , 14 Opportunities to exercise expressive language, such equally those occurring with print books, are important because early language skills strongly predict hereafter linguistic and cerebral aptitude in school.xl
The high frequency of format-related verbalizations (eg, directing the child to turn the page) observed during both electronic-volume weather condition may displace book-related verbal exchanges that dyads engaged in with print books. This is consistent with previous research: although parents showed the same number of verbal exchanges with preschoolers around electronic versus impress books, exchanges tended to exist related to engineering science rather than story content.14 It is possible that parents made more than format-related verbalizations to orient their children to a new experience because electronic books were novel to 62% of the children in this sample; nevertheless, 79% had previously played with tablets and/or mobile devices. The negative and directive nature of parent format-related verbalizations may indicate a demand for more than behavioral management with electronic books compared with print.
Parents and children had more off-task verbalizations with the print book versus electronic book, which is similar to previous studies in preschoolers.xiv This could be related to persuasive tablet-design features, which may control parent and child attention, at the expense of attending to one another, an issue that is known to occur with traditional screen media, such as television.41 – 43 It is challenging to discern whether this attentional focus resulted in improved learning because toddler reading comprehension is difficult to assess. Notwithstanding, equally mentioned to a higher place, toddlers may be engaged in ways that may be less educationally enriching when reading electronic compared with print books.
Our study was the first to examine nonverbal aspects of electronic-book reading in toddlers both through shared positive impact and collaborative book reading. These nonverbal behaviors during reading are of import because they foster a love of readingvii and promote secure parent-child attachment,1 which has been implicated in resilience,44 physical wellness,45 and quality of hereafter relationships.46 Comparable to previous studies in preschoolers,fourteen dyads with high shared positive affect consistently showed this across all formats, suggesting that electronic books may be equally enjoyable for dyads despite other limitations. The quality of collaborative reading was likely lower for electronic books because observationally, parents and toddlers oftentimes sat separately, could non easily view the volume, or appeared to struggle for tablet possession. These behaviors during tablet-based play are documented in recent work38 and merit farther report. Our results may explicate previous findings that parents report preferring shared reading over print versus electronic books with toddlers.47
Limitations include the modest sample size from 1 geographic area, the use of only ane type of book-reading application (which limits generalizability), and that the age range of our study sample precluded assessment of reading comprehension.48 Strengths include experimental methodology, the use of commercially available books available in 3 formats, a diverse sample, and the within-subjects design, which immune for direct comparison of the reading experience within each dyad. Futurity studies should consider other facets of nonverbal interactions or moderating effects of dyad characteristics, such as parent literacy level, child temperament, or home media-use practices. Replication of this report by using different applications (this application had a particular fix of enhancements) in other contexts, such as home or school settings, is necessary. Although parent-child interactions are critical for toddler learning, directly examining toddler learning from print versus electronic books is another important area for future work.
Conclusions
Given the decreased quantity of parent-kid verbalizations and quality of interactions occurring with the electronic books that nosotros studied, pediatricians may wish to recommend impress books over electronic books with distracting features for parent-toddler shared reading. In because affordances of electronic books that promote learning, software designers should limit irrelevant audiovisual enhancements for toddlers. Parents reading electronic books with toddlers should consider engaging every bit they would with print and minimize focus on elements of the engineering itself.
Acknowledgments
Nosotros thank Rosa Brawl, Ranya Alkhayyat, Joy Boakye, and Anastasia Pacifico for their diligent and wonderful work on this study.
Glossary
| BITSEA | Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Cess |
| CDI | Chatty Developmental Inventory |
Footnotes
Contributed past
Dr Munzer conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Miller conceptualized and designed the study and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Weeks conducted the data management, processing, and analyses and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Kaciroti created the information analysis plan, conducted the data analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Radesky conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be answerable for all aspects of the work.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr Radesky is paid to write articles for PBS Parents and is on the board of directors and consults for Melissa and Doug; the other authors have indicated they accept no fiscal relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: Funded past the 2017 Academic Pediatric Association Reach Out and Read Immature Investigator Award (principal investigator: Dr Radesky), which made it possible to conceptualize, implement, collect, and analyze data and write this commodity, and supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Plant of Child Health and Human Evolution (grant 5T32HD079350-02), which made it possible to conceptualize and write this article. Funded by the National Institutes of Wellness (NIH).
POTENTIAL Disharmonize OF INTEREST: Dr Radesky is paid to write articles for PBS Parents and is on the board of directors and consults for Melissa and Doug; the other authors have indicated they take no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Zuckerman B. Promoting early on literacy in pediatric exercise: twenty years of achieve out and read. Pediatrics. 2009;124(half-dozen):1660–1665 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ii. Isbell R, Sobol J, Lindauer L, Lowrance A. The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early on Child Educ J. 2004;32(iii):157–163 [Google Scholar]
3. Deckner DF, Adamson LB, Bakeman R. Child and maternal contributions to shared reading: effects on language and literacy evolution. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2006;27(one):31–41 [Google Scholar]
4. Xie QW, Chan CHY, Ji Q, Chan CLW. Psychosocial effects of parent-child book reading interventions: a meta-assay. Pediatrics. 2018;141(4):e20172675. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Mendelsohn AL, Cates CB, Weisleder A, et al. . Reading aloud, play, and social-emotional development. Pediatrics. 2018;141(5):e20173393. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
six. Baker L, Mackler Thou, Sonnenschein S, Serpell R. Parents' interactions with their first-grade children during storybook reading and relations with subsequent home reading activity and reading achievement. J Sch Psychol. 2001;39(v):415–438 [Google Scholar]
7. Kassow DZ. Parent-child shared book reading: quality versus quantity of reading interactions between parents and young children. Talaris Enquiry Institute. 2006;1(1):i–9 [Google Scholar]
8. Whitehurst GJ, Arnold DS, Epstein JN, Angell AL, Smith Chiliad, Fischel JE. A movie book reading intervention in 24-hour interval care and domicile for children from depression-income families. Dev Psychol. 1994;xxx(v):679–689 [Google Scholar]
9. Arnold DS, Whitehurst GJ. Accelerating language development through moving-picture show book reading: A summary of dialogic reading and its event. In: Dickinson DK, ed. Bridges to Literacy: Children, Families, and Schools. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 1994:103–128 [Google Scholar]
10. Lever R, Sénéchal 1000. Discussing stories: on how a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergartners' oral narrative construction. J Exp Kid Psychol. 2011;108(1):1–24 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Perrin A. Book Reading 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Enquiry Center; 2016 [Google Scholar]
12. Kabali HK, Irigoyen MM, Nunez-Davis R, et al. . Exposure and use of mobile media devices past young children. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1044–1050 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Krcmar M, Cingel DP. Parent–kid articulation reading in traditional and electronic formats. Media Psychol. 2014;17(3):262–281 [Google Scholar]
14. Chiong C, Ree J, Takeuchi Fifty, Erickson I. Comparing Parent-Child Co-Reading on Print, Bones, and Enhanced E-Book Platforms: A Cooney Center Quick Study. New York City, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center; 2012 [Google Scholar]
15. Korat O, Shamir A, Arbiv Fifty. Eastward-books as support for emergent writing with and without adult aid. Educ Inf Technol. 2011;16(3):301–318 [Google Scholar]
16. Lauricella AR, Barr R, Calvert SL. Parent–child interactions during traditional and computer storybook reading for children's comprehension: implications for electronic storybook design. Int J Child Comput Interact. 2014;two(1):17–25 [Google Scholar]
17. Bus AG, Takacs ZK, Kegel CA. Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for immature children's emergent literacy. Dev Rev. 2015;35:79–97 [Google Scholar]
18. Lewin C. Exploring the furnishings of talking book software in UK primary classrooms. J Res Read. 2000;23(2):149–157 [Google Scholar]
nineteen. De Jong MT, Bus AG. Quality of volume-reading matters for emergent readers: an experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. J Educ Psychol. 2002;94(1):145 [Google Scholar]
20. Parish‐Morris J, Mahajan N, Hirsh‐Pasek K, Golinkoff RM, Collins MF. Once upon a time: parent–kid dialogue and storybook reading in the electronic era. Heed Brain Educ. 2013;7(3):200–211 [Google Scholar]
21. Vygotsky 50. Zone of proximal development In: Cole M, ed. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Academy Press; 1987:157 [Google Scholar]
22. Strouse GA, Ganea PA. Toddlers' word learning and transfer from electronic and print books. J Exp Kid Psychol. 2017;156:129–142 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Krcmar M, Grela B, Lin K. Tin toddlers acquire vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychol. 2007;10(1):41–63 [Google Scholar]
24. Sims C, Colunga E. Parent-child screen media co-viewing: influences on toddlers' word learning and retentiveness. Newspaper presented at: Proceedings of the Annual Coming together of the Cerebral Science Society; August i–3, 2013; Montreal, QC [Google Scholar]
25. Welsh MC, Pennington BF, Groisser DB. A normative‐developmental study of executive function: a window on prefrontal office in children. Dev Neuropsychol. 1991;7(ii):131–149 [Google Scholar]
26. Strouse GA, Troseth GL, O'Doherty KD, Saylor MM. Co-viewing supports toddlers' word learning from contingent and noncontingent video. J Exp Kid Psychol. 2018;166:310–326 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Barr R. Retention constraints on infant learning from picture books, idiot box, and touchscreens. Child Dev Perspect. 2013;vii(4):205–210 [Google Scholar]
28. Dale PS. The validity of a parent study measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. J Spoken communication Hear Res. 1991;34(iii):565–571 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Nordahl-Hansen A, Kaale A, Ulvund S. Inter-rater reliability of parent and preschool teacher ratings of language in children with autism. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2013;7(11):1391–1396 [Google Scholar]
30. Karabekiroglu 1000, Briggs-Gowan MJ, Carter Equally, Rodopman-Arman A, Akbas Due south. The clinical validity and reliability of the Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Cess (BITSEA). Infant Behav Dev. 2010;33(4):503–509 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Valkenburg PM, Krcmar Thousand, Peeters AL, Marseille NM. Developing a calibration to assess three styles of tv mediation: "instructive mediation," "restrictive mediation," and "social coviewing". J Broadcast Electron Media. 1999;43(i):52–66 [Google Scholar]
32. Frosch CA, Cox MJ, Goldman BD. Infant-parent attachment and parental and child behavior during parent-toddler storybook interaction. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2001;47(4):445–474 [Google Scholar]
33. Eyberg SM, Robinson EA. Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding Organisation. Seattle, WA: Parenting Clinic, University of Washington; 1981 [Google Scholar]
34. Rocissano L, Slade A, Lynch V. Dyadic synchrony and toddler compliance. Dev Psychol. 1987;23(v):698 [Google Scholar]
35. Sonnenschein Southward, Munsterman Grand. The influence of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-olds' reading motivations and early literacy development. Early Child Res Q. 2002;17(three):318–337 [Google Scholar]
36. Wadsworth BJ. Piaget's Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development: Foundations of Constructivism. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing; 1996 [Google Scholar]
37. Reiser RA, Tessmer MA, Phelps PC. Developed-child interaction in children's learning from "Sesame Street". ECTJ. 1984;32(4):217–223 [Google Scholar]
38. Hiniker A, Lee B, Kientz JA, Radesky JS. Permit's play!: digital and analog play between preschoolers and parents. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Calculating Systems; April 21–26, 2018; Montreal, QC [Google Scholar]
39. Radesky JS, Eisenberg S, Kistin CJ, et al. . Overstimulated consumers or side by side-generation learners? Parent tensions nigh child mobile technology employ. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(six):503–508 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xl. Marchman VA, Fernald A. Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in after babyhood. Dev Sci. 2008;11(iii):F9–F16 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Kirkorian HL, Pempek TA, Murphy LA, Schmidt ME, Anderson DR. The impact of background boob tube on parent-kid interaction. Kid Dev. 2009;fourscore(5):1350–1359 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Pempek TA, Kirkorian HL, Anderson DR. The effects of background television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents. J Kid Media. 2014;viii(three):211–222 [Google Scholar]
43. Schmidt ME, Pempek TA, Kirkorian HL, Lund AF, Anderson DR. The furnishings of background television receiver on the toy play beliefs of very immature children. Child Dev. 2008;79(4):1137–1151 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Mikulincer M, Florian Five. The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, eds. Attachement Theory and Close Relationships. New York: Guilford Press; 1998:143–165 [Google Scholar]
45. Puig J, Englund MM, Simpson JA, Collins WA. Predicting adult physical affliction from baby attachment: a prospective longitudinal study. Wellness Psychol. 2013;32(4):409–417 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Brennan KA, Shaver PR. Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21(3):267–283 [Google Scholar]
47. Strouse GA, Ganea PA. Parent-toddler beliefs and language differ when reading electronic and print flick books. Front Psychol. 2017;8:677. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Keenan JM, Betjemann RS, Olson RK. Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Sci Stud Read. 2008;12(3):281–300 [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564071/
0 Response to "Mercer Mayer's Little Critter Books Good for Dialogic Reading"
Post a Comment