See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353185722

Mother-Toddler Shared Reading with Electronic versus Print Books: Mothers’

Language Use and Perspectives

Article  in  Early Education and Development · July 2021

DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2021.1943638

CITATION READS

1 257

3 authors, including:

X. Christine Wang Youngae Choi

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
66 PUBLICATIONS   977 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

School effectiveness and school improvement View project

School-based curriculum development in Chinese kindergartens View project

All content following this page was uploaded by X. Christine Wang on 14 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Early Education and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Mother-Toddler Shared Reading with Electronic

versus Print Books: Mothers’ Language Use and
Perspectives

Corinne Eggleston, X. Christine Wang & Youngae Choi

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

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1943638

Published online: 11 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heed20
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1943638

Mother-Toddler Shared Reading with Electronic versus Print Books:

Mothers’ Language Use and Perspectives
Corinne Egglestona, X. Christine Wang a
, and Youngae Choib
a
Fisher-Price Endowed Early Childhood Research Center, Graduate School of Education, State University of New York at
Buffalo; bSchool of Education, Nevada State College

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 wangxc@buffalo.edu 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.

Mothers’ Language Use in Shared Reading

During mother-child shared reading, language is used as a psychological tool for a variety of purposes.
This section discusses mothers’ language use during shared reading using print books, e-books, and
then offers a comparison of these two reading contexts.

Shared Reading of Print Books

Researchers have long investigated mothers’ language use during parent-child shared reading of
traditional picture books at home. For example, Makin’s (2006) study on interactions of 10 dyads of
8–12-month-olds and their mothers found various strategies used by mothers across the dyads. The
most frequently observed strategy was using literacy-related terms (e.g., book, page, read) and
strategies to build oral language and cognition beyond the text such as labeling (vocabulary introduc­
tion), extending simple sentences, or asking extension questions (concept introduction). In addition,
mothers frequently made efforts to connect characters or happenings in the books with events in the
child’s life, e.g., “I think Baby Bear’s learning to walk, like you” (Makin, 2006). However, Britto et al.’s
(2006) study presented somewhat contradictory results. Based on their analysis of timing of mothers’
talk, decontextualized language use, expressive language use, labeling questions, and positive feedback
during joint reading of 126 mothers and their 25-month-olds or younger children, Britto et al. (2006)
identified two main styles of mothers’ roles: story-readers and story-tellers. While story-reader
mothers mostly read the story to their children, story-teller mothers encouraged their children to
make connections with the book as well as used labeling questions and provided positive feedback
before, during, and after reading the text, which are similar to the frequently observed strategies in
Makin (2006). But only a minority of the mothers (27 out of 126) were labeled as story-tellers. These
inconsistent findings might be related to the different sample sizes in these two studies (10 dyads in
Makin and 126 dyads in Brito et al.) and other potential contributing factors discussed below.
Mothers’ language use is found to be influenced by three main factors including book type,
children’s age, and mothers’ familiarity with books. Although our study does not directly address
these factors, research on these factors informs the design of our study. Regarding book type, Fletcher
and Finch (2015) investigated 11 mothers’ reading strategies with their 2- and 3-year-olds using three
different types of books – word book, narrative book, and no-narrative book (i.e., informational text
that does not have a storyline). They found that the mothers offered more reading text and questions
for verbal response with a word book, while labeling, positive feedback, questions for yes/no answers
with a narrative book. With a no-narrative book, more expansions, labeling, and positive motivating
occurred. Similarly, Potter and Haynes (2000) examined 20 mothers and their 2-year-olds reading
narrative and informational books and found that the mothers asked more questions, used more
labels, and provided more feedback to their children with informational books compared to the
narrative books. Based on these studies and considering the average age (12.7 months) of participating
children in our study, we chose a no-narrative/informational book because it would allow more salient
interactions between mothers and children (e.g., asking questions, labeling, providing feedback).
Children’s age can play a role in mothers’ language use. For example, Senechal et al. (1995) explored
12 parent-child dyads from each of these three age groups: 9-, 17-, and 27 months and found that
parent verbalizations changed based on the age of the child. Parents of younger children employed
more attention grabbing or labeling verbalizations and elaborations (e.g., vocabulary and concept
introduction), while parents of older children used more questioning and feedback.
However, McArthur et al. (2005) found limited age-related differences in mothers’ language use.
Instead, mothers’ familiarity with books influenced their strategies. Thirty-six mothers predominantly
involved identification, naming, and description of characters, actions, and places with their 2-3-year-
olds at the beginning. In the subsequent rereading of the same book over two weeks, a total of eight
4 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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.

Shared Reading of E-books

Two recent systematic reviews of research on e-book reading with young children – Herodotou (2018)
and Reich et al. (2016), – identified a lack of study with children under 2. In addition, no study
examined mothers’ language use in the e-book shared reading context alone. Due to the dearth of
study in this area, this section focuses on how e-books’ multimedia features such as visuals, audio, and
animations may afford children unique reading experiences. Although the literature does not discuss
mothers’ experiences and language use with e-books, we believe the insights from children’s e-book
experiences are still relevant for our study (e.g., how mothers may mediate children’s direct interaction
with e-books).
Affordances of e-books vary in their design ranging from simple digitized versions of a printed
book, to digital versions with additional electronic features, and finally books made only in digital
form with a multitude of interactive media features (Christ et al., 2019; Hoffman & Paciga, 2014).
These multimedia features may have mixed effects on young children’s reading experience. On the one
hand, these features assist young children who do not decode words yet to comprehend words or book
content (Silverman & Hines, 2009). For example, when Winnie the Witch is furious because she
stumbled again over her black cat in her black house and turns the black cat into a colorful cat to make
him visible, the happy tune stops and turns into atonal sounds (Bus et al., 2015). The animation and
sounds help young children understand the scene and the emotions. Animated pictures and illustra­
tions that integrate images, language, and motion can also help direct children’s attention to new
words or clues for comprehension (Christ et al., 2019; Takacs et al., 2014). If verbal narrations and
nonverbal auditory and visual features are congruent, it can assist children to infer word meaning or
characters’ emotions (Christ et al., 2019). Thus, Verhallen et al. (2006) concluded that motion pictures,
background sounds, and music can be supportive of emergent literacy and language development.
This is especially true if a parent lacks skill to engage with language in varied ways during shared
reading, children can be supported by multimedia features of e-books. On the other hand, e-books
with sound, animations, and games can distract children and reduce learning especially when the
features are incongruent with the book content (Christ et al., 2019; Reich et al., 2016).
These studies in this burgeoning field indicate children’s reading experiences and outcomes are
mediated by the design of digital features (Abdelhadi, 2020). A more important issue is how the digital
features are used and their impact on learning outcomes. To address this, Dore et al. (2018) compared
how three different usages of the audio narration feature of e-books affected preschoolers’
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 5

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.

Comparison of Electronic and Print Books

As we review above, multimedia features make e-books fundamentally different from print books and
could potentially impact mother-child interaction during the shared reading of e-books. A few studies
tackled this issue by comparing parent-child shared reading of electronic and print books and yielded
mixed results.
Several studies found significant differences in parent-child interactions while reading electronic
versus print books. For example, Parish-Morris et al. (2013) observed 165 parents and their 3-year-old
children as they read either an e-book or a print book. Parents who read a print book with their
children made more content-related utterances and encouraged their children to relate story content
to their own emotional experiences (e.g., “Would you be happy if you had a big bowl of ice cream like
Clifford?”). In contrast, parents who read an e-book displayed significantly more book format-related
language by asking children to interact with specific elements of the screen such as “Click here,” “Turn
the page, or “Touch the puppy and it will play a song!” Similar results were reported by Lauricella
et al. (2014) who studied 39 parents and their 4-year-olds reading both an e-book and a print book.
They noticed that parents adjusted their language use and interaction strategies based on the book
format.
Going beyond content vs. book format focused interaction, Krcmar and Cingel (2014) explored
parents’ language use with six verbal categories including evaluative comments, questions, directives,
correctives, affirmations, and answers to direct questions from a child. The comments were further
categorized into three groups including those related to book contents and storyline, the book format,
or the environment (e.g., “Please don’t climb on me”). Participants were 70 parents and their children
(ages 24–52 months) reading two similar stories, one is a print book and the other is on an iPad screen
without interactive features. Results showed that parents spontaneously offered more story-related
comments and asked more story-related questions when reading a print book, while making more
distracted comments that were related to book format or environment with an e-book. Similarly,
Munzer et al. (2019) investigated 37 parent-toddler (ages 24–36 months) dyads reading of three book
formats (enhanced electronic with sound effects and/or animation, basic electronic, and print) and
focused on both verbal and non-verbal interactions. With the print book, they found parents showed
significantly more dialogic, text-reading, off-task, and total verbalizations and fewer format-related
verbalizations than with either basic or enhanced e-books. Accordingly, toddlers displayed more
book-related verbalizations, total verbalizations, and higher collaboration scores with print-book
reading.
A similar result was observed by Korat and Segal-Drori (2016) with kindergarten children. Using
print books, mothers engaged in expanding talk more frequently, for example, relating to language or
print, relating to personal experience, using action description of characters or objects, and naming
characters or objects. However, in an intervention study that trained mothers to provide a range of
support during shared reading, Korat et al. (2013) found mothers provided their kindergartners
significantly more high-level support (discussing children’s personal experience, elaborating content
comprehension via distancing, discussing language and print in the book) in the e-book group than
6 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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.

Parents’ Perspectives on Using Electronic and Print Books

Parents’ perspectives on using electronic and print books can play an important role in their language
use and actions during shared reading with their children. While Common Sense Media (2017)
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 7

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.

The Present Study

To address the gaps (i.e., a lack of research involving toddlers and on mothers’ perspectives) identified
by the literature review, we investigated mothers and 12-month-old toddlers shared reading of
electronic and print versions of the same book.
We asked (1) Does the shared reading with electronic or print books generate differences in
mothers’ language use? If so, how do they differ? Due to the mixed results of the existing literature,
we cautiously hypothesized that shared reading context would result in differences in mothers’
language use. To gain further insight into mothers’ perspectives, specifically their satisfaction level
toward shared reading with electronic and print books, we then asked the following question (2) How
do mothers perceive and explain their satisfaction of using an e-book and a print book in shared
reading with their toddlers? Based on the literature, we hypothesized that mothers would have higher
satisfaction with the print book than the e-book.
This study has potentially important implications. Theoretically, it is important to understand if
and how mothers engage young toddlers similarly or differently with electronic versus print books.
This understanding can help us identify strengths and weaknesses of these two different book formats
in terms of learning opportunities they provide for mother-toddler engagement during their shared
reading. Practically, such understanding can inform parents and caregivers on their choices of e-books
and print books, as well as on their roles and strategies to scaffold young children’s learning during
parent-child shared reading.

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.

Materials and Instrument

The children’s book used for this study was the 1940’s classic, Pat the Bunny, written by Dorothy
Kunhardt. Both the electronic and print versions of the book offer a multimodal, expository experi­
ence for readers including the blend of two or more modes such as written language, visual, audio,
gestural, and spatial literary representation (New London Group, 1996).
The existing literature suggests that toddlers participate in shared-reading experiences with more
expository than narrative books (e.g., Pelligrini et al., 1990; Potter & Haynes, 2000). The print version
of this touch-and-feel book is referenced as “the original interactive, multimedia experience for kids”
(Amazon, 2014) (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FzFFx0DzLw). It contains fun features
including things to touch, elements to smell, things to move, and hidden surprises behind small
peek-a-boo flaps. The e-book version is an award-winning iPad application from Penguin Random
House (2011). It is a modernized version of the book including interactive features for children to tap,
swipe and explore with music and playful sound effects (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
sHryMwL-IRk).
The survey used to gain insight into mothers’ perspectives and preference of each book version was
comprised of 2 main questions: how satisfied were you with the e-book version of Pat the Bunny and
how satisfied were you with the print version of Pat the Bunny? Each was presented in five-point
Likert-type scale format and asked mothers to rate satisfaction with the electronic and print versions,
as very unsatisfied (1) and very satisfied (5). For each question, mothers were given space to provide
further explanation for their rating.

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.

Transcribing and Coding

All mother-toddler dyads shared reading sessions were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions of
mothers’ language (verbal and nonverbal) were coded by adapting the Inventory of Communicative
Acts-Abridged (INCA-A) classification system, which was developed by Ninio et al. (1994) based on
the originally more extensive version, INCA (Ninio & Wheeler, 1986). In full, the INCA-A coding
scheme is comprised of 24 types of talk. Based on the empirical research used to inform this study and
initial review of mother/toddler transcriptions, five forms of languages were identified for our analysis.
Definition and example of the five selected codes are listed in Table 1 in order of language complexity
from the simplest to the most complex. This coding system was developed with the intent to score
communicative intents within natural interactions (Yont et al., 2003). Nonverbal body language and
actions that often accompanied verbal statements such as hand over hand guidance, pointing, or
celebratory hand clapping were used to help interpret mothers’ intention and language types as well.
To ensure the rigor within analysis of the data, inter-rater reliability was assessed, a process
whereby transcriptions were independently coded, and the codes were then compared for agreements
(Armstrong et al., 1997). Coding was completed by the first author and a research assistant through
collaborative discussion to resolve differences. Interrater agreement between the two coders was
calculated for 25% of the data and yielded agreements of 88% (Kelly, 1977) and Cohen’s kappa of
0.83 (95% confident interval) (Viera & Garrett, 2005).

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,

Table 1. INCA-a definitions & examples.

Code INCA-A Definition Example
Direct Attention To achieve joint focus of attention by directing a child’s attention to Look! Look! (pointing to the book) Are
(DIA) objects, persons or event. you ready?
Marking (MRK) To praise You did it! Good job!
Discussion of Joint To hold a conversation about something in the environment that That’s a bunny.; It’s soft.
Focus (DJF) participants are attending to such as objects, persons or event.
Negotiate Negotiate the immediate environment You try!; Okay your turn.; Let’s try this
Immediate one.
Activity (NIA)
Discussion Related To discuss non-observable attributes of objects or persons in the Look a birthday party (pointing to the
to Present (DRP) environment. book). You had a birthday party!
10 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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

Table 3. Marking (Nate and His Mother).

E-book Print Book
1. Mother (reading text): Judy can play peek- a-boo with Paul. 1. Mother (reading text): Judy can play peek-a-boo with Paul.
Now you play peek-a-book with Paul. Now you play peek-a-book with Paul.
2. Nate: (Watches the screen, but squirms a bit.) 2. Nate: (Looks at page in book.)
3. Mother: Ready? [DA] 3. Mother: Let’s say peek-a-boo (lifting pee-a-boo flap in book)
4. Nate: (reengages and watches the screen). [NIA]
5. Mother: Peek-a-boo! (swiping the peek-a-boo feature on the 4. Nate: (Lifts flap independently).
screen) [DJF] 5. Mother: Peek-a-boo! [DJF]
6. Nate: (Begins to bat and then swipes at the screen using the 6. Nate: (Smiles and let’s go of peek-a-boo flap).
same hand motion as mother). 7. Mother: Next page? [NIA]
7. E-book: (Makes swish sound).
8. Mother: Good job! (excitedly) [MRK]
9. Nate: (Swipes the screen again and giggles).
10. E-book: (Makes swish sound again)
11. Mother: You’re doing it! [MRK]
12. Nate: Eh! (excited squeal, continues to swipe finger across
the peek-a-boo feature)
13. Mother: Yes, you did it! [MRK]
12 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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.

Discussion of Joint Focus

Discussions of joint focus (DJF) (F(1,59) = 9.751, p < .01, = .144) appeared significantly more often
during mother-toddler shared reading of print book than e-book. The medium effect, = .144, further
extends the significant finding and highlights the vast difference between the two book formats. The
interaction between the mother and Emily vividly illustrates such a difference (Table 4). Reading the
print version of Pat the Bunny (see the Print column), Emily’s mother identified what was heard
(line 1) and what was making the sound (lines 3 and 6) while physically shaking the book to arouse
Emily’s curiosity and excitement. When she responded enthusiastically to the rattling sound (lines 2, 4,
5, 7, 9), Emily’s mother followed with inquiry, description and encouragement for Emily to make the
rattling sound herself (lines 10 and 12). During the e-book session (see the e-book column), Emily’s
mother read the text and followed the prompts of the e-book (lines 1, 3, 5). But she did not further
discuss what was seen on the page except encouraging Emily to follow the e-book’s prompts by using
praise (line 7) and hand-over-hand guidance (line 3). In this example, Emily’s mother engaged in
a great deal more discussions of joint focus (DJF) in the print condition (4) than in the e-book
condition (0).
Similarly, in Table 5 (see the Print column), Cale’s mother first pointed and identified what is on the
page (line 1). While guiding Cale to pat the bunny or feel the soft fur, she identified a physical
characteristic (“It is soft”) and labeled the object of their joint focus (“You pet the bunny”) (see lines 5
& 7). During the shared reading of the e-book (see the E-book column), Cale’s mother first identified
the bunny seen on the screen as well (line 1). But she then took a different role as she repeated
commands given by the e-book (line 3) and negotiated their joint involvement of waving and page
turning (lines 6, 8, 12). She ended with a praising “you did it” as Cale taped the screen to turn the page
(line 15). In this example, although the mother engaged in a similar amount of DJF (3 vs. 2), the nature
of her DJF differed in these two contexts.
This finding suggests that the print book offers more opportunities for DJF and increases use of
labels, description and inquiry, which could potentially enhance concept and vocabulary development
(Makin, 2006).

Table 4. Discussion of joint focus (Emily and Her Mother).

E-book
1. Mother (reading text): Squeak loves making music in the
kitchen. Can you make music?
2. Emily: (Looks at page on the screen.)
3. Mother: (Holding Emily’s hand to guide her to activate the
music making feature.)
4. e-book: Can you do that again?
5. Mother: Oh! Do it again! [NIA]
6. Emily: (Touches the screen and music sounds plays.)
7. Mother: Good job! [MRK]
Print Book
1. Mother: I think I hear a rattle! [DJF]
2. Emily: (Looks at page.)
3. Mother: (shaking the page) Oh my goodness buttons! [DJF]
4. Emily: (Continues to look at the page.)
5. Mother (reading text): Judy can shake mommy’s button box, now
you shake mommy’s button box.
5. Emily: Eh! (excited squeal)
6. Mother: What is that? (pointing to button box on page) [DJF]
7. Emily: (Smiles and reaches for the book.)
8. Mother: Rattle, rattle, rattle go the buttons (reading the text while
shaking the page)
9. Emily: (Leans in and watches page closely.)
10: Mother: (shaking page again) Hear the buttons rattle, rattle,
rattle? [DJF]
11. Emily: (Giggles and reaches for the book.)
12. Mother: Can you shake the button box? [NIA]
13. Emily: (Shakes page with Mother’s help.)
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 13

Table 5. Discussion of joint focus (Cale and His Mother).

E-book
1. Mother: Yeah! It’s a bunny! (bunny is
waving on screen) [DJF]
2. Cale: (Waves his hand.)
3. Mother: Is he waving? [DJF]
4. Cale: (Bats at the bunny on the screen.)
5. E-book: Can you do that again?
6. Mother: Can you? Can you wave? [NIA]
7. Cale: (Waves hand in bye-bye motion.)
8. Mother: Shall we do the next page?
[NIA]
9. Cale: (Crawls away.)
10. Mother: Look, help mommy. [DA]
11. Cale: (Turns around and crawls back to
mother.)
12. Mother: Help mommy do the next
page. [NIA]
13. Cale: (Bats at the screen.)
14. E-book: (Makes a page-turning sound)
15. Mother: You did it! Good job! [MRK]
Print Book
1. Mother: See the bunny? (pointing to bunny on the page) [DJF]
2. Cale: (Looks at the book.)
3. Mother: Are you ready? [DA]
4. Cale: (Sits in mothers lap.)
5. Mother: (reading text) Judy can pat the bunny. Now you can pat the bunny.
(Holding Cale’s hand to guide him to pat the bunny.)
4. Cale: Eh! Eh! (excitedly responds)
5. Mother: It’s soft. (referring to bunny) [DJF] (Continuing to hold Cale’s hand to guide
him to pat the bunny.)
6. Cale: (Watches their hands as they pat the soft bunny.)
7. Mother: You pet the bunny. [DJF]

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

Table 6. Direction attention (James and His Mother).

E-book
1. James: (Plays on the floor with toys.)
2. Mother (reading text): Judy can play peek-a-boo with Paul.
Now you play peek-a-boo.
[DA]
3. James: (Walks over to mother who is holding iPad and
looks at the screen.)
4. Mother: Huh! Look at that! [DJF]
5. James: (Reaches for screen and taps.)
6. Mother: Do you see him? (pointing to boy on screen) Say
Peek-a-boo! [DJF]
7. James: (Slaps at screen. Nothing happens on the screen.)
8. Mother: Do you want to press the next page? Press right
here (pointing to place on screen). [NIA]
9: James: (Taps where Mother has pointed. The book turns to
the next page.)
10. Mother (reading text): There are ducks in the pond. Make
them swim back and forth.
11. James: (Looks at the screen.)
12. Mother: Can you do it? [NIA]
13. James: (Swipes at the screen. The ducks on the screen
swim back and forth.)
Print Book
1. James: (Plays on the floor with toys.)
2. Mother: You ready? (pointing to the book to direct James’
attention) [DA]
3. James: (Looks up at Mother.)
4. Mother: Okay bud, come here. Let’s have it turned this way (She
positions book in proper direction). [DA]
5. James: (Crawls onto Mother’s lap.)
6. Mother (reading text): Pat the Bunny
7. James: (Closes front cover.)
8. Mother: Hang on. Look! Look! (pointing to bunny on the page)
[DA]
9. James: (Looks down at the book.)
10. Mother (reading text): Judy can pat the bunny.
11. James: (Begins to wiggle.)
12. Mother: Look here! [DA]
13. James: (Stops wiggling and looks at the page.)
14 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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.

Negotiation of the Immediate Activity

No significant difference was found in mother’s negotiations of the immediate activity. It means that
mothers used phrases related to playful turn taking and physical interaction with the touch-and-feel
elements of both book versions similarly. Proportionally, this was the most commonly observed form
of language used by mothers in the shared reading with the e-book and the second highest with the
print book (M = .383 [SD = .117], M= .347 [SD = .107]), respectively.
This form of language was used for two common purposes: (1) to negotiate turn taking between
mom and toddler and (2) to propose toddlers’ physical participation and play within the shared
reading interaction. As seen in Table 3 (Print column), reading the print book, Nate’s mother
negotiated their play and turn taking while playing peek-a-boo (“Let’s say peek-a-boo” – line 3) and
in their decision when to move on to the next page (“Next page?” – line 7). Similarly, reading the
e-Book (see Table 6, E-Book column), James’ mother negotiated play with the ducks on the screen
(“Can you do it?” – line 12) and whether to turn to the next page (“Do you want to press the next page?
Press right here” – line 8). These examples illustrate the similar actions and purpose of NIA in shared
reading of both electronic and print books. This suggests that both books offer similar opportunity for
mother-toddler dyads to negotiate turn-taking, participation, and play.

Discussion Related to Present

No significant difference was found in mother’s discussions related to present (DRP) either. DRP
included mothers relating an object or event in the book to an object the child had, or a personal
experience/preference from the child’s life. While this form of mothers’ language was observed
consistently amongst dyads, it was the least frequently observed language type during both e-book
and print book reading (M = .044 [SD = .047]; M = .037 [SD = .039]).
This pattern is illustrated in Table 7. As seen in the E-book column, Cameron’s mother began the
interaction reinforcing the text just read related to a joint focus of attention (“Look! Peek-a-boo!” –
line 3). She then expanded upon the text, directly relating the game in the book to a personal
experience of the child (“We play peek-a-boo. Don’t we?” – line 5). She followed with an extension
that was also directly related to Cameron (“You love to play peek-a-boo with your sister!” – line 7).
Cameron’s mother made a similar connection reading the print book (see Print column). The mother
used hand-over-hand guidance to help Cameron lift the peek-a-boo flap (line 3) and attempted
a discussion related to the present about peek-a-boo (“Remember? You love to play peek-a-boo!” –
line 5).
As illustrated in the examples, DRP places high demand on the children’s memory. For example,
Cameron needed to remember her experience with the game of peek-a-boo in order to make sense of
her mothers’ references. This could be the reason why DRP was the least commonly used language
form in our data set.
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 15

Table 7. Discussions related to the present (Cameron and her mother).

E-book
1. Mother: (reading text) Judy can play peek-a-boo with
Paul. Now you play peek-a-boo.
2. Cameron: (watches e-book on screen)
3. Mother: Look, Peek-a-boo! [DJF]
4. Cameron: (taps at screen. Peek-a-boo feature makes
swishing sound.)
5. Mother: We play peek-a-boo. Don’t we? [DRP]
6. Cameron: (Excitedly taps at the screen and swipes peek-
a-boo feature.)
7. Mother: You like to play peek-a-boo with your sister. [DRP]
Print Book
1. Mother (reading text): Judy can play peek-a-boo with Paul. Now
you play peek-a-boo with Paul.
2. Cameron: (Looks at the book.)
3. Mother: (Holds her hand to guide her to to lift peek-a-boo feature
on the page.)
4. Cameron: (Lifts peek-a-boo flap.)
5. Mother: Remember, you love to play peek-a-boo! [DRP]

Mothers’ Perception of Electronic Vs. Print Books

As shown in Table 8, while mothers indicated higher levels of satisfaction with both book versions,
numerical findings suggest that mothers overall were slightly more satisfied with the shared reading
experience with the e-book than the print book (M = 4.567 [SD = .728], M = 4.267 [SD = .868]).
However, the difference in mothers’ perception is not statistically different based on the paired
samples t-test (See Table 9).
More revealing insights are derived from mother’s open-ended explanations of their perception
rating of shared reading experiences using the electronic and print books. Below we report the findings
based on our qualitative analysis of their responses.

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 8. Descriptive statistics – mothers’ perception of electronic vs. print books.

Media Type N M SD Min. Max.
print 30 4.267 .868 2.00 5.00
e-book 30 4.567 .728 3.00 5.00

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.

High Engagement Level

High level of toddlers’ engagement was another common response. Examples include “Loved the
interactions. Leo loves being able to play and was very engaged,” “he was more concentrated even
though we did not read this one first,” and “Gerry really seemed to enjoy all the movement on the
screen. He sat really well for this book.”

Cause and Effect

The last common perception of e-book was the importance of the concept of cause and effect. For
example, “he could see that his actions produced results.” Also, “my daughter was engaged and seemed
to learn what to do. For example, if I touch the screen something will happen.”

Print Book Perception

Three different sub-themes emerged in mothers’ explanation of their rating of shared reading with the
print book: hands-on experience, opportunity for mother to engage toddlers, and varied toddler
engagement.

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.”

Opportunity to Engage the Toddlers

Mothers appreciated the opportunity provided by the print book to engage their toddler. They made
the following comments, “good chances to interact with him,” “love the simplicity and opportunity to
interact with my child,” and “the print allowed me to control our experience.” These three explana­
tions suggest that mothers viewed shared reading of the print book as a joint experience, one that
mothers enjoyed and were able to facilitate well.

Varied Toddler Engagement

Comments regarding toddlers’ engagement varied. Some indicated positive perception such as “the
text was interactive and kept Nola’s interest.” “I loved the book and I think my daughter did too. She
was engaged, and seemed as if she was learning.” and “kept him occupied with textures and sounds.”
Others referenced their child’s lack of engagement due to the features of the print book.
Examples include “cute book but e-book was more interactive and engaging,” “he enjoyed the
interactive pages, but I think they all look alike so it didn’t keep his full attention.” and “a good
story but I wish it was more colorful.”

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.

Print Book Affords Familiar Role and Traditional Benefits

Traditional print books are most commonly used in shared reading especially with younger children
(Lauricella, Wartella, & Rideout, 2015). Thus, it is not surprising during shared reading of the
traditional print book, mothers in our study appeared to have a distinct understanding of their role
in relation to the type of shared reading context – reading the text, interacting with their children
about what they had read, facilitating and scaffolding the children’s literacy and cognitive development
(Vokatis, 2014). This is supported by mothers’ explanations of their rating (e.g., “love the simplicity
and opportunity to interact with my child”; “the print allowed me to control our experience.”).
Viewing their shared reading of the print book more as a joint experience, these mothers tended to
discuss a focus of joint attention more: (a) holding a conversation about something within the text that
both were attending to, (b) labeling and pointing to the objects on the book page, (c) using inquiry in
an attempt to elicit responses from their children while pointing to objects that they were mutually
attending to (e.g., What is that?), (d) using hand over hand guidance, and (e) providing toddlers with
a tactile association as they were given aural details. These are common parent-child shared reading
strategies that enhance literacy skills (Bus et al., 1997; Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1988; DeLoache &
DeMendoza, 1987; Martin, 1998; Ninio, 1983; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Senechal et al., 1995; Snow &
Goldfield, 1983; Sulzby & Teale, 1987). The print book afforded mothers the opportunity to use
language as a conversational and educational tool, to scaffold toddlers’ language use, which could
potentially result in greater vocabulary exposure and gains for young toddlers. This finding is
consistent with Munzer et al. (2019) who found that parents showed significantly more dialogic, text-
reading, off-task, and total verbalizations and fewer format-related verbalizations while engaged in the
shared reading of print books than with either basic or enhanced e-books with their toddlers.
However, with the print book, mothers were more likely to need to use language to direct their
toddler’s attention to the book. This language often included attention direction phrasing and
questioning such as “Okay, ready?” “Look!” “Do you want to try?” and “Don’t you want to see . . . ?”
Such directing language was used to initiate, maintain, or reestablish engagement with toddlers
throughout shared reading of the print book, which is significantly less common in shared reading
with the e-book. Several mothers commented on their children’s lack of engagement due to the
features of the print book (e.g., “cute book but e-book was more interactive and engaging,” “he enjoyed
the interactive pages, but I think they all look alike so it didn’t keep his full attention,” “a good story but
I wish it was more colorful.”). These findings show the print book necessitates on-going attention
management of their young toddlers for mothers, which is also a familiar role for mothers.
Accordingly, mothers perceived the print book as a simple and tactile tool that facilitates oppor­
tunities for learning and joint engagement between themselves and their child. Mothers noted that the
print book allowed for more control of the shared-reading experience, suggesting that mothers might
feel less in control within the context of the e-book. This aligns with the fact that print books are the
most commonly used literacy tool (Lauricella et al., 2015; Yont et al., 2003). Therefore, the act of
18 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

reading a print book is a familiar and comfortable context for mothers, and traditional literacy benefits
were observed.

E-book Affords Independent Engagement and Direct Scaffolding

The e-book afforded various opportunities for mothers and their young toddlers to engage. While both
texts offered dynamic engagement opportunities with multiple modes of meaning expression includ­
ing images and text and interactive touch and feel or virtual touch and feel features, the e-book offered
different opportunities through distinct features such as live animation, sound, and interactive hot­
spots. According to Kucirkova et al. (2015) “multimodal (electronic) stories are different from the
layout and representations afforded by paper-based books” (p. 248). Like many digital texts, the
e-book used in this study, Pat the Bunny, includes live animation and interactive components that
direct children’s engagement and manipulation through audio prompting. For example, on one page,
the reader is prompted, “Can you catch the butterflies?” and on another page “Can you wave bye-bye?”
In such cases, the e-book enables direct interaction with the reader(s) and encourages a playful
response from participants. This likely explains our finding that mothers were more likely to mark
(praising and cheering) their children’s direct engagement with the e-book. Mothers took on the role
more as support and encouragement with the e-book than as a literacy leader as with the print book.
Therefore, shared reading of the e-book potentially allowed young children to increase their indepen­
dence. This finding aligns with Munzer et al. (2019) and Nicholas and Paatsch (2018). According to
Munzer et al. (2019), parents expressed a sense of pride and relief when toddlers independently
engaged with e-books without help. This is also echoed by our mothers’ explanations of their rating of
e-book shared reading (e.g., “Loved the interactions. Leo loves being able to play and was very
engaged.” and “Gerry really seemed to enjoy all the movement on the screen. He sat really well for
this book.”)
It is important to note that toddlers’ high engagement with the e-book could also be attributed to
the novelty effect. Our screening survey indicated that all the participating mothers jointly engaged in
shared book reading regularly with their young toddler, an average of 6 out of 7 days each week. Since
traditional print books were the most commonly used in shared reading (Lauricella et al., 2015), the
e-book could be a novel experience for both mother and child. While mothers indicated that all
toddlers had prior exposure to tablet screen media, none were exposed to it daily. This warrants
further investigation.
Although the e-book is associated with young toddlers’ high engagement, our results showed
mothers discussed a joint focus of attention much less frequently with the e-book. Responding to
the book affordances, mothers of this study likely altered their role accordingly. As we mentioned
above, taking the role of support and encouragement, mothers might sacrifice the opportunities to
scaffold children’s vocabulary/concept learning. This aligns with the meta-analysis findings of Furenes
et al. (2021) that “several studies show(ed) that conversations during digital book reading were
dominated by talk about the device or the child’s behavior rather than the story content as is common
with print books” (p. 24) (e.g., Chiong et al., 2012; Parish-Morris et al., 2013; Richter & Courage,
2017).
However, we argue that each format of the book offers different affordances that allow both parents
and children to play different roles. For example, although the e-book is associated with mother’s
diminished direct scaffolding of language use through discussing a joint focus of attention, through
mothers’ encouragement, their children were given more agency to manipulate and explore multi­
media features of the e-book that directly support children’s learning and interaction with text. Takacs
et al. (2014) argue that “multimedia elements provide scaffolding of children’s understanding and
word learning that is comparable to adult scaffolding during storybook reading” (p. 10). According to
Kucirkova et al. (2015) “it is crucial to pay close attention to the specific affordances of app-based
digital books to fully appreciate the effects they may have on the learning that occurs within parent-
child interactions during story sharing” (p. 428).
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 19

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.

Implications for Parents and Caregivers

Given the varying affordances and benefits of electronic and print books, parents and caregivers
should use these books by reaping their benefits while avoiding pitfalls. For example, parents and
caregivers can use e-books to encourage direct interaction and independent engagement with texts
while focusing on scaffolding vocabulary and concept learning with the print books. Children should
be encouraged to exercise their agency to explore features of e-books while still practicing linear
process of information favored by the print books. For example, parents can provide children time to
try out different digital features freely first, then connect their exploration to book content and literacy
practices (e.g., asking the child what s/he learned from playing with the digital feature, and discussing
how the characters may enjoy the same activity).
Since parents are familiar with and feel comfortable supporting learning with print books, we
would encourage parents to provide intentional scaffolding for e-booking shared reading in addition
to taking advantage of the embedded scaffolding in e-books: (1) Control the pace of reading by
manually turning the pages and switching off narration features. This will ensure the child has plenty
of time to process the material. (2) Ask the child what they see or hear on different pages. This will
encourage active engagement with the text. (3) Draw the child’s attention to animated word or
illustration clues and encourage the child to use them to better understand the story. These strategies
can help parents support children’s language and cognitive development and their independent effort
while reading e-books together.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several notable limitations. First, our study included a relatively homogeneous sample.
Participating mothers were mostly in their early 30s, white, from middle/upper-middle SES back­
grounds, and had at least college education. This limited generalization of the findings to a diverse
group of mothers and their young children. In addition, dyads with fathers might lead to different
interaction dynamics. Thus, one future research direction is to explore shared reading with mothers
20 C. EGGLESTON ET AL.

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

View publication stats