Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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.

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.

  2. Anderson, D., & Pempek, T. (2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. doi:10.1177/0002764204271506.

  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.

  4. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford.

  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.

  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.

  7. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459. doi:10.2307/1170217.

  8. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–30. doi:10.1007/bf02299088.

  9. Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. Washington, DC: Common Sense Media.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  15. Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Bloomington: Pearson Education Inc.

  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.

  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.

  18. Flesch Reading Formula. http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php.

  19. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  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.

  21. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore: Brookes.

  22. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe. American Educator, 27(4), 6–9.

  23. Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking educational gap. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  28. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19. doi:10.1007/bf0229087.

  29. Krcmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10, 41–63.

  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.

  31. Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

  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.

  33. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  34. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: Signet Books.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  40. Neuman, S. B. (1995). Literacy in the television age. Norwood: Ablex.

  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.

  42. Neuman, S. B., & Pinkham, A. (2015). Educational media supports for low-income children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

  43. Paivio, A. (2008). The dual coding theory. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America (pp. 227–242). Baltimore: Brookes.

  44. Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Susan B. Neuman.

Appendix: Examples of coded student recalls

Appendix: Examples of coded student recalls

From Sid the Science Kid (Digital storybook)

The story was about a dog. That’s it.

And then he’s gonna tell the teacher about the animals.

And she saw bumble bees

(Score: 3 (introduction, and two events))

From Sid the Science Kid (In-person reading)

The boy saw two dogs.

He saw his new grandma dog.

Then he saw another dog

(Score: 3 (three events))

From Superkids (Digital storybook)

It was about being the superheros

And the slide in the park.

That’s it.

(Score: 2 (introduction, one event)

From Superkids (In-person reading)

The boy was a superhero.

When the superheros stopped the sticky stuff.

When he messed up the playground.

(Score: 3 (character and two events))

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neuman, S.B., Wong, K.M. & Kaefer, T. Content not form predicts oral language comprehension: the influence of the medium on preschoolers’ story understanding. Read Writ 30, 1753–1771 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9750-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Digital media
  • Early literacy
  • Within-subject design
  • Preschoolers
  • Oral language comprehension