‘i’Babies: Infants’ and toddlers’ emergent language and literacy in a digital culture of iDevices

Abstract

Children today are growing up in a digital world that is changing and advancing at an unprecedented rate. While some adults may struggle to keep up with new technological gadgets, we find our very young may be quite at ease with the use of digital technologies, even before learning to speak. This study builds on a foundation of family literacy studies that looks at the literacies children are exposed to within their home environments. Given the influx of technology in children’s home environments, it is important to understand children’s digital literacy developments from a family literacy perspective. Studying two very young children and their families interacting with these new devices provides a deep and detailed look into how digital technologies might be influencing young children’s language and literacy development in first and second languages. Findings from this study can inform parents and educators of what, why and how young children interact and learn with digital devices.

Keywords

Digital technologies family literacy early literacy bilingual children young children home literacy environment

Introduction

At seven months old, Chloe received her first tablet device (at that time, the most up-to date-generation) from her grandparents, so that they could ‘FaceTime’ (a video-calling software application) with her on a larger, better quality screen. Since the time she reached the developmental milestone of sitting by herself at four months, Chloe has been ‘chatting’ with her grandparents and cousins using FaceTime on her mother’s smartphone. Though this phenomenon is relatively new (FaceTime was first unveiled by Apple Inc.’s Steve Jobs in June 2010), it is not rare and is, in fact, quite common.

Our infants and toddlers are exposed to digital technologies from birth. Chloe already has three apps on the tablet that are specifically geared towards babies. Her 22-month-old cousin, Ally, has two full pages of her own apps on her mother’s smartphone. Before they start preschool, both girls will already be able to navigate these devices towards their interests with ease. In addition, having only been spoken to in Cantonese, Ally has learned many English words through her interactions on the smartphone. Chloe, who is spoken to mainly in English at home, is learning a great deal of Cantonese language through her FaceTime chats on the tablet with her grandparents and her cousins.

According to Common Sense Media (2014), 75% of children in the US have access to mobile devices at home and 63% have access to smartphones. In addition, 72% of children between zero and age eight and 38% of children under two years old have used a newer mobile device such as a smartphone, video iPod, iPad or tablet device (Common Sense Media, 2014). As stated by Rideout (2013), in 2013, there were significant increases in the number of children using mobile devices for any media activity (38% of all children under 2, 80% of children two to four years old, and 83% of five- to eight-year-olds). And, as Lauricella et al. (2015) attest, access to mobile media devices has increased significantly in the past two years, which may result in more young children using these devices for more time than before. Therefore, in an increasingly diverse world characterized by globalization and the transnational movement of people, we suggest Chloe and Ally may not be alone in growing up with digital technologies within bilingual households. As Burnett and Merchant (2014) have pointed out, childhood is highly technologized despite conversations and debates of the affordances or detriments.

Children born in the 21st century have regular access to new forms of literacy such as those found in computer and video games, the Internet, interactive toys, email and chat rooms. These literacies are not confined to printed text; they can include symbolic, technological and multimodal ways of meaning making that combine music, printed text, visual images, animation and sound (Bearne, 2009; Burnett, 2010; Flewitt et al., 2009). As a result, the naturalization of information technologies in early childhood has changed the literate world and the practices of young children are gaining considerable interest from researchers. The 21st-century world is challenging even very young children (and their parents and caregivers) to access and construct information within local and global spaces, calling into question how we might need to ‘re-draw our maps’ (Merchant, 2015) of how literacy develops in young children.

We are now faced with how very young children ‘voice’ their meaning making with new technologies, an area critically under-researched. In this article, we refer to the wide range of modes (e.g. body orientation, speech/vocalizations, gestures [including tapping and swiping], words) and multimodal practices (e.g. viewing, playing, singing, gaming) as ‘communicative practice’ in which the focal children engaged. We think our use of this term accurately represents young children’s utilization of different forms of communication due in part, to the cultural, social, economic and technological changes of the new century. Indeed, many very young children are currently coming to early childhood programmes with a different set of literacy skills than did previous generations and we must consider recognizing the relevance of multiliteracies that develop at young ages in contexts of the home.

In this small case study of two very young children, we have a unique opportunity to observe a special vista of early digital learning in families. We think it is important to show how infants and toddlers interact independently with these technologies, who is involved within these activities and how these digital technologies mediate their emergent literacy development. The findings contribute to the virtual dearth of information on infants’ and toddlers’ digital communicative practices in home contexts and the ways in which families introduce and engage their members in particular technologies.

As such, we are interested in three questions: (a) How do infant-toddlers independently interact with iDevices – (tablets and smartphones)? (b) How do children’s activity with iDevices influence their social interaction with others (i.e. family members) in bilingual households? and (c) How do iDevices mediate children’s emergent literacy development?

Perspectives

This study draws on a theoretical framework that incorporates three fields: sociocultural-historical theory, ecological systems theory and multimodality.

A sociocultural view (e.g. Genishi and Dyson, 2009; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) centres attention on the social as well as the individual nature of learning. In the case of very young learners, more proficient learners, such as parents, grandparents, siblings and peers, encourage and support young children by modelling, demonstrating or explaining the knowledges and skills that are important and valued in their communities. The support offered to children may differ across cultural groups and may involve different modes and means (e.g. Anderson and Morrison, 2011; Heath, 1983; Moll et al., 1992). In this regard, we also draw on the work of Barbara Rogoff (1990) who suggests development results from the interaction of three planes: the individual child, social peripheral participation and interaction and the community context, as social elders assist children in appropriating the practices of their communities. Thus, young children’s learning can only be understood in light of the cultural practices and circumstances of their communities. Rogoff (2003) has documented the ways in which young children may be expected to take on particular tasks (e.g. using a machete or handling fire safely) that would never be accepted in other communities without direct adult supervision.

This influential view of culture in the sociocultural perspective is interwoven in all aspects of human development, and thus has implications for how children’s literacy practices are studied and understood. Thus, the development of children’s early literacy practices must be observed and understood in relation to the context in which those practices are culturally, historically and ideologically situated. This view allows us to understand how literacy events are linked to individuals’ social histories and to larger socio-historical practices and processes and, accordingly, situated within broader social relations and historical contexts (Razfar and Gutiérrez, 2003).

An ecological model of child development also informs our work. This model of development considers the child, not in isolation, but in the context of family, classroom and community, and the connections among these contexts. Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1989) theorized that children’s development is shaped by a set of nested environments in which they live their lives. The microsystem directly affects children the most. Microsystems include the family and local community consisting of the cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious groups with which the family identifies, as well as preschool, childcare or kindergarten settings. Microsystems are nested within mesosystems and connect the child outside the immediate family context. Beyond this mesosystem are the exosystems, those systems that impact on children but do not directly involve them, such as parents’ workplaces or family social networks. Finally, the macrosystem, the larger social and political contexts (e.g. cultural values and laws) within which the other systems are embedded, serves as the system that ties together the many threads of our lives (Goldstein, 2008).

Finally, our work is informed by multimodality. Young children make meaning not just through talk but also through multiple modes of communication, including gaze, body positioning, movement, vocalizations, drawing and language. Although language, primarily written language, is dominant at school (Jewitt, 2008) and creates opportunities for children to communicate and make meaning in a particular way, from a multimodal perspective we are interested in the ways that combinations of different modes contribute to and begin to describe what and how children express understandings in surprisingly fluid ways. Thus, we are informed by how these ways are reflected, shaped and communicated by children’s social and cultural understandings (Flewitt et al., 2009).

Review of the literature

Family literacy

Our study draws on the work of several researchers in the area of family literacy (Anderson et al., 2010; McTavish, 2007, 2009; Mui and Anderson, 2008) in their observations of literacy development in the social context of families and homes. McTavish’s (2007) qualitative research with a working-class mother and her two daughters reveals that children’s literacy practices within the socially embedded context of the home and family is a rich and complex source that is significant for their literacy development. In a second study (McTavish, 2009) of a third-grade child’s digital literacy practices both in school and at home, McTavish (2009) illustrates the importance of linking educational practices with out-of-school experiences to ‘meet the challenges of an information age’ (5). Both studies show the value of examining children’s at-home literacy practices to inform teaching practices at school. Anderson et al. (2010) explain that rich literacy learning happening inside the home is supported by Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social constructive learning. Adults support children’s knowledge and scaffold (Bruner, 1975) to extend children’s learning up to the highest potential point in their zone of proximal development. Anderson et al. also draw on the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Heath (1983) to attest that literacy comprises not only cognitive and linguistic skills but also complex social and cultural practice. Hence, this supports the idea that literacy learning in family home contexts is equally, if not more, significant than school learning. This agrees with the fact that children have a phenomenal aptitude for learning language during the first seven years of life (Genishi and Dyson, 2009), and five of those seven years happen before the start of formal schooling.

Digital media and devices

More recent research in the area of family literacy with a special focus on digital media and digital devices also informs this study. Verenikina and Kervin (2011) embarked on a case study of a small sample of three families with one or more children of preschool age, focusing on the preschool children’s engagement with tablet applications (apps) that are geared towards children. Their study was in three parts – open-ended, semi-structured interviews with parents regarding their children’s use of digital devices and apps; a review and selection of two educational apps geared to preschool-age children; and video-recorded observations of preschool children engaging in the apps from part two on a tablet. They found: the parents were interested in educational apps for their children and allowed time for them to play on tablets; apps that are open-ended and allow children to manipulate, control and choose the outcome can engage children’s interest for longer and provide richer learning experiences; children’s play on a tablet is often socially mitigated and supported by family members.

Another study with comparable findings was done in the same year. O’Mara and Laidlaw (2011) observed their own respective children navigating digital devices and texts at home, in family groups and together. They argue that their children’s home interactions with tablets and other digital devices allow for freedom of exploration, discovery and creativity that school does not provide. Through their children’s engagement with digital devices at home, O’Mara and Laidlaw witnessed them ‘deeply involved in meaning-making and in extending, exploring and expressing their own sense of self-identity as active participants in evolving technologies, and as “creators”, “designers” and “experts”, rather than merely as passive responders’ (152). Echoing the important work of Kress (2005), the authors’ recommendations to the educational community can be summarized in an analogy:

Traditional text is stable, it is composed by the producer and interpreted by the reader. Text has a sequential, linear order. It is underpinned by authority and authorship and is a site of knowledge. In contrast, the new disposition text is multimodal/semiotic and the mode of approach is semiotic. Text is now radically unstable. Text is designed by producer and redesigned by reader. Text has spatial ordering. Its value is in its potential usefulness and text is site of information. (156)

The school curriculum still values traditional text and O’Mara and Laidlaw consider it essential for pedagogical structures and educational practices to shift in order to implement new technologies in the classroom in a way that embraces the new Text.

Other studies have focused on close observations of young children working with digital devices. For example, Geist’s (2012) close at-home observations of his own two-year-old son provide information on how children naturally interact with touch-screen devices. Geist argues that this methodology has the advantage of allowing the most naturalistic and spontaneity of activity to be observed. Using the same method, Geist then observed same-age children in a preschool classroom, where he found children’s interactions surprisingly consistent with those of his son’s. He concluded that tablets offered two- to three-year-olds a vehicle on which to demonstrate their often underestimated capabilities. The preschoolers were able to show a high degree of interactivity and independence with a tablet – a device that supports the natural curiosity of toddlers. Geist predicts that tablets will eventually be a staple toy within early childhood education centres.

Finally, Davidson’s (2012) video recordings of children interacting with digital media from four families focused in detail on the digital literacy practices of one particular boy in his Google search for a green basilisk lizard. Using ethnomethodology combined with conversation analysis to interpret her video-recorded observations, Davidson (2012) presents a rich and meticulous look at how a young child learned ‘to draw in’ the world using digital technology and to situate it in the ‘here and now of his home’ (42).

These studies serve to demonstrate the ways in which young children take up new technologies in unique ways. Together, they provide a foundation for the current study.

Naturalistic data collection

The two participants for this study were Chloe, aged seven months, and her second cousin Ally, aged 22 months. Chloe is of mixed heritage. Her father is Canadian, with ancestry from Norway, Britain and Germany. Eugene, the first author of this article, is the mother of Chloe, and the ‘auntie cousin’ (a respectful way of referring to extended female relatives in Chinese culture) of Ally. Eugene comes from an immigrant family from Hong Kong, who since the age of 5 grew up in Canada. She speaks fluent Cantonese and tries, like Ally’s mother, to speak as much as possible to children in the family in their heritage language.

Observations took place over a period of four weeks. Observation times were scheduled with both mothers around prearranged play times with the children, during which iDevices would be available (in addition to other objects and toys) to both Ally and Chloe. These play times generally occurred in either of the children’s homes and lasted one to two hours. Outside those planned play times, observations occurred when the two mothers and their children met for lunch, or went swimming, shopping or walking in the park together. Observation notes were made during all visits, and video recordings were made of Ally and Chloe during their interactions with the iDevices (predominantly the tablet and smartphone). In addition to collecting these audio/visual pieces, artefacts (including photos taken by Ally, photos taken of Ally using these devices, and screenshots of what she did on-screen), were also collected. Finally, a semi-structured, open-ended interview with Ally’s mother regarding her views about Ally growing up with these iDevices was conducted. Our goal when collecting data from these two young children was to do so in the most natural and genuine way possible as we followed the regular routines of the two families.

Ethical considerations

Eugene was a participant-observer in this data collection. Although the focus of the study was predominately on Ally as a participant, we were very interested in Chloe’s natural interactions with Ally during the observations as Chloe was very attracted to the smart devices and with what Ally was doing and playing.

When Bissex (1980) considered the ‘scientific’ relationship of a parent–researcher, she wrote that while a parent–researcher may have the advantage of authentically and deeply sharing experiences with the subject, they may lack objectivity when reflecting on the study from a distance. Since Eugene is closely and intimately related to both participants, we felt that the data collection should be done by Eugene only, as this would provide a most naturalistic environment in which the children were observed. For the data analysis, we agreed that the more experienced researcher’s (Marianne, the second author of this article) views on the data and how they could be analysed were valuable. Hence, we felt we made a good attempt at both proximal authenticity and distal reflection.

Data analysis

There were three phases to the data analysis. These are represented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Analysis of data and presentation of findings.

Research question	Analysis	Findings
(1) How do infant-toddlers independently interact with iDevices – tablets and smartphones	• Identification of those literacy events in which Chloe and Ally independently interacted with iDevices • Coded events in terms of the cultural practices of this family with iDevices and the multiple modes that the children used	Independent interactions with iDevices • Access and view photos • Take photos • Access and interact with apps downloaded for enjoyment
(2) How does children’s activity on iDevices influence their social interaction with others (i.e. family members) in bilingual households?	• Analysis of events in which the focal children interacted with iDevices with others (within the microsystem, mesosystem and exosystem) • Analysis of who was involved in the interactions, who coded the nature of the interaction and the language used.	New ways of social interaction with iDevices • Toddler and infant • Toddler and adult • Bilingual language learning
(3) How do iDevices mediate children’s emergent literacy and language development?	• Analysed all data for instances of how iDevices mediated the children’s emergent literacy and language development	Emergent literacy and language learning with iDevices • Learning to count in English • Learning the alphabet • Learning songs for toddlers in English • Vocabulary learning

In the first stage, the observational notes and videos we uploaded into Atlas.ti (a qualitative software-analysis program) were read and viewed several times. We identified those literacy events in which Chloe and Ally independently interacted with the iDevices. We coded these events in terms of the children’s interactions with iDevices, and from a sociocultural perspective, in terms of the cultural practices of this family with iDevices, and the multiple modes that the children used. Once coded, we categorized the data into a simple array. In the next phase of the data analysis, we analysed all the events in which the focal children interacted with iDevices with others, particularly those within the microsystem of the immediate family, and those within the mesosystem and exosystem of the extended family. We analysed who was involved in the interactions, and coded their nature and the language used. In the final phase of the analysis, we looked at all the data including the observations, videos, photos, screenshots and interviews for instances of how iDevices mediated the children’s emergent literacy and language development. We recorded findings based on these analyses.

Findings

We return to our research questions to organize our findings: (a) How do infant-toddlers independently interact with iDevices (tablets and smartphones)? (b) How does children’s activity with iDevices influence their social interaction with others (i.e. family members) in bilingual households? and (c) How do iDevices mediate children’s emergent literacy development?

Independent interactions with iDevices

As an active toddler, Ally is able to interact with iDevices in a very independent manner. She is able to turn them on to access the content she desires with very little to no assistance from others. The following findings reveal how Ally is able to interact independently with iDevices.

Accessing and viewing photos and videos

In almost every instance, the first thing that Ally does when she picks up any iDevice, smartphone or tablet, is to tap on the flower-motif icon that links to the photo/video files. Once in these files, Ally flips through the photos using her index finger to swipe across the screen. Whenever she comes to a triangle-button icon, indicating that there is a video to view, she taps the triangle to make the video play. She may watch the entire video, depending on the circumstances (i.e. she may cease watching if she becomes distracted, or is interrupted for lunch, or needs a nappy change). In most cases, if the video features only her, she will watch it to completion. If the video shows other family members, she may watch it, but usually not for more than 30–40 seconds. If she is familiar with the list of videos and photos on the device (e.g. those on her mother’s smartphone), she may flip past certain videos and photos without pausing to look at them in order to find the particular video she desires to watch. She watches videos of herself over and over again, and shares what she is watching with others by showing the screen of the smartphone to whomever is in proximity, saying, ‘See?’ in Cantonese.

Viewing YouTube videos of children’s songs

Ally recognizes the red and white YouTube app icon on iDevices and frequently taps on it to find particular video songs she likes to watch. She utilizes the ‘history’ button at the bottom of the screen and finds songs that she has watched before. After finishing viewing a particular video song, she often uses the related-search panel to watch related videos. Often, she taps on the YouTube app, already knowing what song she’d like to listen to (having declared the song aloud), but sometimes she is not be able to find it. This does not faze her; she simply watches the video she comes across and does not worry that this selection was not her intended choice. This is demonstrated in the following example taken from our observation notes:

Transcript 1. Ally searches for and finds videos to play on the smartphone

Ally is sitting in her living room, smartphone in her lap.

E = Eugene

SP = smartphone

A = Ally

Words in bold = words spoken in Cantonese

E: mmmmmm……… what are you playing now?

A: (taps on the YouTube app) Play, E I E I O (shows E the screen, which is loading the YouTube history page)

E: That’s right?

A: One! Two! Three-four-five (taps on one of the videos on the YouTube results screen, turns the smartphone so that it goes to full screen, then taps the play button)

SP: Counting fire trucks! (music plays)

A: Heh! (smiling)

E: You sing for Auntie? Do you know how to sing this song?

SP: (a hot-flies past on the screen) One! (shows the number ‘1’)

A: One!

SP: (two hot-air balloons fly past on the screen) Two! (shows the number ‘2’)

A: Two!……..Three!

SP:……Three!

E: And then? Three, and then what?

SP: Four!

A: Four!

SP: Five!

A: Five! (smiles and looks up)

SP: Six!

A: Six! (looks back at the screen)

Although Ally’s intention was to find the ‘Old MacDonald’s Farm’ music video, but she is equally enraptured with an alternative counting music video.

Taking photos

Ally will often attempt to take photos on her own. She is knowledgeable about the process of taking a photo on an iDevice – tapping on camera app, using the screen to frame the subject to photograph, and then tapping on the shutter button to take the actual photo. However, with her small hands and age-level motor-skill development, Ally is not yet able to hold the iDevice up while aiming at the subject and pressing the shutter button at the same time. Often, her photos end up depicting the floor, table tops or ceilings due to the difficulty of the combined tasks of focusing on the subject and pressing the shutter button – she needs to move the iDevice down from the subject so that she can manoeuvre to press the button. The photos that depict ceilings result from her pressing the reverse camera button (so that the screen acts like a mirror) either by mistake or on purpose if she wants to photograph her own face. Often these photos depict parts of her face, and on occasion, she manages to capture her whole face.

When Ally has help with taking a photo (i.e. someone holds the iDevice up for her, and aims it at the subject), she can tap the shutter button and successfully take a photo. A successful photo may also result from her holding the iDevice up and aiming at the subject while an adult presses the shutter button for her, but this method does not happen often as the ‘fun’ of pressing the shutter button is almost always reserved for Ally to do herself.

Immediately after taking a photo (if the act was intentional), Ally will tap the photo icon to review the photo she has just taken. The fact that the photo does not show the intended subject does not seem to disappoint Ally, as she has not yet developed an awareness of what a successful photograph is supposed to show. At the time of these observations, Ally had not developed awareness of a successfully taken photo. However, at the time of writing this article (just over month later), Ally did have awareness of success. At 25 months of age, Ally will now review the photograph she has taken, then attempt to take another if she is not satisfied with the result. In addition, she now requests help from an adult to take a successful photo.

Accessing and interacting with apps specifically downloaded for enjoyment

Ally’s mother has a full page of apps designed by adults for toddler use on her smartphone, which she calls ‘Ally’s page’. During Eugene’s observations, Ally had not yet accessed those apps on her mother’s smartphone. However, her mother reports that Ally will occasionally play games that are downloaded for her. On Eugene’s own tablet, available during the observed playtimes, there were a few child friendly apps such as Angry Birds (a game app that allows the player to count items by tapping, and another app that allows the player to make characters dance around and send sparkles out). One app that Ally particularly enjoyed was an interactive story showing safari animals. After her mother explored this app with her once, Ally frequently sought out Eugene’s tablet with the desire to ‘reread’ this story on her own. The storybook app had lions as some of the many characters and Ally referred to the app as ‘Lion’. In FaceTime conversations, Ally would often ask Eugene if she could come over to her house and play ‘Lion’ on her tablet.

New ways of social interaction with iDevices

Ally, at her very young age, is very interested in iDevices, and her interactions with such devices are many, both sanctioned and unsanctioned by her mother; these serve to extend her independent interactions to the social. The following excerpt from our field notes illustrates her interest:

Ally has just finished her usual post-lunch nap in her bedroom upstairs. She has discovered, upon waking, that no one is there to attend to her. She toddles into the next room, where there is a desk with a desktop computer. On the desk, she finds her mother’s smartphone and proceeds to take it and play on it while walking into the hallway. Ally’s mother, who is downstairs, has heard her movements and knows exactly what Ally has done, implying that this has happened before. Eugene climbs the stairs up to find Ally at the top, completely engaged in whatever she was looking at on the smartphone. She still has her pacifier in her mouth.

Transcript 2. Ally wakes and finds the smartphone

E = Eugene

SP = smartphone

A = Ally

J = Ally’s mother

Words in bold = words spoken in Cantonese

E: Ally!… Ally!…

SP: (Ally’s mother talking in a video that Ally is watching) ‘Can you say bye bye to Ally?’

E: Ally, you’re awake now! Can you come and greet me as Auntie Cousin?

A: Ally! (showing smartphone screen, which is playing a video of herself)

E: What are you watching?

SP: Yes, it’s Ally’s. Okay now, it’s time to say bye bye! Bye Bye! (video ends)

E: What is it?…Ally, what is this thing? (E taps smartphone with finger)

(Ally looks up, frowns, looks back down at smartphone)

E: Ally, can you give your ‘ju ju’ (name for pacifier) to Auntie? Only then can you talk with Auntie.

(Ally takes pacifier out of mouth and hands it to E)

E: Thank you! Thank you! What is this thing? This thing, what is it, Ally? …….. Huh?

(Ally scratches her head, looks at E)

E: Ally, have you greeted Auntie? Have you greeted Auntie cousin?

A: Auntie cousin! (smiles)

E: Can we have a hug first? Kisses, kisses first? Mwa!

(Ally leans her body in for a hug, kisses E’s face)

E: Huh? What is it? What is this thing? Tell Auntie cousin what this is. Is it a ‘wai wai’ (‘Wai wai’ is the first greeting Chinese people say when answering the phone. Ally calls all phones ‘wai wai’)? Did your Mommy say you can watch the ‘wai wai’?

J:(from downstairs) That’s it. I haven’t yet. Did she bring out all her blankets and then is holding the ‘wai wai’?

E: Nope, just the ‘ju ju’

(Chloe squeals from downstairs where she is playing. Ally recognizes Chloe’s voice and looks up)

E: Ha? Who is it? Who is downstairs?

J: (gently reprimanding) Who just woke up and is already holding and playing with the ‘wai wai’?

The smartphone is an immediate draw for Ally and she knows where it is kept and how to access what she wants from it. Despite needing permission from her mother, it is the first thing she goes to when she wakes up. Her transition from nap to playing with the smartphone is effortless, as is shown by her ability to multitask: sucking on her soother while accessing her favourite video on the device as she walks downstairs to find her mother. She is transfixed by the video of herself (barely greets Eugene and needs prompting), while at the same time she has the social desire to share (turns the smartphone around to show Eugene what she is watching). The smartphone's ease of use seems to align with Ally’s capacity to handle so many things at once, including listening and responding to two different spoken languages.

Social interactions with toddlers, infants and iDevices

As Ally’s playmate, eight-month-old cousin Chloe takes an interest in whatever Ally is doing. This fact, in conjunction with Chloe’s fascination with iDevices, forces Ally to be constantly negotiating with Chloe during playtime around the smartphone and tablet. Ally quickly discovers that Chloe’s less developed style of play does not coordinate well with her own more controlled and sophisticated ways of navigating iDevices. Chloe’s fine motor development lags behind and only allows her to slam down on the screen with her palms. Ally uses her index fingers and thumbs to deftly manipulate the screen by tapping, swiping and expanding specific areas. As can be seen in video observation notes below, which exemplifies this interaction, Ally attempts to shut Chloe out by hugging the screen to her chest. In this observation, Ally has the tablet and wants to revisit the ‘Lion’ storybook app that her mother had introduced and shared with her during a previous observation. Ally is on the couch, tablet on her lap with Chloe playing on the floor nearby.

Transcript 3. Ally negotiates sharing the tablet with infant Chloe

A = Ally

E = Eugene

C = Chloe

Bold font indicates words spoken in Cantonese

A: (swiping her fingers across different objects on the ‘Goodnight Safari’ app to make the animals and trees move while also keeping her eye on Chloe)

E: What’s it doing, the giraffe?

(Ally looks at E, then down at Chloe)

E: Is it eating? Is the Giraffe eating?

A: (still looking at Chloe) Yes, it is. (Chloe has stopped what she was doing and is advancing towards Ally, walking along the couch. Ally hugs the tablet to her chest, staring at Chloe and protecting the tablet from Chloe’s immature hands.)

E: Chloe can’t touch you. You can put it down. She can’t reach you. You’re sitting up there. (Ally extends her legs so that Chloe can’t advance further towards her along the couch.) You can keep playing. Chloe can’t touch you. (Ally hugs tablet tighter to her chest, looks at Chloe. Then, Ally takes tablet in both hands and opens it up, places it on the couch for Chloe to see the screen with her together)

E: You’re letting Chloe play? (Ally has hands behind her back, nods slightly)

E: Oh! That’s nice! (Chloe has both palms on the edge of the tablet, looking at the screen with interest)

E: Tell Chloe what it is!

A: Giraffe!

E: Giraffe! What is the giraffe doing? (Ally watches Chloe with the tablet intently. Chloe taps the corner of the screen with one full palm).

A: (points) Here! Tap here!

E: Teach her how to tap, she doesn’t know how to tap. (Ally uses her index finger to swipe back and forth on the trees, which sway and make rustling sounds as she does this. Ally switches to tapping the rhino on the page and the rhino goes under water for a bath)

E: What does the rhino need to do? Is it taking a bath? (Ally taps the rhino harder with a full palm. Chloe watching Ally intently then slaps at the screen with both palms.)

E: Chloe, you have to be more gentle. Be gentle. Gentle. (Chloe slaps on the screen causing the app to pause and an options menu pops up. Ally quickly chooses the play button/triangle from the options menu and the app continues. Chloe continues her full palm slaps on the screen. Ally lifts the tablet up, away from Chloe and hugs it to her chest).

In this interaction, Ally’s hugging of the screen prevents Ally from accessing the screen herself and she soon discovers that this action bars both Chloe and her from playing on the tablet. Ally tries other strategies, such as moving away from Chloe, to sit on the couch onto which Chloe does not have the ability to climb. Interestingly, Ally wants to appease or pacify Chloe as well, and when she sees Chloe’s discontent, she allows Chloe to play on the tablet too and she invites Chloe to sit on the couch beside her. Ally seems to be constantly negotiating between her desire to explore the storybook app that she enjoyed so much with her mother and her social desire to hold Chloe off or invite her to play.

Social interactions with toddlers, adults and iDevices

Ally’s use of the smartphone and tablet almost always involves social interactions with her mother. This is contrary to the negative stereotype of children isolating themselves when using technology. Ally’s mother is constantly supervising Ally’s usage on the iDevices, e.g. looking over Ally’s shoulder to see what she is doing, commenting on her physical position (e.g. ‘Your face is too close to the screen’), giving Ally direct and explicit instructions about some element or sitting with Ally on her lap to share the activity.

One particular instance reveals a rich learning environment that can result in social interaction between mother and daughter sharing a storybook app about African safari animals on the tablet. In this instance, the storybook is interactive; animals move into and out of the page, the trees sway and the clouds move. Tapping on different objects causes the characters to move and the story to progress. As each page is turned, the story is read aloud as the words printed on the screen are highlighted. Ally largely ignores the storyteller’s voice, but her mother is listening intently to follow the story and the functions of the app. As illustrated in the observation notes below, the social interaction also involves bilingual language learning.

Transcript 4. Ally learns language through shared reading

E = Eugene

A = Ally

J = Ally’s mother

Bold font indicates words spoken in Cantonese

A: Watch Lion! (Points to the screen and looks up at her mother)

J: Watch Lion? Okay then, you tap. Tap the lion.

A: (Taps the ‘Goodnight Safari’ storybook app) It’s Lion!

J: Yeah? Is it Lion?

A: (Turns to E) It’s Lion!

E: Yes? Is it a lion?

J: What’s lion’s name in Chinese? Ally?

A: (Turns to look at her mother) Lion

J: Lion. Yes it is. What’s taking so long? (app loads) Wow! What’s that? Is it Lion? Where do you tap? (Ally is tapping randomly on the title page of the storybook app to get it to start)

J: Tap the centre. Tap higher? No, not tap the lion, tap the wood part on top. Higher!

E: Where do you tap?

J: Tap the ‘S’ character. Where is the ‘S’? (Ally looks for and finds the ‘S’ in ‘Safari’ and taps on it. The whole title moves.)

J: That’s right. Wow! It moves! (To E–) How come it doesn’t go after tapping the ‘Safari’ title? Oh! The blue play button!

E: Tap the blue part! (Pointing it out to Ally)

J: Tap the blue part! Oh yes! (The app loading symbol appears and everyone waits…The first page appears with a safari scene of zebras grazing near a tree) Wow! What are those?

A: (smiling) Cow cows!

J: Not cow cows, look closely! There are stripes. Stripes! What are they?

A: Zebras.

E: (amazed) Oh!

J: Zebras. What’s the English name for zebra?

A: Zee-bra!

J: Zebra! That’s right. What’s that flying thing?

A: Butterfly.

J: That’s right, butterfly. What is butterfly in Chinese? Try to catch the butterfly. Tap the butterfly. Can you touch it?

(Ally’s finger follows the butterfly flying around the screen, taps but misses, taps but misses. Taps the tree in the process and the tree shakes)

J: You can touch the small giraffe. The baby giraffe. Which one is the baby?

(Ally touches the smaller of the two giraffes)

J: Oh yes. Touch it again. Wow! What is it doing? Is it eating mum mums? What do giraffes eat?

A: Yes…‘Choy choy’ [‘Choy choy’ is the child’s version of ‘green leafy vegetable’ in Cantonese]

J: They are actually tree leaves.

A: Tree leaves.

J: That’s right. You can tap again on the giraffe to see if it will eat some more. Wow! You touch it and it eats tree leaves, is that right?

E: Tree leaves are also considered ‘choy choy’, aren’t they?

In this excerpt, Ally’s mother not only talks Ally through the entire story app, she also uses the opportunity to teach Ally English and Chinese vocabulary. Ally actively seeks this interaction with her mother to enjoy the app more fully by making efforts to maintain her mother’s undivided attention. Every detail on each page of the story was talked about by Ally’s mother to bring it to Ally’s attention. Ally thoroughly enjoys this experience, and the storybook app quickly becomes one of Ally’s ‘favourite’ things – she mentions it every time she thinks, or is reminded, of the tablet, exclaiming, ‘I want to see “Lion’ ” in Cantonese.

Bilingual language learning

Besides learning English through story apps on the iPad, Ally often learns English when her mother is using an iDevice. Ally’s mother is a continuous smartphone user – texting, sending photos, watching videos or using other apps. Ally’s mother often writes her text messages in English because it is faster to do so and the recipients of her text messages often only read English. During observations, Ally’s mother utters each word as she is texting.

In the excerpt below, Ally’s mother is texting but she is also sharing the texted message with Eugene. The topic of the text message is family related, and the anticipated recipient of the text is within Eugene’s family. In fact, the family has a series of ‘chat groups’ in a texting application on their smartphones that involves most of the members in the extended family. They use this to communicate family news, to share photos of their children or to organize family gatherings. Ally listens closely to her mother’s oral rehearsal and notices that her mother is not speaking Cantonese – the language that Ally herself understands. At the end of texting, Ally’s mother looks up to speak to Eugene in Cantonese, and Ally blurts out a string of sounds that resembles English.

Transcript 5. Ally negotiates with her mother in English and in Cantonese

E = Eugene

A = Ally

J = Ally’s mother

Bold font indicates words spoken in Cantonese

A: (Muttering sounds as she looks on at the smartphone screen on which her mother is typing)….. babeee….. bee….. jahe……… op…pop……

J: (Typing as she speaks) … Christmas ….. dinner…

A: (Let’s go of her mother’s arm and sits taller)… nothing…

J: (looks up from typing to speak to E) So, you don’t have anything prepared yet for Uncle, right?

E: I have a hat.

J: (Looks down to hit send) Okay. Just making sure because we are thinking to…

A: Be jah… bee… (trying to get the smartphone from her mother, climbing up to reach) beh!

J: (Holding smartphone out of reach) WAIT a second! (looking directly at Ally) Sit down. Sit down.

(Ally sits back down on her booster seat, looking disappointed, staring at the smartphone)

J: Mommy finish using it, then give it to you, okay? Mommy finish first, okay? Is that alright?

A: (Looks her mother in the eye, shakes her head) Not alright.

J: NOT ALRIGHT? (Frowns disapprovingly, half joking)

A: (Smiles) ALRIGHT!

J: (Turns back to her phone) If it’s not alright, then you don’t get to use it.

A: (Looks worried) I said, alright!

J: Okay then, Mommy’s going to finish typing. (types) Now… that… we… done… (continues muttering under her breath in English)

A: (Looking on with her mother) Done! …… Mommy done done done. All done!

J: (Still typing)… be ready for dinner ….. by… five…… Christmas… Prob…. bub… bleeee…… easier … if you…. Come….

A: Bub bee! …. Ap!…… bop….. bay cee! Bop….

J: (Looks up at E) You make dessert. Yes.

A: (At the same time) BAB BAY CEE ABBA ABBLA BEE BEE BOP! (pretending to speak in English)

J: (Looking thoughtfully at E) or maybe we can…… hmmm I really don’t know…..

A: (Reverts to an English song she knows) Up above the world so high, bup pa bup pa

J: What did we eat last year, did we eat ham? (Notices daughter singing and smiles at her)

A: Woah so high, lie gga diamonnn inna sky… twinkle twinkle liddle star, how I wonder wha you are! (Smiling at her mother and at E)

J: High five! (mother daughter exchange hand slaps)

A: Up above da worl so high. Ligga diamonnn in da sky….. (continues singing)

J: It’s non-stop, this song.

E: It’s a loop!

J: Yes!

This vignette shows that Ally is fully aware of the ‘other’ language that her family speaks and shows her desire to become an English speaker as well. It also shows the act of text-messaging as a shared, though unintentional, practice between mother and daughter.

Emergent literacy and language learning mediated by iDevices

Learning to count in English with iDevices

Ally was explicitly taught how to count to 10 in Cantonese by her family members (parents, grandparents) at home. However, as her mother can attest, she learned to count to five in English by watching YouTube videos on her mother’s smartphone. The family reinforces the learning from the counting song by also counting with Ally when she begins to count in English. During the interview with Ally’s mother, Jill, reveals an interesting tidbit – one of the videos also counts backwards in English. Hence, Ally has learned to count down from 10 in English, solely from watching the YouTube video, which she accesses on her own, on her mother’s smartphone.

Learning the alphabet with iDevices

Ally began to learn the alphabet at 18 months when she showed interest in coloured alphabet foamy toys at a relative’s house. Her mother then bought Ally her own set of foamy letters to play with and, during that play, J would help Ally name the letters. By 20 months, Ally could name all 26 letters by sight and find specific letters from a jumbled pile when requested to do so. During this time, her learning was also reinforced by a YouTube video, which showcased the alphabet through song, which Ally accessed on her mother’s smartphone. In addition, Ally’s mother downloaded an alphabet letter-naming game app, and scaffolded Ally’s play on this app.

Learning songs for toddlers in English with iDevices

Ally mainly learns songs for toddlers from her mother and all of these songs are in English. Her mother may get ideas and learn songs herself from ‘Babytime’ (a parent-and-child activity time at the local library) or by watching YouTube videos. Hence, Ally also accesses English songs and rhymes for toddlers by watching YouTube videos on her mother’s smartphone or the family’s tablet. These songs are reinforced by other family members singing along and doing the accompanying body gestures with Ally. Ally is able to access the songs she likes to hear on her mother’s smartphone on her own, in the history section of the YouTube app.

Vocabulary learning

The smartphone and tablet that Ally has access to are both set to English in the Language Settings mode, even though Ally’s household speaks primarily Cantonese. Ally’s parents are literate in both English and Chinese, but they use English platforms on their devices as English. Hence, when Ally uses these iDevices, she is dealing with English – a language that is not often spoken in her home. When Ally’s mother is scaffolding Ally’s play on iDevices, she speaks her directions in Cantonese. However, when it comes to naming things on the game apps or storybook apps, Ally’s mother will often speak both the Cantonese and the English name for Ally. In this way, Ally has learnt the names of animals – farm animals, jungle animals, safari animal and ocean creatures – in both Cantonese and English.

Discussion

The proliferation of digital tools in this new century has encouraged researchers to consider how very young children interact with these tools. This study has demonstrated how infants and toddlers may engage with new technology in the home, independently, socially and in ways that develop their emerging literacy.

First, Ally’s independent interactions with iDevices show an array of activities that, at less than two years of age, are multiple, sophisticated and playful. She is able to take photos, access and view these photos and videos, and access and interact with apps specifically downloaded for her enjoyment.

Razfar and Yang (2010) identify play as a multimodal literacy practice that is a ‘pivotal activity for children’s literacy development’ (117). They define this play as the ability to dynamically manipulate signs and symbols in order to engage in oral narratives and explore notions of ‘self’. Ally has been observed engaging in this type of play in two ways. She explores notions of ‘self’ by accessing the photo app and looking specifically for photos and videos of herself. Skipping over videos if they do not show her indicates that she is in the process of developing the concept of identity. In addition, she is also showing herself off to others when she shares a photo or video that depicts her. This illustrates how she understands the notion of ‘self’ in relation to the ‘other’. A second example of Ally engaging in play by manipulating signs is when she uses the camera app to take photos. Though she does not necessarily understand the concept of ‘taking a photo’ – that the resulting image reflects what is captured – all her actions are sequenced to imitate photo taking as she has observed from others. In other words, she is pretending to take a photo and the fact that she is actually doing so through this play occurs – the technology becomes the object of the play.

Second, it is apparent that the iDevices in the toddler’s home influence her social interactions with others. Again, according to Razfar and Yang (2010), digital devices are among the semiotic tools that mediate children’s participation, negotiation and interaction in cultural and social practices. In this study, Ally interacts both culturally and socially with her family members through her smartphone and tablet activities. Ally’s family members are constantly mediating her use of symbolic tools (iDevices) simply because an iDevice belongs to that member and they have a vested interest that Ally does not accidently Skype or text someone inadvertently, or delete photos, contacts and apps. Hence, Ally’s interaction on these iDevices is, more often than not, a shared activity, which makes it inherently social. As Rogoff (1990) suggests, Ally’s development in using iDevices results from her interaction, social peripheral participation and the interaction in watching and observing others, and the context of the community and the shared values of the people within it. This, in our view, is an essential factor in supporting Ally to engage in embodied meaning making as she is given the opportunity to play with, covet and explore devices in ways that she enjoys and interest her.

At the same time, in this social milieu, Ally learns the languages of Cantonese and English through her interactions with her mother as they work through shared activities on the iDevices. They work fluidly in both languages and, as a result, Ally develops her bilingual and biliterate identity.

Finally, building on the idea that iDevices mediate social interaction in which children can be assisted with learning dual language learning, we believe that iDevices can serve to develop emergent literacy in young children. For example, some studies (e.g. Kim and Anderson, 2008) have concluded that print-book interactions lasted longer than e-book interactions because the participants had more control over print-based media (i.e. e-books included an audio reading of the story which controlled page-turning). In our observations of Ally and her mother with the ‘Goodnight Safari’ storybook app, however, this did not seem to be a factor. The storybook app afforded a great deal of interactivity between Ally and the app and Ally and her mother because of its design. It allowed for the child to explore each page before moving on and we witnessed deep and complex communication between mother and child during this episode. Ally’s mother listened intently to the story’s audio in order to figure out which parts were interactive. She pointed out each animal and aspect of the page for Ally to try tapping them because the app afforded this type of exploration – that is, one didn’t know what parts were going to be interactive until one tried interacting with them. Everything from the animals to the trees, the clouds and the sky itself moved when touched in this app. In addition, there was very obvious language learning as Ally’s mother asked Ally for both the English and Cantonese names for each animal. Ally’s experience is more comparable with the findings in Smith’s (2001) study, in which the focal child developed motor skills and more independent reading. This was also similar to later observations of Ally as she explored the same storybook app on her own. In Ally’s case, the interactive storybook app was a highly beneficial experience for Ally’s literacy and language development. We concur, however, with Merchant’s (2015) conclusions regarding story-app design issues. As he justly points out, some apps afford much more discussion and interest, particularly those connected to children’s out-of-school literacy lives and children’s consumption and production of popular culture.

Although Ally is much younger than school-age children, her activities on the smartphone and tablet reflect the idea of digital mediation when she accesses YouTube to find videos of her favourite toddler tunes. The images and music entice her – they are ‘pop culture’ for toddlers; in addition, she is learning English vocabulary, the alphabet and counting. We see Ally being an active learner as she follows the ‘Counting Fire Trucks’ video, anticipating and shouting out each number before they even appear. As Ally’s mother can attest, Ally is actually learning to count in English by watching these videos. In her interview Ally’s mother states, ‘Ally learnt to count backwards…. Just by watching those videos … yes, in English. We do not speak English with her and usually count in Cantonese …’ In the same transcript, we also see Ally searching for videos that she knows and is familiar with, identifying them by the characters in them. This shows her ability to relate to and make connections between popular characters and the real people in her life. In fact, Ally specifically searches for ‘Grandpa’ in the video as the farmer in the ‘Old MacDonald’ video resembles her own grandfather. Thus, technology can play a critical role in the identity and literacy development of young children.

Conclusion

Wohlwend (2010) voices pertinent questions in the minds of parents and educators alike: ‘Shouldn’t these children be engaged in hands-on explorations rather than glued to computer screens? Or making mud pies and building with wooden blocks rather than clicking, clicking, clicking …?’ (144). But, Wohlwend also asks the fundamental questions: ‘But do we really see these children? Do we understand them as emergent users of new literacies and new technologies?’ (144). It was our intention to begin to address these fundamental questions. We attempted to closely see what infants and toddlers do, and how they interact and make meaning with iDevices, and attempt to understand Ally as an emergent user of the new literacies and new technologies of iDevices. What we saw was the great potential for language and literacy development as well as the importance of the social to mediate appropriate use of iDevices.

There is no doubt that many children in developed countries are growing up in a digital, multimodal and mobile culture where being multi-literate is essential, yet increasingly complex. A brief look into the toddler world in this current digital culture shows how iDevices are incorporated into the young child’s everyday life and become one of the semiotic tools through which a child engages in meaning making. In our view, there is a critical need for more research in this area because of the very young ages of our children who are affected. These digital mobile devices are readily accessible to children at the stage when they are afforded the most knowledge from their learning and sociocultural environment. Further research in this field would not only benefit parents in learning to guide usage around mobile devices but also inform educators about the breadth of digital literacies that children bring when they enter formal schooling as well as continually bringing from their family, community and cultural environments.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

Morrison

(2011) Learning from/with immigrant and refugee families in a family literacy program. In: Lazar

Schmidt

(eds) Practicing What We Teach How Culturally Responsive Literacy Classrooms Make a Difference, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 30–38.

Anderson

Friedrich

et al. (2010) Taking stock of family literacy: Some contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 10(1): 33–53.

Bearne

EVE

(2009) Multimodality, literacy and texts: Developing a discourse. [Article]. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(2): 156–187.

Bissex

(1980) GYNS at WRK: A Child Learns to Read and Write, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

(1989) Ecological systems theory. In: Vasta

(ed.) Annals of Child Development, Greenwich, CT: JAI, pp. 187–251.

Bruner

(1975) From communication to language: a psychological perspective. Cognition 3: 255–287.

Burnett

(2010) Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 10(3): 247–270.

Burnett

Merchant

(2014) Points of view: reconceptualising literacies through an exploration of adult and child interactions in a virtual world. Journal of Research in Reading 37(1): 36–50.

10.

Common Sense Media (2014) Zero to eight: Children's media use in America 2013. [Article]. Education Digest 79(6): 59–63.

11.

Davidson

(2012) Seeking the green basilisk lizard: Acquiring digital literacy practices in the home. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(1): 24–45.

12.

Flewitt

Nind

Payler

(2009) ‘If she's left with books she'll just eat them’: Considering inclusive multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(2): 211–233.

13.

Geist

(2012) A qualitative examination of two-year-olds' interaction with tablet based interactive technology. [Report]. Journal of Instructional Psychology 39(1): 26+.

14.

Genishi

Dyson

(2009) Children’s Language and Literacy: Diverse Learners in Diverse Times, New York: Teachers College Press.

15.

Goldstein

(2008) Teaching the standards is developmentally appropriate practice: Strategies for incorporating the sociopolitical dimension of DAP in early childhood teaching. Early Childhood Development and Care 36: 253–260.

16.

Heath

(1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms, New York: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Jewitt

(2008) Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education 32: 241–267.

18.

Kim

Anderson

(2008) Mother—child shared reading with print and digital texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 8(2): 213–245.

19.

Kress

(2005) Communication now and in the future. Discussion paper for the English 21 Project: United Kingdom Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Available at: http://www.qca.org.uk/12292html (accessed 23 May 2016).

20.

Lauricella

Wartella

Rideout

(2015) Young children's screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36: 11–17.

21.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.

22.

McTavish

(2007) Constructing the big picture: A working class family supports their daughter's pathways to literacy. The Reading Teacher 60(5): 476–485.

23.

McTavish

(2009) “I get my facts from the Internet”: A case study of the teaching and learning of information literacy in school and out-of-school contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(1): 3–28.

24.

Merchant

(2015) Keep taking the tablets: iPads, story apps and early literacy. [Article]. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy 38(1): 3–11.

25.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

et al. (1992) Funds of knowledge: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice 31(1): 132–141.

26.

Mui

Anderson

(2008) At home with the Johars: Another look at family literacy. The Reading Teacher 62(3): 234–243.

27.

O’Mara

Laidlaw

(2011) Living in the iWorld: Two literacy researchers reflect on the changing texts and literacy practices of childhood. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 10(4): 149–159.

28.

Razfar

Gutiérrez

(2003) Reconceptualizing early childhood literacy: The sociocultural influence. In: Hall

Larson

Marsh

(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, London: Sage, pp. 33–47.

29.

Razfar A and Yang E (2010) Digital, hybrid, & multilingual literacies in early childhood. Language Arts 88(2): 114–124.

30.

Rideout

(2013) Zero to Eight: children’s media use in America 2013. Available at: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013.

31.

Rogoff

(1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Contexts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32.

Rogoff

(2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development, New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Smith

(2001) Click and turn the page: An exploration of multiple storybook literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 36(2): 152–183.

34.

Verenikina

Kervin

(2011) iPads, digital play and preschoolers. He Kupu 2(5): 4–19.

35.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, et al., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Wertsch

(1985) Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37.

Wohlwend

(2010) A is for avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and literacy in 1.0 schools. Language Arts 88(2): 144–152.