Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 8, pp 1753–1771 | Cite as

Content not form predicts oral language comprehension: the influence of the medium on preschoolers’ story understanding

  • Susan B. Neuman
  • Kevin M. Wong
  • Tanya Kaefer
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of digital and non-digital storybooks on low-income preschoolers’ oral language comprehension. Employing a within-subject design on 38 four-year-olds from a Head Start program, we compared the effect of medium on preschoolers’ target words and comprehension of stories. Four digital storybooks were adapted and printed for read-alouds. Children were randomly read two stories on the digital platform, and two by the assessors. Following the story, children completed vocabulary and comprehension tasks, and a brief motivation checklist. We found no significant differences across medium; children comprehended equally well regardless of whether the story was read digitally or in person. However, using repeated ANOVA measures, we found a significant main effect of the story read. This research indicates that the content of the book rather than its form predicts story comprehension. Implications for using digital media in the preschool years are discussed.

Keywords

Digital media Early literacy Within-subject design Preschoolers Oral language comprehension 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics & Media, and the Council on Communications and Media. (2011). Media use by children younger than 2 years. Pediatrics, 128, 1040–1045. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., & Pempek, T. (2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. doi: 10.1177/0002764204271506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, R., & Wyss, N. (2008). Reenactment of televised content by 2-year-olds: Toddlers use language learned from television to solve a difficult imitation problem. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 696–703. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Bus, A., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. (1995). Mothers reading to their 3-year-olds: The role of mother-child attachment security in becoming literate. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 998–1015. doi: 10.2307/748207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Gifford, R. (2006). Achievement effects of embedded multimedia in a success for all reading program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 232–237. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459. doi: 10.2307/1170217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–30. doi: 10.1007/bf02299088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. Washington, DC: Common Sense Media.Google Scholar
  10. Crum, M. (2015). Sorry Ebooks: These 9 studies show why print is better. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/print-ebooks-studies_n_6762674.html.
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. In S. Graubard (Ed.), Literacy: An overview by fourteen experts (pp. 115–140). New York: Noonday Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Villiers, J., & Johnson, V. (2007). Implications of new vocabulary assessments for minority children. In R. K. Wagner, A. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 157–181). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. DeJong, M., & Bus, A. (2004). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children’s emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 378–393. doi: 10.1598/rrq.39.4.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Bloomington: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisch, S., Shulman, J., Akerman, A., & Levin, G. (2002). Reading between the pixels: Parent–child interaction while reading online storybooks. Early Education and Development, 13, 435–451. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1304_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guthrie, J., & Klauda, S. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387–416. doi: 10.1002/rrq.81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe. American Educator, 27(4), 6–9.Google Scholar
  23. Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking educational gap. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  24. Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26, 55–88. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkorian, H., Lavigne, H., Hanson, K., Troseth, G., Demers, L., & Anderson, D. (2015). Video deficit in toddlers’ object retrieval: What eye movements reveal about online cognition. Infancy, 21(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1111/infa.12102.Google Scholar
  26. Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55, 24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2007). Electronic books versus adult readers: Effects on children’s emergent literacy as a function of social class. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23, 248–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00213.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19. doi: 10.1007/bf0229087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krcmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhl, P., Tsao, F., & Liu, H. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction of phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 9096–9101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1532872100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Linebarger, D., Kosanic, A., Greenwood, C., & Doku, N. (2004). Effects of viewing the television program Between the Lions on the emergent literacy skills of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 297–308. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: Signet Books.Google Scholar
  35. Michaels, S. (2013). Déjà Vu all over again: What’s wrong with Hart & Risley and a “linguistic deficit” framework in early childhood education? Learning Landscapes, 7(1), 23–41.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, P., & Sperry, D. (2012). Déjà vu: The continuing misrepresentation of low-income children’s verbal abilities. In S. Fiske & H. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interactions (pp. 109–130). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Morrow, L. M. (1988). Young children’s responses to one-to-one readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89–107. doi: 10.2307/747906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Association for the Education of Young Children, & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media. (2011). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from bith through age 8. New York: St. Vincent’s College.Google Scholar
  39. Neuman, S. B. (1992). Is learning from media distinctive? Examining children’s inferencing strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 119–140. doi: 10.2307/1162904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neuman, S. B. (1995). Literacy in the television age. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  41. Neuman, S. B. (2009). The case for multimedia presentations in learning: A theory of synergy. In A. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 44–56). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  42. Neuman, S. B., & Pinkham, A. (2015). Educational media supports for low-income children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  43. Paivio, A. (2008). The dual coding theory. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America (pp. 227–242). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  44. Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media.Google Scholar
  45. Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Parish-Morris, J., & Golinkoff, R. (2009). Live action: Can young children learn verbs from video? Child Development, 80, 1360–1375. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01338.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Segal-Drori, O., Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2010). Reading electronic and printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading. Reading and Writing, 23, 913–930. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9182x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Silverman, R. (2013). Investigating video as a means to promote vocabulary for at-risk children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 170–179. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the English-language learners and non-English language pre-kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 305–314. doi: 10.1037/a0014217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stockman, I. (2010). A review of developmental and applied language research on African American children: From a deficit to difference perspective on dialect differences. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 23–38. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strouse, G., O'Doherty, K., & Troseth, G. (2013). Effective co-viewing: Preschoolers learning from video after a dialogic questioning intervention. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2368–2382. doi: 10.1037/a0032463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terrell, S., & Daniloff, R. (1996). Children’s word learning using three modes of instruction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 779–787. doi: 10.2466/pms.1996.83.3.779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verhallen, M., & Bus, A. (2010). Low-income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary through digital picture storybooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 54–61. doi: 10.1037/a0017133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verhallen, M., Bus, A., & deJong, M. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410–429. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan B. Neuman
    • 1
  • Kevin M. Wong
    • 1
  • Tanya Kaefer
    • 2
  1. 1.New York UniversityNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.Lakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options