Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eggleston Wang Choi 2021 Mother-Toddlersharedreading
Eggleston Wang Choi 2021 Mother-Toddlersharedreading
net/publication/353185722
CITATION READS
1 257
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by X. Christine Wang on 14 July 2021.
To cite this article: Corinne Eggleston, X. Christine Wang & Youngae Choi (2021): Mother-Toddler
Shared Reading with Electronic versus Print Books: Mothers’ Language Use and Perspectives,
Early Education and Development, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1943638
ABSTRACT
Research Findings: Reading e-books is becoming common even among tod
dlers, but we have limited understanding of how parents-toddlers reading
e-books together compares to print books. To address the gap, we investi
gated interactions of 30 mother-toddler (12 months) dyads, in particular,
mothers’ language use, while reading both electronic and print versions of
the same book. These shared reading sessions were video-recorded.
Mothers’ perceptions of each shared reading context were also examined
by conducting a survey. Data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.
The results show that mothers, when using the print book, were more likely
to employ strategies to engage their toddlers and focus their shared atten
tion on book content. When using the e-book, mothers tended to provide
more support and praise for their children’s direct engagement with the
book, thereby fostering more independence. While mothers more naturally
facilitated the shared reading using the print book, they liked the interactive
digital features and their toddlers’ high engagement level with the e-book.
The results demonstrate how different book formats are associated with
different types of mother-child interactions and support different kinds of
learning and development. Practice and Policy: Implications for parents and
caregivers, and researchers are discussed.
Shared book reading is defined as one-on-one reading interactions between an adult and a child
(Fletcher & Finch, 2015). As one of the most common activities at home, shared book reading has
positive and significant impact on children’s language and literacy development (Auger et al., 2014;
Debaryshe, 1993; Payne et al., 1994). For example, it provides children with opportunities to discover
new concepts and more sophisticated vocabulary (Senechal et al., 1995) and fosters development of
concepts of print and print knowledge (Makin, 2006). In addition, parent-child shared book reading
also helps children develop social-emotional skills (Aram et al., 2017; Ziv et al., 2013) and executive
functioning skills (Adrian et al., 2005; Strouse et al., 2019). Therefore, the National Early Literacy Panel
(2008) recommends that “a parent reading a picture book with a toddler . . . as the single most
important thing adults can do to promote the emergent literacy skills of young children” (p. 153).
Although print picture books still dominate parent-child shared reading, electronic book (here
after, e-book) use is rapidly increasing (Association of American Publishers [AAP], 2013; Bus et al.,
2020, 2015; Strouse et al., 2019). E-books, which are often viewed on iPads or tablets, share some
key features with traditional print books, but also offer distinct features such as live animation,
interactive hotspots (clickable spots on the book page that activate animations, songs, and/or
sounds), and text/words that can be activated to read aloud (Christ et al., 2019; Reich et al.,
CONTACT X. Christine Wang [email protected] Fisher-Price Endowed Early Childhood Research Center, Graduation
School of Education, SUNY Buffalo, Baldy 15, Buffalo, NY 14260
Revised and Resubmitted to Early Education and Development on June 11, 2021
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.
2019). These new features and the operation of the technology likely “require new approaches to
shared reading with young children” (Hoffman & Paciga, 2014, p. 379). Indeed, a few existing
studies show that parents and preschoolers shared reading interactions differs between electronic
and print formats (e.g., Krcmar & Cingel, 2014; Lauricella et al., 2014; Munzer et al., 2019).
Nonetheless, we still have limited understanding about mothers’ language use when parents and
children read e-books vs. print books especially among infants and toddlers (AAP, 2016; Makin,
2006; Strouse & Ganea, 2017). We also know little about parents’ views on shared reading with
e-books (Nicholas & Paatsch, 2018). To address these gaps, we investigated mothers and 12-month-
old toddlers shared reading of electronic and print versions of the same book by examining
mothers’ language use as well as perspectives.
Theoretical Framework
This study is informed by the sociocultural theory in particular its two major tenets. First, children’s
learning and development is a cultural and social process, which occurs on two planes – on the social
plane between people in social interaction and on the individual plane in which internalization occurs
inside the child (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). On the social plane, parents
or other more capable people provide children with the support they need to participate in shared
activities. The socially shared activities can then be transformed into internalized processes on the
individual plane (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). To facilitate the internalized processes, others engage
children within their zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is defined as “the distance between
the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collabora
tion with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Related to the present study, during shared
book reading, a mother often simultaneously identifies her child’s ZPD and adjusts her interaction and
guidance accordingly. For example, when a mother notices her child reaching toward the image of
a bunny on the page, she interprets this as the child’s interest and brings the child’s hand to the bunny
while smiling and saying “that is a bunny!” allowing her child to touch and feel as she reads and
extends the text by labeling the bunny and other animals on the page. Interactions between mothers
and toddlers such as this during their shared book reading provide a condition for and facilitate
toddlers’ internalization of words and knowledge discussed (e.g., bunny, fur, soft), and of ways of
relating to each other and to the outside world (e.g., to touch, to feel it). The children’s internalization
is not the focus of this study, rather, we focus on the context and condition (i.e., how mothers engage
children during a shared reading) for internalization.
The second major tenet is that social interactions between parents and children are mediated by
cultural tools and artifacts (Vygotsky, 1978). Cultural tools include language and other communica
tion means such as facial expression, body language, or action. In the example above, the mother uses
language to label (“that is a bunny!”), her action to confirm the child’s intention (brings the child’s
hand to the bunny), and her smile to encourage the child’s effort to explore. In addition, a mother
would often repeat a word from text, ask questions, or restate what is just read to facilitate her child’s
understanding of a story. Thus, our study zooms in on mothers’ language use during their interaction.
In addition, other forms of cultural tools such as mothers’ body language and actions during shared
reading are included in our analysis of how mothers convey meanings in contexts. Cultural artifacts
such as books and technology also mediate social interaction with their particular affordances and
constraints. In our study, we focus on the different affordances and constraints that electronic and
print books provide for mother-toddler shared reading.
Literature Review
Aligning with our research questions, we review two bodies of relevant literature. First, we review
studies related to mothers’ language use in shared reading of both electronic and print books, and
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 3
a comparison of these two. Then we examine studies on parents’ perceptions and perspectives of
electronic and print books.
times, mothers often called the child’s attention to a story first and then asked significantly more
questions and provided more feedback as the story became more familiar. However, the effect of
familiarity of books was not found in Fletcher and Finch (2015). The authors explained two reasons for
such a discrepancy. First, the number of reading times might have contributed to the difference.
Mothers in McArthur et al. (2005) read the same book eight times, while four times in Fletcher and
Finch (2015). Thus, “four sessions might not have provided enough familiarity for mothers to alter
their reading strategies” (Fletcher & Finch, 2015, p. 90). Second, mothers’ socioeconomic status (SES)
was different between these two studies: mostly white, middle-class families in McArthur et al. (2005),
while mostly African American and Hispanic and low-income families in Fletcher and Finch (2015).
Although our study did not address these two factors directly, we intentionally recruited mothers from
similar SES backgrounds, excluded mothers who did not have exposure to our selected book (see
further explanation in Methods), and asked mothers to read the same book only two times (once with
the e-book version and once with the print version) to minimize potential effects of these factors.
These studies provide a useful foundation in analyzing mothers’ language use during parent-child
shared reading and inform the design of our study (i.e., selection of the book, recruitment of
participating mothers, and total times of shared reading). We extend these studies by addressing
a particular age group – toddler as young as 1, which is understudied despite the fact that reading print
books is a common literacy practice at home among this age group (Common Sense Media, 2017), as
well as comparing the electronic and print versions of the same book.
comprehension: (1) parent reading the text (i.e., without the audio narration feature), (2) children
independent reading with the audio narration, and (3) children independent reading without the
audio narration feature. After each reading session, children were asked to freely recall the story, retell
the story page by page, and answer story comprehension questions. The results showed that children
recalled the most information about the e-book when their parents read the text. Between the two
independent reading conditions, audio narration was more effective than turning it off. Although the
audio narrative was helpful for the independent reading condition, it was not as effective as parents
reading the text to their child. Dore et al. (2018) suggested children benefited from parent reading the
text as well as asking questions, redirecting child’s attention, and encouraging engagement. Therefore,
our study focuses on understanding the nature of print versus electronic books through comparing
shared reading with two versions of the same book.
the print-book group. They suggested the e-book covered some low-level support (e.g., reading text
content); thus, it prompted mothers to provide more high-level support.
Furenes et al. (2021) completed a meta-analysis of 39 studies (n = 1,812 children) comparing
children’s story comprehension and vocabulary learning in relation to book medium (print versus on-
screen), enhancements in digital books, the presence of a dictionary, and adult support for children
aged between 1 and 8 years. When comparing children’s comprehension scores of the same books
differing only by print versus on-screen, scores were lower for digital books. In addition, adults’
facilitation of or during print book reading was more effective related to learning outcomes than
enhancements of digital books that children read independently. When comparing adult facilitation of
both book formats, a variety of studies indicate that language during shared digital book reading was
often dominated by talk concerning the child’s behavior as opposed to the content of the story (e.g.,
Chiong et al., 2012; Parish-Morris et al., 2013; Richter & Courage, 2017). The findings suggest that
adult facilitation outperforms the enhancements within digital books.
Contrary to these findings, two studies found no significant difference in parents’ language use across
e-book and print book. For example, Strouse and Ganea (2017) examined 102 parent-toddler (17–
26 months) dyads reading an e-book and a print book of identical content, and categorized parents’
language use as (1) book-content-related speech (including questions, simple statement that is directly
observable in the book, elaboration, negative and positive feedback, and simple repetition of child
speech), (2) orienting talk (e.g., redirect children’s attention to the book), (3) direct reading of book text,
and (4) off-topic talk. Among the four categories of language use, parents engaged in more orienting
talk and direct reading of book text with the print book than the e-book, which is likely because e-books
tend to attract children’s attention and engage them with text directly. However, the researchers did not
find differences in parents’ content-related or off-topic talk across the book formats.
Similarly, Chiong et al. (2012) examined 32 parents and their 3-6-year-old children across three
shared reading platforms – print, basic (simple, electronic version of the text on a tablet with
minimal interactive features), and enhanced e-books (e-book on a tablet with many interactive
features including songs, games and hotspots). They found that parents’ labeling, pointing, ques
tioning, and verbal elaboration of story features were similar across the print and the basic e-book,
however, fewer of these language uses were found with the enhanced e-book. It suggests the
interactive digital features such as those in the enhanced e-books make a difference, consistent
with what our review in “Shared Reading of E-Books” reveals.
These mixed results can be partially explained by two factors: (1) Book content. Among studies that
found differences across electronic and print formats, Krcmar and Cingel (2014), Munzer et al. (2019), and
Parish-Morris et al. (2013) used books with different content. However, Korat and Segal-Drori (2016), and
Korat et al. (2013) used books with identical content. Strouse and Ganea (2017) used identical content but
failed to find difference in content-related or off-topic talk across the book formats. It is unclear whether
Chiong et al. (2012) used the same or different book content. (2) Digital features. Two studies used
enhanced e-books (Korat & Segal-Drori, 2016; Korat et al., 2013) and two studies involved both enhanced
and basic e-books (Chiong et al., 2012; Munzer et al., 2019). They found that more advanced interactive
features such as animation contributed to differences in parental language use compared to print books,
while basic e-books resulted in no or fewer differences compared to print books. Enhanced e-books with
more advanced interactive features likely demand more attention regulation from children, thus are often
used with older children (ages 3–6) as in these four studies and may not be suitable for young toddlers in
our study. To address the mixed results, we used books with similar content and compared only a basic
e-book and a print book. Another gap in the literature is fewer studies examined it with children under 2.
Our study addresses this gap by investigating shared reading of mother-toddler (12 months) dyads.
reported that parents of children (ages 0–8) consistently view media as a positive educational tool, it is
not clear if/how that view extends to e-books and how they may view e-books differently from print
books.
The only study we found – Nicholas and Paatsch (2018) – addressed this issue by investigating 12
mothers’ perception and confidence of using e-books vs. print books with their toddlers. They
reported that mothers found e-books distracting and over-stimulating for their children, only 2
mothers felt confident using e-books while 10 others reported confidence with print books. Due to
the lack of confidence and their views of e-books, they generally preferred print books for shared
reading but allowed children to use e-books for independent and self-directed play and exploration.
The results, albeit scarce, indicate that parents perceive e-books and print books differently, which
could potentially contribute to their shared book reading interactions with their children. Better
understanding parents’ perspectives can help us understand factors that could influence shared
reading (Nicholas & Paatsch, 2018) and identify opportunities for optimal use of different formats
of books (Strouse et al., 2019), which is one of the goals of our study.
Methods
A mixed-methodology was used to compare mothers’ language use and their perspectives on using
electronic vs. print books during shared reading with their 12-month-old toddlers. Qualitatively, we
thematically coded shared reading transcriptions and analyzed mothers’ explanations on their survey
responses. Quantitatively, we used statistics to compare mothers’ language use in and their satisfaction
ratings of these two different conditions. This mixed-methods design allowed us to identify mothers’
language use patterns as well as their subjective experience and preferences toward these two different
reading conditions.
Participants
An a priori power analysis, using G*Power 3.1, was conducted in order to confirm appropriate sample
size for this investigation. Using the actual effect size of (.35), an alpha error probability of 0.05, and
a power of 0.98 with two independent variables and five dependent variables, the sample size needed
8 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.
was 16. Pett (1997) and Salkind (2004) suggest that most social science research should use a minimal
sample size of 30. Similarly, studies such as Yont et al. (2003) and Chiong et al. (2012) that
implemented a comparable design used a sample size of 25 and 32 respectively. Therefore, we used
a sample size of 30 for this investigation.
Two-step recruitment was employed. First, recruitment flyers were widely disseminated at six
childcare centers located in a medium-sized North-Eastern city in the United States. From those who
contacted the first author, we used the following criteria to select participants: (a) all participant dyads
had experience with shared print read aloud, (b) all toddlers had prior exposure to touch screen media
devices including a tablet or smart phone, and (c) all mothers and toddlers had prior exposure to the
children’s book, Pat the Bunny by Dorothy Kundhardt, one of the best-selling children’s books of all
time (Wellhousen & Common Sense Media, 2021). Due to the book’s popularity among this age
group, it was challenging to find anyone who did not have prior exposure. Thus, we used this criterion
to exclude the few outliners who expressed interest but did not have prior exposure to Pat the Bunny.
Second, a snowball sampling technique was used. The first author asked the selected participants from
the 1st step to nominate others to participate. Once a participant was confirmed, we conducted
informed consent by sending a letter to explain the purpose of the study and value of this research,
and assured privacy and confidentiality of participation.
The resulting participants included 30 mother-toddler dyads. There were 18 boys and 12 girls with
average age of 12.7 months. Mothers’ mean age was 31.5 and majority of the mothers were white (27
Caucasian, 2 Asian-American, 1 African-American). All came from middle or upper-middle SES
backgrounds, and 28 of the 30 held a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Data Collection
A within-subjects design was used where each mother-toddler dyad participated in shared reading
with both electronic and print versions of the book. The order of book versions was counter-balanced,
i.e., one dyad used the e-book first, next dyad would use the print book first. Prior to reading, mothers
were provided the opportunity to review each format of the book but were given no instructions
regarding reading techniques. Both shared reading interactions were video recorded in one visit in the
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 9
home of each mother-toddler dyad. On average, participating dyads spent 5:16 minutes and 3:04 min
utes with the e-book and print versions, respectively. Given this relatively brief engagement time,
a short break between was given and data collection in one home visit did not appear to overwhelm
participants. To ensure authenticity of reading sessions, mothers were asked to choose their preferred
setting (most chose a cozy spot in a living or bedroom) and were encouraged to engage with their
toddler as they would in a typical shared reading. When the researcher (the first author) observed any
discomfort of the participants in front of the camera, she would give them an opportunity to take
a break and start over or reschedule another visit.
Survey data were collected immediately following the shared reading sessions. Mothers were given
as much time as needed to rate satisfaction with e-book and print with the order of questioning
regarding reading different media formats counter-balanced. Data collection was completed in
3 months, with 2–3 home visits per week during this time period.
Data Analysis
Types of language used by mothers to toddlers, and their corresponding frequencies of usage, were
calculated following transcription and aforementioned coding. Frequencies of usage were the sum of
each language type used by each participant mother. This provided a base for the quantitative analysis.
Since the two shared reading contexts – electronic vs. print books – differed in length across dyads,
proportions were calculated based on frequencies for the purpose of analysis (numerator = mothers’
language type, denominator = total number of language prompts used by mother). For example, if
a mother made 5 MRKs out of a total of 25 language prompts, the percentage of MRKs for that
particular session would 20%.
For research question 1 (Does the shared reading with electronic or print books generate differ
ences in mothers’ language use? If so, how do they differ?), the independent variable was shared
reading context (electronic vs. print). The dependent variables were mothers’ language types (see
Table 1). A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze mothers’
language based upon shared reading context.
For research question 2 (How do mothers perceive and explain their satisfaction of using an
e-book vs. a print book in shared reading with their toddlers?), descriptive statistics were used to
show the mothers’ satisfaction ratings and preferences. A paired samples t-test was used to compare
perception responses to electronic vs. print books. Mothers’ explanations were analyzed qualitatively
using the Grounded Theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). First, the lead author conducted
open coding by reading and reviewing mothers’ responses carefully multiple times and marking
anything interesting or unique at word levels. For example, words such as “interest,” “together we,”
“occupied,” “concentrated,” “independently,” seemed to capture their descriptions of their toddler’s
engagement. This process continued until the author covered all the main descriptors mothers used
to describe their toddler’s engagement. Second, the lead author grouped the subcategories such as
positive engagement (“great opportunity for us to interact,” “we enjoyed this version together,”
“seemed as if I was helping her learn,”), hold attention (“sat very well for this,” “held his attention
better,” kept her interest”, “was more concentrated”) into a major category of “toddlers’ engage
ment” descriptors. Similarly, categories such as “interactive features of the book” or “teaching
opportunities afforded” were generated. Third, the author connected the categories to generate
themes. For example, the features of the e-book were related to positively holding toddler’s attention
and with their high engagement. By contrast, the features of the print book were associated with
offering mom and baby a familiar and positive joint experience; one where mom is comfortable
taking the lead and scaffolding her toddler’s development. Constant comparison was conducted to
examine the fitness of codes at the code, category, and theme levels. For example, the lead author
initially focused more on positive or negative categories but left out some more ambiguous
comments (e.g., “Nate enjoyed the e-book on his own, but I felt left out.”). Examining the data
further allowed us to add a category about this kind of perception and led us to delve more deeply to
explain it (e.g., mother’ comfort level of guiding children reading the e-book). To warrant trust
worthiness (i.e., validity) (Given, 2008) of these interpretations, the lead author used peer debriefing
(sharing with informed peers and professors) to test and revise her interpretation. Through process
such as this, we generated trustworthy interpretation that captures the main themes of mothers’
responses.
Results
Mothers’ Language Use
The multivariate main effect for shared reading context (electronic vs. print books) was found (Wilks’
λ = .645, F(5, 54) = 5.938, p< .001, = .36). Power to detect the effect was .990. In other words, e-books
vs. print books generated significant differences in overall mothers’ language use. Given the signifi
cance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were tested (see Table 2). Significant associations
were found between the book type and three of the five mothers’ language use variables including
marking an event (MRK), discussing a joint focus of attention (DJF), and directing attention (DA),
while non-significant associations were found between the book type and negotiating the immediate
activity (NIA) and holding a discussion related to the present (DRP). Results of each language type are
presented and discussed using transcript excerpts below.
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 11
Table 2. MANOVA – differences in mothers’ language use related to mother/toddler shared-reading context.
print e-book
Partial Eta
Variable M SD M SD F df p Squared
MRK .069 .056 .152 .078 22.493*** 1 .000 .279
DJF .425 .112 .338 .103 9.751** 1 .003 .114
DA .115 .087 .076 .058 4.239* 1 .044 .068
NIA .347 .107 .383 .117 1.531 1 .221 .026
DRP .044 .047 .037 .039 0.390 1 .535 .007
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Marking
The greatest difference of mothers’ language use between mother-toddler shared reading of the e-book
versus the print book was found in marking (MRK) with a large effect of = .279. When reading the
e-book version of Pat the Bunny, mothers engaged in significantly more marking (i.e., praising or
enthusiastically encouraging a child’s actions) than reading the print version (F(1,59) = 22.493,
p< .001).
The example of Nate’s mother reading the same page with Nate1 (see Table 3) illustrates how
marking was more prominent within shared reading with the e-book than with the print book.
Reading the e-book (see the left column), Nate’s mother started with reading the text aloud (line 1)
and modeling how to manipulate the peek-a-boo feature on the screen (lines 3 & 5). Following his
mother, Nate swiped the screen and the e-book made a peek-a-boo sound (lines 6 & 7), his mother
responded excitedly, “Good job!” (line 8). Nate then repeated this action several times (lines 9 & 12)
and with each action resulting in his mother’s encouragement (“You’re doing it”) or praise for his
participation and success (lines 11 & 13). With the print book (see the right column), the mother first
took almost identical actions (lines 1, 3, 5) – reading the text, modeling peek-a-boo interaction, and
saying “peek-a-boo!” After Nate’s success, the mother was ready to move on to the next page (line 7)
and no markings were made.
In this example, marking was used to praise the toddler’s independent engagement with the e-book,
a direct response to the resulting interaction between Nate and the e-book. Once the active voice of the
interactive e-book joined in (i.e., animated swish sound), Nate’s mother shifted her role from an active
facilitator (directly engaging Nate with the book) to an observer rallying on the sideline (observing
Nate’s direct interaction with the book while offering encouragement). By contrast, she played a direct
facilitator and/or teacher throughout her interaction with Nate reading the print book. This suggests
that parents may see their role somewhat differently during the shared reading of an e-book or a print
book. When using the e-book, mothers tended to provide more support and praise for their children’s
direct interactions and engagement with the book, which could potentially foster children’s indepen
dence. This is partly because the e-book provided more opportunities for a young child to indepen
dently play and interact. By comparison, mothers made more effort to directly engage children with
the print book.
Direct Attention
Mothers used language to direct their toddlers’ attention significantly more often during the shared
reading of print books (F(1,59) = 4.24, p < .05, = .068.). As seen in Table 6, within the same number of
turns (13), James’ mother used DA four times with the print book while only once with the e-book.
DA was used to engage the child initially with both book versions. At the beginning of their shared
reading, James was playing with his toys on the floor (line 1 in both columns). To direct his attention
from the toys to the print version of Pat the Bunny, James’ mother used a directing phrase (“You
ready?”) while pointing to the book. Similarly, the Mother read the text from e-book version to direct
James attention (lines 2–3). The big difference appeared as the shared reading progressed. James’
mother repeatedly used DA to maintain or reengage James with the print book. After moving his
attention away from the toys, the mother had to direct his attention one more time to the print book
(line 4). After one more turn of reading (line 5–6), James tried to close the book (line 7) and his mother
used a redirecting statement again (“Hang on. Look! Look!”) to get one more turn of reading (lines 9–
10). Then James began to wiggle (line 11), his mother used a redirecting statement one more time
(“Look here!”). With the e-book, after getting James to move his attention away from the toys by
reading the text (lines 2–3), his mother did not use another DA to keep him engaged or try to reengage
him. Instead, they engaged with the book by discussing their joint focus (lines 4–7) and negotiating
their immediate actions (lines 8–13).
These results suggest that toddlers may be more easily engaged and willingly stay focused in the
shared reading of e-books than of print books. Although mothers may need to explicitly direct
toddlers’ attention to begin a shared reading with either version, the e-book’s high interactivity (e.g.,
the duck can be dragged to swim back and forth on the screen) compared to the limited interactivity of
the print book (e.g., on the same page, there are no ducks, only the opportunity to pat the bunny which
is a furry bunny shaped feature that is slightly raised on the page) allows mothers to spend less time to
redirect toddlers’ attention to the book and keep them engaged, thus it allows more opportunities for
book related interaction.
E-book Perception
Three sub-themes were found in mother’s open-ended explanations of their perception rating of
shared reading of the e-book with their toddlers. These themes include interactive digital features, high
engagement level, and teaching the concept of cause and effect.
Interactive Features
The term “interact” was the most commonly used in mothers’ explanation of their e-book perception
ratings. It was often cited in relation to the e-book digital features and the child’s participation. For
instance, one mother noted, “Very interactive! Fun to make all the animals move, pop bubbles, etc.”
Another mother commented, “my son was very motivated when prompted to interact with the
characters on the screen.” Yet, another mother commented, “It was very interactive, however, all of
the interactions involved pushing buttons.” It seemed this mother was hoping for more diverse forms
of child participation beyond “pushing buttons.”
Table 9. Paired samples T-test – differences in mothers’ perceptions of electronic vs. print books.
M SD Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1
print – e-book −.30 1.088 .199 −.706 .106 −1.511 29 .142
16 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.
Hands-on Experience
The most commonly cited explanation for their positive perception of the print-book was the hands-on
experience due to the physical characteristics of the book. Mothers frequently commented that they liked
that toddlers were given the opportunity to tangibly interact within this context. For example, one mother
noted, “there’s lots of hands on activities including sounds and a mirror”; and another mother com
mented that she “loved the textures. There was something for him (her toddler) to do on every page.”
Similarly, one mother observed, “Cameron enjoyed manipulating the objects and turning the pages.”
Discussion
Results of this study showed that mother-toddler shared reading using electronic vs. print books
generated different language use by mothers. Consistent with Strouse et al. (2019) and Lauricella et al.
(2014), mothers’ language use significantly differed as a function of the book format in these three
areas: (1) Mothers used significantly more praise and encouragement for their toddler’s independent
engagement with the interactive features during e-book shared reading. (2) They engaged their
toddlers in discussion of joint focus significantly more during shared reading of the print book. (3)
Although mothers needed to explicitly direct toddlers’ attention to begin a shared reading with either
format, they spent significantly more time redirecting their toddlers’ attention to the book and keeping
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 17
them engaged while using the print book. No significant differences were found in these two areas: (a)
negotiation of the immediate activity, which was the most commonly observed form of language used
by mothers in shared reading with the e-book and the second highest with the print book, and (b)
discussions related to the present, and it was the least commonly observed language type used by
mothers. As we conjecture earlier, discussion related to the present placed high demand on children’s
memory and thus, it was challenging for toddlers (averaged 12.7 months) to engage in. This is
consistent with the findings of Senechal et al. (1995) in that this more sophisticated form of language
use is typically observed in interactions with older toddlers (i.e., 27 months). Mothers’ rating of their
shared reading indicated high satisfaction with both e-book and print book. While no significant
difference was found, the average mean indicated that mothers were slightly more satisfied with the
e-book than the print book shared reading experience. Their open-ended explanations of their rating
showed that they viewed their role during the shared reading of e-books and print books differently.
reading a print book is a familiar and comfortable context for mothers, and traditional literacy benefits
were observed.
Aligning with these differing affordances of the e-book, mothers indicated approval with the e-book
as it independently introduced children to new concepts such as cause and effect (e.g., “if I touch the
screen something will happen”). Mothers also consistently referenced the interactive features of the
e-book and directly attributed this to their toddlers’ enjoyment and increased engagement within this
shared reading context.
Conclusion
The results show that mothers’ language use during interactions varied based on context in
conjunction with the demands of electronic or print books. Interactions with the print book
involved greater mothers’ language use in scaffolding literacy and concept development;
a common finding within traditional parent-child shared reading research. The print context also
required mothers to more often use language to initiate, maintain, or reestablish engagement with
their toddlers. By comparison, the e-book better maintained child engagement. When using the
e-book, mothers tended to provide more support and praise for their children’s direct interactions
and engagement with the book, thereby fostering more independence. In addition, mothers
exchanged their typical role as literacy leader for their toddler’s participation of shared reading
using a print book for a facilitator role during shared e-book reading. Mothers’ perceptions of each
shared reading context were positive, but for different developmental reasons related to learning and
engagement. Findings of this study align with current literature showing that different book formats
can lead to different kinds of mother-child interactions and can support different kinds of learning
and development, both are beneficial.
with different backgrounds as well as shared reading with fathers and toddlers. Second, the present
study only examined one single shared reading session with an e-book and with a print book. It is
recommended that future studies using a similar research design, offer repeated exposure to each
media format to observe possible changes over time. It can address the novelty effect of e-books and
answer the question of whether or how mothers’ language use or perceptions change over time? Third,
the current study only examined shared reading with one single book of different format and did not
control the level of prior exposure to the book (Due to its popularity, we excluded outlier participants
who did not read the book before). As a result, we could not explore how book content and genre (e.g.,
expository vs. narrative texts) or the potentially differentiated level of prior exposure may affect
mother-child interaction. Future study should consider different multiple storybooks in electronic
and print format to further this line of research and select texts that are novel to all participants to
equalizing the level of control. Fourth, toddlers’ verbalizations, communication and engagement were
not an area of focus for this particular study. Future research should consider examining children’s
responses to mothers’ language use using both electronic and print books. Finally, the survey
instrument used for this study asked mothers to rate their satisfaction with each version of the book
and their explanation for their satisfaction ratings. This might have directed them to focus more on
positive aspects of their experiences. It is recommended that future study include more broader survey
questions (e.g., what are you overall experiences reading the e-book with your child?) and follow up
with explicit questions about both pros and cons of their experience.
Note
1. All names are pseudonym.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
X. Christine Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1557-9583
References
Abdelhadi, S. M. (2020). Responses to hotspots during parent-child shared reading of e-book. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 23–24, 100–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.100164
Adrian, J. E., Clemente, R. A., Villanueva, L., & Rieffe, C. (2005). Parent-child picture-book reading, mothers’ mental
state language and children’s theory of mind. Journal of Child Language, 32(3), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0305000905006963
Amazon. (2014, May 5). Pat the bunny (touch and feel book). Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/Pat-Bunny-
Touch-Feel-Book/dp/0307120007
Aram, D., Deitcher, D. B., Shoshan, T. S., & Ziv, M. (2017). Shared book reading interactions within families from low
socioeconomic backgrounds and children’s social understanding and prosocial behavior. Journal of Cognitive
Education and Psychology, 16(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.16.2.157
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The lace of interrater reliability in qualitative research:
An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031003015
Association of American Publishers. (2016). Media and young minds: Council on communications and media.
Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591
Auger, A. A., Reich, S. M., & Penner, E. K. (2014). The effect of baby books on mothers’ reading beliefs and reading
practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.05.007
Britto, P. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Griffin, T. M. (2006). Maternal reading and teaching patterns: Associations with school
readiness in low-income African American families. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.
1598/RRQ.41.1.3
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 21
Bus, A. G., Belsky, J., Ijzendoorn, M., & Crnic, K. (1997). Attachment and book reading patterns: A study of mothers,
fathers, and their toddlers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)
90044-2
Bus, A. G., Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2020). Screens, apps, and digital books for young children: The promise of
multimedia. AERA Open, 6(1), 233285842090149. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901494
Bus, A. G., Takacs, Z. K., & Kegel, C. A. T. (2015). Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young
children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Review, 35(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004
Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Mother-child interactions, attachment, and emergent literacy: A
cross-sectional study. Child Development, 59(5), 1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130489
Chiong, C., Ree, J., Takeuchi, L., & Erickson, I. (2012). Comparing parent-child co-reading on print, basic, and enhanced
e-book platforms: A cooney center quick report. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
Christ, T., Wang, X. C., Chiu, M., & Strekalova-Hughes, E. (2019). How App books’ affordances are related to young
children’s reading behaviors and outcomes. AERA Open, 5(2), 233285841985984. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2332858419859843
Common Sense Media. (2017). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight.
Debaryshe, B. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language skill. Journal of Child Language, 20(2),
455–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008370
DeLoache, J. S., & DeMendoza, O. A. P. (1987). Joint picture-book interactions of mothers and 1-year-old children.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1987.tb01047.x
Dore, R. A., Hassinger-Das, B., Brezack, N., Valladares, T. L., Paller, A., Vu, L., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K.
(2018). The parent advantage in fostering children’s e-book comprehension. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44
(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.002
Fletcher, K. L., & Finch, W. H. (2015). The role of book familiarity and book type on mothers’ reading strategies and
toddlers’ responsiveness. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468798414523026
Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols. 1-0). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://
doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: A systematic review of effects on learning and development. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12220
Hoffman, J. H., & Paciga, K. (2014). Click, swipe, and read: Sharing e-books with toddlers and preschoolers. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 42(6), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0622-5
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework.
Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266
Kelly, M. B. (1977). A review of the observational data collection and reliability procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10(1), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-97
Korat, O., & Segal-Drori, O. (2016). E-book and printed book reading in different contexts as emergent literacy
facilitator. Early Education and Development, 27(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1095613
Korat, O., Shamir, A., & Heibal, S. (2013). Expanding the boundaries of shared book reading: E- books and printed
books in parent-child reading as support for children’s language. First Language, 33(5), 504–523. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0142723713503148
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., & Miller, S. (2003). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge,
England: University Press.
Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2014). Parent–child joint reading in traditional and electronic formats. Media Psychology,
17(3), 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.840243
Kucirkova, N., Sheehy, K., & Messer, D. (2015). A Vygotskian perspective on parent child talk during iPad story sharing.
Journal of Research in Reading, 38(4), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12030
Lauricella, A. R., Barr, R., & Calvert, S. L. (2014). Parent-child interactions during traditional and computer storybook
reading for children’s comprehension: Implications for electronic storybook design. International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction, 2(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.001
Makin, L. (2006). Literacy, 8-12 months: What are babies learning? Early Years, 26(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09575140600898449
Martin, L. E. (1998). Early book reading: How mothers deviate from printed text for young children. Reading Research
and Instruction, 37(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079809558260
McArthur, D., Adamson, L., & Deckner, D. F. (2005). As stories become familiar: Mother-child conversations during
shared reading. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(4), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0025
Munzer, T. G., Miller, A. L., Weeks, H. M., Kaciroti, N., & Radesky, J. (2019). Difference in parent-toddler interactions
with electronic versus print books. Pediatrics, 143(3), e20182012. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2012
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington,
DC: National Institute for Literacy. https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
22 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1),
60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Nicholas, M., & Paatsch, L. (2018). Mothers’ views on shared reading with their two-year olds using printed and
electronic texts: Purpose, confidence and practice. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 21(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1468798418792614
Ninio, A. (1983). Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisition device. Developmental Psychology, 19(3),
445–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.3.445
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001896
Ninio, A., Snow, C. E., Rollins, P., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Classifying communicative acts in children’s interactions.
Journal of Communications Disorders, 27(2), 157–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(94)90039-6
Ninio, A., & Wheeler, P. (1986). A manual for classifying verbal communicative acts in mother infant interaction.
Transcript Analysis, 3(1), 1–83. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED271957.pdf
Parish-Morris, J., Mahajan, N., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Collins, M. F. (2013). Once upon a time: Parent–
child dialogue and storybook reading in the electronic era. Mind Brain Education, 7(3), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.
1111/mbe.12028
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of
language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(3–4),
427–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(94)90018-3
Pelligrini, A. D., Perlmutter, J. C., Galda, L., & Brody, G. H. (1990). Joint reading between black head start children and
their mothers. Child Development, 61(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131106
Penguin Random House. (2011, April). Penguin Random House: Pat The Bunny. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.
com/books/215286/pat-the-bunny-by-golden-books-illustrated-by-golden-books
Pett, M. A. (1997). Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small samples and unusual distributions.
Sage Publications.
Potter, C. A., & Haynes, W. O. (2000). The effects of genre on mother-toddler interaction during joint book reading.
Infant-Toddler Intervention, 10(2), 97–105.
Reich, S., Yau, J. C., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Tablet-based ebooks for young children: What does the research say?
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(7), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000335
Reich, S., Yau, J. C., Xu, Y., Muskat, T., Uvalle, J., & Cannata, D. (2019). Digital or print? A comparison of preschoolers’
comprehension, vocabulary, and engagement from a print book and an e-book. AERA Open, 5(3), 233285841987838.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419878389
Richter, A., & Courage, M. L. (2017, January). Comparing electronic and paper storybooks for preschoolers: Attention,
engagement, and recall. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.app
dev.2017.01.002
Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications.
Senechal, M., Cornell, E., & Broda, L. S. (1995). Age-related differences in the organization of parent-infant interactions
during picture-book reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(3), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-
2006(95)90010-1
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language
learners and non-English-language learners in pre- kindergarten through second grade. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014217
Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language learning. Journal of Child Language,
10(3), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005365
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage
Publications.
Strouse, G. A., & Ganea, P. A. (2017). Toddlers’ word learning and transfer from electronic and print books. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 156(April 2017), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.12.001
Strouse, G. A., Newland, L. A., & Mourlam, D. J. (2019). Educational and fun? Parent versus preschooler perceptions and
co-use of digital and print media. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419861085
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook
reading. In D. A. Wagner (Ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 111–130). Pergamon Press. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366
Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2014). Can the computer replace the adult for storybook reading? A
meta-analysis on the effects of multimedia stories as compared to sharing print stories with an adult. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5(December 2014), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366
Verhallen, M. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.410
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding inter-observer agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37
(5), 360–363. https://fammedarchives.blob.core.windows.net/imagesandpdfs/pdfs/FamilyMedicineVol37Issue5Viera360.pdf
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 23
Vokatis, B. M. (2014). Meaning making with an iPad: A case study of one child’s engagement with iPad applications within
her family activity system (Order No. 3620035) [Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of
New York]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wellhousen, K., Common Sense Media. (2021, March 30). Pat the bunny. Book Review. www.commonsensemedia.org/
book-reviews/pat-the-bunny
Yont, K. M., Snow, C. E., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2003). Is chronic otitis media associated with differences in parental
input at 12 months of age? An analysis of joint attention and directives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 581–602.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000298
Ziv, M., Smadja, M., & Aram, D. (2013). Mothers’ mental-state discourse with preschoolers during storybook reading
and wordless storybook telling. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.
2012.05.005