European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

ISSN: 1350-293X (Print) 1752-1807 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Pushing against hegemonic practices: emergent

bilinguals respond to children’s literature

Sally Brown

To cite this article: Sally Brown (2020) Pushing against hegemonic practices: emergent bilinguals
respond to children’s literature, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28:2,
242-255, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735742

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735742

Published online: 04 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
2020, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 242–255
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735742

Pushing against hegemonic practices: emergent bilinguals

respond to children’s literature
Sally Brown
Department of Curriculum, Foundations & Reading, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
There is a need to gain insight into the ways technology positively Literacy; early childhood;
impacts the literacy development of young children learning technology; multimodality;
English as a new language given public scrutiny about the use of emergent bilinguals
technology in early childhood classrooms. When thinking about
the future, being multiliterate is important and requires learners
to make, remake, and interpret signs in multiple modes [Rowsell
and Harwood, 2015. “‘Let it Go’: Exploring the Image of the Child
as a Producer, Consumer, and Inventor.” Theory into Practice 54 (2):
136–146]. This study builds on understanding communication
from a multimodal perspective that sees the child as an active
agent in their own learning. Twelve second-grade (ages seven and
eight) emergent bilingual students responded to children’s
literature through video posts over the course of a school year.
The findings indicate the essential role of semiotic resources in
terms of student agency, feedback, identity, and digital play. The
types of interactions that emergent bilingual students engage in
using technology impacts literacy learning and pushes back
against school curricula with a print-centric focus.

Introduction
As we think about the rapid rate at which technology changes in society, consideration
must be directed towards the effects on children as the digitized world trickles down to
even the youngest of children. Technological advances impact how knowledge is con-
structed and shared in the twenty-first century (Arnott 2017). Literacy is remade
through adaptations to networks of practices in a global world each day (Mills 2016).
Current debates question whether too much technology is invading the lives of children,
but there is no simple answer. According to the Office of Educational Technology (2016),
digital tools offer students opportunities to strengthen and take charge of their learning.
Given that emergent bilingual students make up approximately 17% of U.S. public
school students in grades kindergarten through second (McFarland et al. 2019), it is worri-
some that little attention is paid to technology usage of emergent bilinguals. Affording
emergent bilinguals contemporary communication and learning opportunities is just as
essential as it is for their English-only peers.

CONTACT Sally Brown sallybrown@georgiasouthern.edu Department of Curriculum, Foundations & Reading,

Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA
© 2020 EECERA
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 243

Application of a multimodal pedagogy can counter deficit models of young learners,

especially emergent bilinguals who tend to be marginalized by literacy practices, which
include an overemphasis on English linguistics and a focus on working independently
(Hasselbacher 2017). Zapata and Van Horn’s (2017) research found emergent bilinguals
needed spaces for an expansive view of literacy where they could perform social, cultural,
and realities that allowed for practice in becoming a composer. A limited view of literacy
becomes problematic as teachers assign grades and make retention decisions. For example,
many assessments that exclusively value written language position emergent bilinguals in
deficit positions, which may result in labels such as low achievers (Hopewell and Escamilla
2014). Questions remain regarding the use of technology in early childhood, and meticu-
lous care must be taken to determine the best ways to use technology with young children.
Therefore, this study investigated two questions: (1) how do emergent bilinguals use
digital tools to show their understanding of books and their world? And (2) what social
practices form during this process as emergent bilinguals interact in groups with one
another and their English-only peers?
Guernsey (2014) calls for educators to utilize digital tools and texts for teaching stu-
dents to be multiliterate in a way that helps every child be successful. Educators and pol-
icymakers must consider the rise of nonlinguistic forms of literacy, what types of literacy
are valued in schools, digital equity, and environments that promote a collaborative
approach to learning. Burnett (2017) forefronts the need for educators to consider the
diverse needs of students as well as the local relevance of technological applications.
The definition of what it means to be literate continues to be transformed through
clicks on a computer and the multiple languages spoken in the world. Literacy is no
longer solely about the written word but has morphed to reflect the digital evolution of
communication (Sefton-Green et al. 2016).
Being literate reflects the acquisition of skills and practices in different types of media
that afford learners the ability to make, remake, and interpret signs in multiple modes
(Rowsell and Harwood 2015). This is particularly important for emergent bilinguals
since they are developing language skills in English, and need additional modes to com-
municate ideas fully. Teachers should create spaces where emergent bilinguals not only
use digital tools to communicate, but also draw upon their full linguistic repertoires to
express themselves (García, Johnson, and Seltzer 2016). There is a significant need to
research children’s diverse use of and interactions with digital and multimodal literacy
practices (Sefton-Green et al. 2016).

Multimodal literacy
Communication is multimodal in nature, and ignoring this complexity only limits the lit-
eracy learning of young children. A theory of multimodality based on social semiotics
where meaning is the focus establishes a framework for examining such complexities
where available resources and social interactions unfold (Kress 2010). Applying this
approach provides a balance to the value associated with multiple modes as opposed to
a focus on the print-centric environment. Multimodal literacy ‘takes equal account of
where, how, and by whom a text is made as it does the physical features of a text as sign-
ifiers of contextual meanings’ (Street, Pahl, and Roswell 2009, 191). Social semiotics pos-
itions the sign maker as active and agentive. This is especially true when digital tools are
244 S. BROWN

introduced. Young learners create cohesive layers of meaning of texts by touching screens,
capitalizing on multiple modes, and interacting with texts (Walsh and Simpson 2014).
Creating meaning using technology provides spaces for decision making that blends
with student interests, social, and cultural factors (Jewitt, Bezemer, and O’Halloran 2016).
Interpretations of texts by readers come to life through the signifiers that help connect
meaning to life experiences. Sign makers use a process called representation to character-
ize information and create new signs that determine forms of expression (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2006). Space and time to explore the potential of resources through play must be
provided to allow learners the opportunity to discover the affordances of tools in their own
ways, including the application of innovative ideas (Arnott 2016). Learning results as the
sign makers’ transform available resources and engage in social practices. It should be
noted that language is only one element of communication, and as additional modes
are combined, new ensembles emerge (Kress 2010). This means that digital tools, remix-
ing, and multiple modes open spaces for young learners to assume different types of iden-
tities like video production manager, writer, editor, and critic (Brown 2018). All of this
takes place within social practices where people become resources for thinking and learn-
ing in addition to the multimodal tools themselves (Jewitt 2006).

Multimodal pedagogy
Reflecting on twenty-first century forms of communication and thinking about the dialo-
gic nature of responses to various forms of texts positions educators to embrace alternative
uses of digital tools for meaning construction. A multimodal pedagogy for early childhood
classroom instruction can assist in ensuring equitable social participation that affords all
students multiple ways to construct and display meaning. The New London Group (1996)
recommends this include hybrid modes of meaning-making through a variety of combi-
nations that ignore boundaries and create new conventions. The addition of modes other
than print-centric ones provide avenues for exploring literacy in complex ways where stu-
dents are free to draw upon social, cultural, and historical experiences as forms of sense-
making (McVee and Boyd 2016). One example of this is Davidson et al.’s (2014) preschool
study, which analyzed video transcripts of children talking about YouTube videos. Their
work revealed the use of multiple modes to develop a shared understanding of the videos.
The preschoolers paid close attention to the gestures and facial expressions of the screen
action. After watching the videos, the children engaged in conversations that showed their
comprehension of the material. The findings showcased the open nature of interpreting a
‘text’ (YouTube video) that demonstrated the importance of multiple modes when learn-
ing. Walsh’s (2010) work with young learners provides a foundation for appreciating
‘reading, writing, responding to, and producing multimodal and digital texts (p. 211)’
in early childhood. Changing and reshaping modes are part of the contemporary child-
hood experiences that students bring with them to the classroom. Although many ques-
tions still remain about the benefits of using digital tools with young children, these
studies offer insight into how technology can be used to support student learning and
push back against hegemonic literacy practices in schools.
By emphasizing a participatory culture, emergent bilinguals can take on informal
affiliations or social networks as collaborative digital learners and distribute the cognitive
demands of learning like character motives. Studying how students navigate this type of
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 245

learning offers insight into ways in which technology can be used effectively. As teachers
encourage working together, emergent bilinguals can pool their knowledge to make sense
of a task. The nature of this work is flexible and ever-changing as students adapt to various
contexts and activities, including the use of multiple languages (García, Johnson, and
Seltzer 2016). According to Davies (2014), ‘a magical and unexpected moment is
opened up, where the status quo gives way to a new way of experiencing (p. 26)’ when
children immerse themselves to new ways of thinking and representing their thoughts
and ideas in collaboration. This is made easier through the availability of multimodal
resources like digital tools.
Further, composing is dialogic, and a pedagogy embracing this stance must realize the
need for inquiry where children are free to play, experiment, and ask questions. It is not
about fitting the child into the curriculum, but rather opening spaces to accept differences
based on childhood cultures. This is particularly true for diverse learners who speak non-
standard English or are part of an ethnic minority. Inclusivity encompasses embracing
the child’s situated world where they have the power to make choices about their learning
and how they represent what they know and can do. This requires seeing learners through a
lens that is not limited to standardized test scores or written school-related academic tasks.
Dyson (2019) reminds us to approach children with a respectful curiosity where we crawl
into their worlds to capture their resilience. This study addresses the gap in understanding
how emergent bilinguals use multimodal tools to communicate what they know and what
they understand about books and their world instead of placing emergent bilinguals as a
disadvantage through limited print-centric practices (Hopewell and Escamilla 2014).

Methodology
Participants and context
The participants are twelve emergent bilingual, second-grade students who spoke Spanish,
Vietnamese, Pashto, and Dari as their home languages. They were all learning English in
an English-only classroom in an urban, high poverty school in the southeastern United
States. The classroom teacher implemented a district-mandated balanced literacy
program, where she provided small group literacy instruction.
The researcher served as an additional literacy teacher in the classroom during center
time, and biweekly she immersed students in responding to children’s literature by con-
ducting read-alouds or allowing students to read independently. This study spanned
nine months or an entire school year. Books were available in paper-based versions as
well as digital editions through an online source called Epic Books (https://www.getepic.
com). The readings were followed by discussions among students and the researcher,
where each session began with a comprehension strategy mini-lesson. For example, stu-
dents learned about the purpose of speech bubbles before reading My Teacher is a
Monster (Brown 2014), a book featuring this structure. Then, students recorded their
oral responses to the books using computers equipped with a video camera. Responses
were recorded on a cloud-based platform called FlipGrid (https://info.flipgrid.com/). Stu-
dents were offered sticky notes as a resource for note-taking and could refer to them
during the video production. The intent was to allow students to show what they under-
stood about the books.
246 S. BROWN

Students made decisions about their video recordings like length, what to say, and how
to position themselves. They had the opportunity to watch their video, publish, or begin
anew. Upon completion, students took selfies and added digital stickers to mark their
video, so other students watch the video and offer feedback. FlipGrid tracked the
number of views per video, and students had access to these counts. Participants had
access to their videos and the productions of peers.

Data sources and analysis

An ethnographic perspective (Green and Bloome 2004) was used to capture classroom lit-
eracy practices revolving around experiences with literature given specific social and cul-
tural contexts over time (Street, Pahl, and Roswell 2009). This approach considers the
classroom as both a physical and intellectual site where the culture of schooling is
studied. Literacy was situated as a social practice with the literacy event as the unit of
analysis for this study (Moss 2003). The small group experiences were documented
through the video responses, field notes, weekly memos, sticky notes, and the videotaping
of small groups. The field notes contained details of literacy events that were recorded fol-
lowing the learning sessions, which included details about the use of the web site, digital
tools, and social practices that unfolded (Bhatt, de Roock, and Adams 2015). A total of 59
student videos were transcribed, along with 11 peer response videos. The video responses
were analyzed by ‘emergent listening,’ where the researcher suspended judgments to open
possibilities to see in new and surprising ways (Davies 2014). Photographs captured still
images of the students’ use of multimodal tools and objects which were added to the tran-
scripts. Each student participated in an interview (Seidman 2012) to gain insight into
metacognitive processes involved in multimodal text designing and social practices. The
student interviews were semi-structured with some introductory questions, and student
comments were followed by additional questions that were guided by the students’ com-
ments. Each student was interviewed one-on-one and reminded that there were no correct
answers. For example, students were asked, ‘how did the video technology help you show
what you were learning from books?’ Additional questions included, ‘How do you feel
about reading and writing after using technology this year? Why do you feel this way?’
The last question was intended to capture anything the researcher might have missed.
‘What else do you want to tell me about your experiences that I did not ask you?’ Trans-
lators were used when appropriate. The researcher analyzed the data using grounded
theory, beginning with open coding, which later moved to a thematic analysis
(Charmaz 2014). In the initial coding cycle, the descriptive nature of the data was revealed.
Then, this information was used to triangulate data to understand codes, remove codes,
and piece together the complexity of the literacy events (Miles, Huberman, and Saldana
2015). The next coding cycle involved the comparison of codes and determining the repre-
sentativeness of instances. Upon completion of this phase, transcripts were chosen for
multimodal discourse analysis (Baldry and Thibault 2006) to examine the roles of
various modes of learning and determine how students were constructing meaning with
digital tools and through dialog with peers. Themes were developed by categorizing
data by a group of repeating or clustered ideas as they emerged from the coding
process (Miles, Huberman, and Saldana 2015). Ultimately, the themes captured the essen-
tial threads of the data. Table 1 provides a few coding examples that were folded into the
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 247

Table 1. Coding examples and descriptions.

Code Code description
Thinking process Windows into thought processes – metacognition. Student explains his/her thinking and sets a purpose
for the viewer.
Social Status Information in the post indicates student cares about how he/she is seen or understood by others;
identity
Digital Play Student experiments with digital tool in creative ways that may or may not be related to the book.
Many times, these recordings or visual elements are erased and replaced by more perfected, polished
models. The play serves as a rehearsal.
Agency Student makes learning decisions independently – book, way to respond, length of video, collaboration
or not, selfie, etc.

three overarching themes in the findings. For example, agency became a piece of the
empowerment through choice theme, social status contributed to the identity develop-
ment theme, and digital play and thinking processes added to non-traditional feedback.

Ethics
Because this research was conducted with young children, several ethical decisions were
made to protect the participants and celebrate their voices. Children were offered the
opportunity and encouraged to engage in the language of their choice. The researcher
valued the students’ native language by providing this space, learning some of the
languages herself, and using translators as needed. The interests of the participants
drove literature discussions in a way that allowed for the showcasing of cultures,
languages, and experiences. The text selections were purposeful and represented the back-
grounds and interests of participants.
Additional consideration was given regarding integrity and the consent to be video-
taped. The researcher spoke with each student individually about their assent to ensure
the desire to participate. Participants were given choices daily about refraining from
video recording (Flewitt 2020). Some students opted never to include their faces on
video. They held up the cover of the book while they spoke. In a few instances, participants
listened to the read-aloud and only engaged through dialog. They did not create a video at
all, which was acceptable.

Findings
The results of this study yielded several critical findings that can help educators under-
stand how emergent bilinguals traverse restricted classroom settings where hegemonic lit-
eracy practices are routine. Despite restrictive ideologies, emergent bilinguals experienced
success by tapping into the multimodal digital tools available (Hasselbacher 2017). This
enabled students to show their comprehension of both print-based and digital children’s
literature. An overarching premise of digital play pervaded across all themes. Throughout
the study, students invented ways to experiment with the available resources, whether it
was through talk or by tapping on the computer to understand the capabilities of the
digital tools. Doing this allowed students to create innovative ways to make meaning
that were outside the realm of a traditional curriculum (Kuby and Vaughn 2015; Brown
2019).
248 S. BROWN

The findings also centered on the agentive moves made by emergent bilinguals as a
means for controlling their learning and showcasing what they knew and understood.
This was brought to life through the available resources: a web-based platform for video-
taping responses, children’s literature, sticky notes, and dialogic interactions with peers.
Three major themes undergirding the study were: empowerment through choice, identity
development, and influence of non-traditional feedback. Several examples and narratives
from the data are used to illustrate the themes.

Empowerment through choice

Moving the emergent bilinguals toward extended semiotic resources as opposed to solely
linguistic ones empowered students to be more agentive (Laman 2013). Students capita-
lized on making choices that best represented their interests and learnings. This embodied
numerous possibilities such as language choice, layout or format of the constructed video,
what to include in the video, rerecording as needed, and dialogic interactions with peers.
The following vignette provides a portrait of Liliana, Spanish dominant, and her inter-
actions with a nonfiction, paper-based book about Rosa Parks, a civil rights activist.
Liliana listened to my read aloud about Rosa Parks with great intention. Her face was glued to
the detailed images on each page of the book. Frequently she shook her head as if agreeing
with the author’s words. When I got to the page where Rosa was relegated to the back of the
bus, her nose wrinkled. There was silence from the small group and then a comment from
Liliana, “That not right. They can’t tell her that. She can sit anywhere.” Other students
chimed in to agree with Liliana, and she smiled as if she appreciated the peer support.
Upon completion of the book, Liliana went to work on her video by herself. I overheard
her talking to herself, “I’m making this one in Spanish.” I noticed Liliana recording and relis-
tening to her video. She appeared unsatisfied. “No, I do not like its.” She deleted her videos
four times and made a final decision to use a hybrid approach to language with a mix of
Spanish and English. Two videos like this were crafted, and one was deleted. In the final
video, Liliana did not show her face. Instead, she held up a copy of the book and showed
three powerful images, one where Rosa Parks was arrested. She recorded, “This book is
Rosa Parks. Ella bien lady y (She was a good lady) people mean to her. She want to sit by
White people. They not let her. I think this problema (problem). You cannot say this. It
not fair. Her was right to sit up. Ella es valiente (She’s brave) when police there (Fieldnotes,
Brown, February 12, 2018).

In this literacy event, Liliana makes several agentive decisions that place her in control of
her learning. Initially, she decides to engage with the text through listening and engaging
in dialog with peers. The responses received from others seemed to support her point of
view about fairness. Liliana built upon this as she produced a video response about the
book. She spoke exclusively in Spanish and erased each of those videos. It was not until
she drew from her English and Spanish repertoires that she was satisfied. Liliana’s behavior
capitalized on the ‘trash can’ option to dispose of unwanted videos. The tool allowed her to
rehearse her oral language, which may have supported her confidence to say more in
English. She was aware that her peers were able to view her published videos as a
virtual audience.
She carefully selected images that matched her comments. For example, when the
picture of Rosa Parks in handcuffs was facing the video camera she stated, ‘Ella es valiente
(She’s brave) when police there.’ There was a correlation between her words and the
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 249

images she selected to show the viewer. She used these two semiotic resources to render
her understanding of the book. Liliana chose not to include her face in the video, an agen-
tive choice she made as a learner. All of Liliana’s decisions came together to construct a
video production that was personally relevant and revealed her capabilities as a learner.
The role of the teacher in this process was to provide time for responding to books,
access to digital tools, and a space for collaboration with peers.
To build further on this example, Miguel’s (Spanish) experiences also highlight the
theme of empowered learners. Miguel enjoyed looking at books and reading parts that
matched his abilities. He frequently asked to take books home from the classroom
library. In January, Miguel asked the researcher, ‘Can I make videos about books read
at home?’ His actions were agentive as he attempted to evoke choice in terms of his learn-
ing experiences. An arrangement was made to allow Miguel to stay in from recess two
times per week for him to work on these videos. His first attempts were simple. He selected
stories that were rich pieces of literature but challenging for him to read. Instead of retell-
ing the story or making personal connections, he created his video format. Miguel would
start with page one, show the page, and say one word that described the picture. Below is
an excerpt from a transcript of his work with Dog Breath (Pilkey 2004).
Miguel: Dog Breath. (Held up cover.)

Miguel: Family. (Showed first page.)

Miguel: Dog. (Showed second page.)

Miguel: Fish. (Showed third page.)

Although Miguel did not read the book in a traditional sense, he was able to take away
meaning from picture reading and create a video inspired by his interpretation of essential
story elements. In this way, oral language and images served as tools for communicating
with others. This was very different from his classroom literacy experiences, where the
teacher would ask Miguel to write about his independent reading books. Miguel sat and
looked around the room and never picked up a pencil. In this case, the digital tool
afforded Miguel a way to participate, especially with books that he chose to read at home.

Identity development
As students learned about the resources at their disposal, they also played with different
identities throughout literacy events. Digital tools opened spaces for becoming different
kinds of people like a production manager, an artist, and a writer. (Davies 2014). This
was evident across all of the emergent bilinguals. Students often talked about the kinds
of readers they were especially after listening to Shark Lady (Keating 2017), a nonfiction
text about the first woman to become a shark scientist. The transcript and Figure 1 high-
lighted how elements of identity development unfolded for one student. Abed, a Dari
speaker, joined in dialog (with English-only peers) focused on the academic work of
Shark Lady.
Nita: She’s awesome. Can you believe how long she went to school?
Pepa: Yeah, she goed a long, long, long time. (Laughed.)
Abed: She read lots book.
Nita: True. She’s read more than me.
250 S. BROWN

Figure 1. Abed’s text.

Pepa: Not me. I read more. I’m really smart, and I like to read, and, uh, do other stuff too.
Like Shark Lady, oh, what was her name?
Nita: Eugenie.
Pepa: Yeah, right. Eugenie. I made pictures too like an artist, but I love mermaids, not
sharks.
Abed: I be reader too. I read at my home, and so do my family. I know what I will do today
for my video.
Pepa: What?
Abed: I will make a video about me. Me like how I like reading.
Nita: … Good idea. I think I will make one too, but mine will be about me as a drawer. I
am going to draw pictures to show people.

Here, students had opportunities for building personal connections to texts through inter-
actions using informal language. The book inspired deliberation about how students
viewed themselves as compared with the information in the text. Pepa connected to the
artistic elements of the book, along with Nita. The emergent bilingual, Abed, focused
his identity as a reader and perhaps the kind of reader he would become. He brought
forth his home and previous school experiences with reading and tied it to information
from the book.
When Abed moved into production about Shark Lady, he decided not to address her in
his video at all. Instead, he chose to create a video about his identity as a reader. He quickly
gathered a few sticky notes and markers and moved to a chair next to his friend Daniel.
Abed was not confident as a speller and often relied on Daniel as a resource for writing.
Even though this written text (Figure 1) was only serving as a resource for rehearsing oral
language during the video, Abed wanted to be sure his words were correct.
Here Abed described the type of reader that he was based on his personal connection
with Shark Lady. From this, it was evident Abed read at home with family members, pre-
ferred to read fiction, and offered insight into the way he got stuck in books that spoke to
his identity as a reader. Upon completion of the sticky note, Abed got a Chromebook and
opened the program. He did not start recording, but he appeared to practice reading his
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 251

sticky note. This went on for several minutes until a smile came across his face. Then, he
clicked the green record button with his face close to the screen. He recorded,
I am Abed. I read Shark Lady, and she liked to read. I read too. (Read sticky note.) I am a
reader that who loves to reads to my brother and family. I get stuck in a person in the
book. Number three. I like the crafting in that book. Number four. I really, really love
fiction. And that is me, the reader. Thank you for watching.

Gestures added another layer to the meaning conveyed by Abed. For example, he waved
his hand at the beginning, as if to say hello. When he mentioned his family, he used his
fingers to make a heart shape and held it up to his chest (a form of play or experimen-
tation). Abed provided an example of how the use of multiple modes served as communi-
cation resources. This process led Abed to success across identities: reader, writer,
communicator, and video producer. Practicing ways of being is an effective way for stu-
dents to create that meaning-making surprise for teachers. Since the ultimate goal was
sense-making, it was clear that Abed accomplished his goals.

Influence of nontraditional feedback

Feedback, whether digital or in-person, was a critical component for learning. Students
craved responses from their peers regardless of languages spoken. Numerous resources
for providing and receiving feedback were available, including tracking the number of
times peers viewed one’s video. These included tracking the number of times one’s
video was viewed by peers, which the students equated to more views equaled more
people liked your video. Another form of feedback came from ratings like a thumbs up,
heart, or a smiley face with sunglasses, and students developed their interpretations of
the value. The students developed their interpretations of the value of the icons.
Heart – Person really loved it, and it made them happy.

Rocket – Out of this world.

Light Bulb – Good idea.

Smiley face with sunglasses – Really cool (better than a heart).

Straight face with hand – Think about it. Needs work.

Students checked their view and icon counts weekly. According to students, the best type
of feedback was in the form of a peer response video. FlipGrid allowed students to make a
video response to a peer. This was highly motivational for creating more videos and for
improving the quality of videos. Students showed great enjoyment upon receiving a
video peer response. From the words of Teresa, ‘It’s the very best, very best. I just
LOVE getting a video that compliments me. It makes me feel like some sort of movie
star. Then, I make a better one.’
To extend the passion Teresa brought to the use of the digital platform, one literacy
event is provided where she made a short video about a nonfiction book about dolphins.
By the end of the day, there was a video response from Riley. The video showcased a posi-
tive reaction to Teresa’s production, which included a song about dolphin facts learned
from the book.
252 S. BROWN

Riley: I like your video. I heard you singing, and it made me think about swimming dolphins
in the ocean and the sounds of waves. I even forgot about being at school. It made me want to
see dolphins like at the beach or something. You have a nice voice too. I’m giving you a heart
because I loved it.

This transcript showed the positive feedback Teresa received from her peer and the power
it had to inspire future learnings. Riley had a very favorable opinion of the video and com-
plimented the nontraditional nature of the posting – a song. This was motivational for
Teresa, and she was observed watching Riley’s response on several occasions, days and
weeks later. One of the affordances of video feedback was that it could be replayed,
which students appreciated and treasured. While face-to-face feedback was valued
during in-the-moment activities, the video feedback was held in higher esteem by students.
It appeared to be more official even though it did not come from the researcher or teacher
(Dyson 2019).

Discussion
As students engaged with the affordances of the software, they discovered new ways to rep-
resent meaning (Kress 2010). Instead of being relegated to rote learning tasks, students
took ownership of their learning by making important decisions about how to represent
their knowledge and ideas. This provided a path for academic success in the classroom that
was not possible through more structured academic tasks that were print-centric. The
vignette of Liliana provides evidence of the brilliance of emergent bilinguals and their
capacity to be agentive if given a chance (Souto-Manning and Martell 2016).
The dialogic and multimodal nature of responding to literature cannot be overstated
(Brown 2015). Students used their peers as resources for all related elements of the
task. This dialogism was not relegated to oral language but included body movement, ges-
tures, and physically touching digital devices to create meaning (Rowe 2013). Special con-
sideration must be given to the format of the dialogic interaction given the available
technology. Face-to-face and digital interactions were equally essential. The emergent
bilinguals stressed the importance of video feedback from peers in developing their iden-
tities as legitimate types of students like a video producer or avid reader. The digital feed-
back also inspired the self-improvement of future work, highlighting the positive impact of
technology in early childhood.
The application of these findings can inform the types of resources and pedagogies that
truly support diverse students. There must be opportunities for students to utilize multiple
modes to show what they know and who they are (Kress 2010). A multimodal approach
has the potential to push back against the hegemony of written language that pervades
school practices. Equitable literacy practices should align with how young students
learn and showcase their understandings of the world. Specifically, when working with
emergent bilinguals, consideration must be given to the complexity of their language
learning experiences. Schools and classrooms should ‘create ample linguistic and cultural
capital for a more just democracy (Babino and González-Carriedo 2017, 16)’ to ensure the
success of emergent bilinguals.
The role of the teacher is to carefully consider and plan to ensure the match of technol-
ogy with the intended outcome. Not all technologies are created equal, and teachers must
think carefully about the digital tools that meet the needs of their students (Stephen and
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 253

Edwards 2018). Spaces for student choice are critical. The early childhood classroom
should not be a place where teacher-directed instruction mandates what students do
and how they accomplish those tasks. In its place can be opportunities for students to
decide what they would like to learn from an activity and how they want to share this
information with others. This empowers students and contributes to identity develop-
ment. In other words, students practice or play with who they might become (Davies
2014).
The value of digital play is evolving, and careful consideration must be taken to evaluate
the ways it is used in classrooms. In this study, the imaginative use of materials may allow
the child to evolve their play in new ways that extend what is possible (Stephen and
Edwards 2018). Digital play has the power to bring together out-of-school literacies
with in-school literacies in a way that removes barriers of place and time. As a result,
there is an ‘interweaving of human, material, semiotic, and discursive practices (Wood
et al. 2020, 215)’. Creating videos in response to books allowed these students a space
to play and experiment leading to literacy learning and identity development.

Conclusion
Practitioners must challenge themselves to think more deeply about the opportunities
offered to students for expressing knowledge. García, Johnson, and Seltzer (2016) rec-
ommend that educators look beyond the linguistic repertoires of emergent bilinguals to
consider a broader notion which entails an extended semiotic repertoire of resources.
This involves providing the resources, instructional support, and time that allows students
to orchestrate meaning in multiple ways. Nontraditional forms of literacy must be con-
sidered and incorporated into new ways of thinking about classroom instruction in the
twenty-first century (New London Group 1996; Street, Pahl, and Roswell 2009). A multi-
modal approach to literacy learning is significant for the future of early learners. Although
this research focused on emergent bilinguals, the potential exists for multimodal and dia-
logic practices to benefit all students. The challenge remains in the selection of unique
digital resources that are meaningful and purposeful for student learning in developmen-
tally appropriate ways (Arnott 2017).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Arnott, L. 2016. “An Ecological Exploration of Young Children’s Digital Play: Framing Children’s
Social Experiences with Technologies in Early Childhood.” Early Years 36 (3): 271–288.
Arnott, L. 2017. “Framing Technological Experiences in the Early Years.” In Digital Technologies
and Learning in the Early Years, edited by L. Arnott, 7–19. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Babino, A., and R. González-Carriedo. 2017. “Striving Toward Equitable Biliteracy Assessments in
Hegemonic School Contexts.” Association of Mexican American Educators Journal 11 (1): 54–72.
Baldry, A., and P. Thibault. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. Oakville, CT:
Equinox.
254 S. BROWN

Bhatt, I., R. de Roock, and J. Adams. 2015. “Diving Deep Into Digital Literacy: Emerging Methods
for Research.” Language and Education 29 (6): 477–492.
Brown, S. 2015. “Transaction Circles with Digital Texts as a Foundation for Democratic Practices.”
Democracy and Education 23 (2): 1–12.
Brown, S. 2018. Digital Initiatives for Literacy Development in Elementary Classrooms: Engaging
Research and Opportunities. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Brown, S. 2019. “Literacy in Early Childhood: Multimodal Play and Text Production.” In
Participatory Literacy Practices for P-12 Classrooms in the Digital age, edited by J. Mitchell
and E. Vaughn, 1–19. New York: IGI Global.
Burnett, C. 2017. “Acknowledging and Interrogating Multiplicities: Towards a Generous Approach
in Evaluations of Early Literacy Intervention and Innovation.” Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy 17 (4): 522–550.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davidson, C., S. Danby, L. Given, and K. Thorpe. 2014. “Talk About YouTube in Preschool: The
Mutual Production of Shared Understanding for Learning with Digital Technology.”
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 39 (3): 76–83.
Davies, B. 2014. Listening to Children: Being and Becoming. New York: Routledge.
Dyson, A. 2019. “Composing Childhood Cultures: Ethnography Upside Down.” In The Routledge
International Handbook of Learning with Technology in Early Childhood, edited by N. Kucirkova,
J. Rowsell, and G. Falloon, 74–87. New York: Routledge.
Flewitt, R. 2020. “Ethics and Researching Young Children’s Digital Literacy Practices.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Digital Literacies in Early Childhood, edited by O. Erstad, R. Flewitt,
B. Kummerling-Meibauer, and I. Pererira, 64–78. New York: Routledge.
García, O., S. Johnson, and K. Seltzer. 2016. The Translanguaging Classroom: Leveraging Student
Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Green, J., and D. Bloome. 2004. “Ethnography and Ethnographers of and in Education: A Situated
Perspective.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and
Visual Arts, edited by J. Flood, S. Heath, and D. Lapp, 181–202. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
Guernsey, L. 2014. Envisioning a Digital Age Architecture for Early Education. New America
Education Policy Program. Washington, DC. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/
policy-papers/envisioning-a-digital-age- architecture-for-early-education/.
Hasselbacher, S. 2017. “Introduction: Literacy Ideologies.” Language and Communication 61
(2018): 71–74.
Hopewell, S., and K. Escamilla. 2014. “Struggling Reader or Emergent Biliterate Student?:
Reevaluating the Criteria for Labeling Emergent Bilingual Students as low Achieving.” Journal
of Literacy Research 46 (1): 68–89.
Jewitt, C. 2006. Technology, Literacy, and Learning: A Multimodal Approach. New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C., J. Bezemer, and K. O’Halloran. 2016. Introducing Multimodality. New York: Routledge.
Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication.
New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Kuby, C., and M. Vaughn. 2015. “Young Children’s Identities Becoming: Exploring Agency in the
Creation of Multimodal Literacies.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 15 (4): 433–472.
Laman, T. 2013. From Ideas to Words: Writing Strategies for English Learners. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
McFarland, J., B. Hussar, J. Zhang, X. Wang, K. Wang, S. Hein, M. Diliberti, E. Forrest Cataldi, F.
Bullock Mann, and A. Barmer. 2019. The Condition of Education 2019 (NCES 2019-144). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://
nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144.
McVee, M., and F. Boyd. 2016. Exploring Diversity Through Multimodality, Narrative, and
Dialogue: A Framework for Teacher Reflection. New York: Routledge.
Miles, M., A. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2015. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook.
3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 255

Mills, K. 2016. Literacy Theories for the Digital age: Social, Critical, Multimodal, Spatial, Material
and Sensory Lenses. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Moss, G. 2003. “Putting the Text Back Into Practice: Junior-Age non-Fiction as Objects of Design.”
In Multimodal Literacy, edited by C. Jewitt, and G. Kress, 73–87. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard
Educational Review 66 (1): 60–93.
Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. 2016. Future Ready Learning:
Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education [2016 National Education Technology Plan].
Washington, DC. http://tech.ed.gov/netp/.
Rowe, D. 2013. “Recent Trends in Research on Young Children’s Authoring.” In The Sage
Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, edited by J. Larson, and J. Marsh, 2nd ed., 423–447.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rowsell, J., and D. Harwood. 2015. “‘Let it Go’: Exploring the Image of the Child as a Producer,
Consumer, and Inventor.” Theory Into Practice 54 (2): 136–146.
Sefton-Green, J., J. Marsh, O. Erstad, and R. Flewitt. 2016. Establishing a Research Agenda for the
Digital Literacy Practices of Young Children: A White Paper for COST Action IS1410. http://
digilitey.eu.
Seidman, I. 2012. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and
the Social Sciences. 4th ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Souto-Manning, M., and J. Martell. 2016. Reading, Writing, and Talk: Inclusive Teaching Strategies
for Diverse Learners, K-2. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stephen, C., and S. Edwards. 2018. Young Children Playing and Learning in a Digital age: A Cultural
and Critical Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Street, B., K. Pahl, and J. Roswell. 2009. “Multimodality and new Literacy Studies.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C. Jewitt, 191–200. New York: Routledge.
Walsh, M. 2010. “Multimodal Literacy: What Does it Mean for Classroom Practice?” Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy 33 (3): 211–239.
Walsh, M., and A. Simpson. 2014. “Exploring Literacies Through Touch pad Technologies: The
Dynamic Materiality of Modal Interactions.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 37
(2): 96–106.
Wood, E., J. Nuttall, S. Edwards, and S. Grieshaber. 2020. “Young Children’s Digital Play in Early
Childhood Settings: Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Teachers’ Knowledge.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Digital Literacies in Early Childhood, edited by O. Erstad, R. Flewitt, B.
Kummerling-Meibauer, and I. Pererira, 214–226. New York: Routledge.
Zapata, A., and S. Van Horn. 2017. “‘Because I’m Smooth’: Material Intra-Action and Text
Productions among Young Latino Picture Book Makers.” Research in the Teaching of English
51 (5): 290–315.
Children’s Literature Cited
Brown, P. 2014. A Monster Ate My Teacher. New York: Little Brown Books.
Keating, J. 2017. Shark Lady: The True Story of how Eugenie Clark Became the Ocean’s Most Fearless
Scientist. New York: Sourcebooks Explore.
Pilkey, D. 2004. Dog Breath. New York: Scholastic.