paper sample of computers&education

Computers&Educationjournalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/compeduUnderstandingthenatureandimpactofyoungreaders’literacyinteractionswithtalkingbooksandduringadultreadingsupport

ClareWood*,ClairePillinger,EmmaJackson

PsychologyDepartment,FacultyofHealthandLifeSciences,CoventryUniversity,PrioryStreet,Coventry,CV15FB,UnitedKingdomarticleinfoabstract

Thispaperreportsanextendedanalysisofthestudyreportedin[Wood,C.(2005).Beginningreaders’useof‘talkingbooks’softwarecanaffecttheirreadingstrategies.JournalofResearchinReading,28,170–182.],inwhichfiveandsix-year-oldchildrenreceivedeithersixsessionsusingspeciallydesignedtalkingbooksorsixsessionsofone-to-onetuitionwithanadultusingthepaper-basedversionsofthesamebooks.Thisanalysisfocusesonthenatureofthechildren’sinteractionswitheithertheadultorthecomputerinanattempttoexplorehowthesedifferentresourcesimpactedonthechildren’sliteracyinteractions,andwhetherdifferentstylesofliteracyinteractionobservedwithineachgroupwereassociatedwithgainsinphonologicalawarenessorchangesinreadingstrategy.Fourstylesofliteracyinteractionwereidenti-fiedandtherewasasignificantassociationbetweenthesestylesandmembershipofoneofthetwoexperimentalconditionsinthestudy.Interactionalstylewasalsoseentoimpactpositivelyonphonolog-icalawarenessdevelopmentforlowerabilitychildrenwhousedthetalkingbooks.Incontrast,interac-tionalstyleaffectedchangesinreadingstrategyamongstchildrenintheadulttutorcondition.Finally,therewasalsoaninfluenceofinteractionalstyleonspontaneousdialogicreadingbythechildrenoverall,butthiseffectoriginatedfromthechildrenintheadulttutorgroup.Ó2009ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.Articlehistory:Received17February2006Receivedinrevisedform22July2009Accepted2August2009Keywords:ElementaryeducationReadingstrategiesInteractionalstyleApplicationsinsubjectareasEvaluationofCALsystems1.IntroductionTherehasbeensubstantialinterestinthepotentialofcomputer-basedactivitiestosupportyoungchildren’sreadingandliteracydevel-opment(e.g.Burnett,2009;Davies&O’Sullivan,2002;Lefever-Davis&Pearman,2005;Monteith,2002).Withrespecttochildrenintheveryearlystagesofliteracy,therehasbeenaparticularfocusonthepotentialofso-called‘talkingbooks’–interactiveprogrammes,whichofferamultimediapresentationofthetraditionalstorybookformat,includingtheadditionofspeechfeedbacksothatchildrencanelecttohearthestoryreadtothem.Theseprogrammes,andinteractiveeducationaltoysbasedonsimilarprinciples,arewidelyavailablebothtoparentswishingtosupporttheirchildren’sliteracydevelopmentathomeandtoteachersinprimaryclassrooms(Fox,2002;Lewin,1998).However,theuseoftalkingbooksinthecourseofregularclassroomactivityintheUKreflectsteachers’anxietyabouttheirgenuineedu-cationalpotential:oftentheyareusedaspartof‘freeplay’activity,ortheyareusedtooccupyandmotivatechildrenwhoarereluctanttoread(Fox,2002;Wood,Littleton,&Chera,2005).DaviesandO’Sullivan(2002,p.106–107)suggestthattalkingbookshavethepotentialtobenefitchildren’sliteracydevelopmentbyenablingyoungchildrento:󰀂󰀂󰀂󰀂󰀂󰀂󰀂Enjoyatextandinteractwitheventsandcharactersonscreen;Readformeaningandenjoystorieswithfocusedtalkandjointattentionsupportedbytheexplicitnatureofthetextonthescreen;Developtheirunderstandingofprintthroughtextwhichishighlightedasitisread;Developtheirownnarrativeslinkedtowhatishappeningonscreen;Understandaspectsoftextsonscreen,suchasicons,navigationalfeaturesand‘hotspots’;DevelopICTskillssuchasuseofthemouse;Collaborateandnegotiatewithothers.*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+4402476887859.E-mailaddress:c.wood@coventry.ac.uk(C.Wood).0360-1315/$-seefrontmatterÓ2009ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.003C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198191However,inspiteoftheirpopularity,therehasbeenrelativelylittleresearchthathasexaminedexactlywhatbenefits,ifany,childrengainasaresultofusingsuchsoftware.Whilethereisagreementandevidencethatchildrenenjoyusingtheseresources(Fox,2002;Lit-tleton,Wood,&Chera,2005;Medwell,1998;Underwood&Underwood,1998),thereismixedevidenceregardingtheireffectivenesswithrespecttoteachingreading-relatedskills.Forexample,Miller,Blackstock,andMiller’s(1994)studyoffourchildren’srepeatedreadingofbothtalkingbooksandregularhardbackbooksnotedbenefitsintermsofareductioninthechildren’s‘searchingformeaning’miscues,butexpressedcautionabouttheuseofsuchresources.Medwell(1998)foundthatwhenchildrenusedatalkingbooktheirrecallofthestorywasbetterthanwhentheyhadreadthepaper-basedversions.However,therewereonlyverymodestgainsmadeinwordreadingability.Underwood(2002)hasdescribedthebenefitsofusingcommercialtalkingbooksas‘serendipitous’(p.124),andthisconclusionisborneoutbythemarginalimprovementsinattainmentnotedinthesestudies.Chera(2000)designedasetofthreeinteractivetalkingbooksforbeginningreaders,basedontheBangersandMashreadingschemepublishedbyLongman,whichenabledchildrentoaccessdifferentlevelsofspeechfeedback:wholepage,wholewordorsub-word.Sub-wordfeedbackoccurredifachildclickedonaword–ashortanimationfollowedthatshowedtheonsetofthewordseparatefromtheremainingpartoftheword(e.g.b–ig).Thecomputerthenplayedeachpartbeingspokenseparatelyandshowedthesub-wordunitsmovebacktogetherbeforefinishingwiththewholewordbeingspokenagain.Thesebooksweredesignedincloseconsultationwithteach-ers,psychologistsandchildren.Theprovisionofsub-wordfeedback,itshouldbenoted,wasalsoconsistentwithwhatwasrequestedbytheteacherssurveyedbyLewin(1998)andthissoftwarelackedmanyofthe‘edutainment’elementsofcommerciallyavailabletalkingbooks,suchasalargenumberofanimationhotspots,whichhavebeencriticisedfordistractingchildrenfromthestorytextandarecon-sideredcharacteristicofpoorCALdesign(Hapeshi&Jones,1992;Phillips,1996;Underwood,2002;Watson,1987).Inaninitialevaluationofthesoftware,CheraandWood(2003)foundthatfourtosix-year-oldchildren’sphonologicalawarenessim-provedsignificantlyafterjustten,10-minsessionswiththebookscomparedtothatofchildrenwhohadreceivednointervention.How-ever,nosignificantimprovementinthechildren’swordreadingabilitywasobserved.Inastricterevaluationofthesoftware,Wood(2005)examinedwhetherfiveandsix-yearoldchildrenwhousedthetalkingbookswouldshowasignificantlygreaterimprovementintheirphonologicalawarenessthanchildrenwhohadreceivedone-to-onetuitionwithanadultusingpaper-basedversionsofthesametexts.Thetwogroupsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheamountofimprovementintheirphono-logicalawarenessfrompretopost-test.Thissuggeststhatthetalkingbookswere‘asgoodas’one-to-onesupportfromanadultforchildrenatthisearlystageofreadingdevelopment.However,therewasalsoevidencethatuseofspecificelementsofthetalkingbookspeechfeed-backwasassociatedwithgainsinrhymedetectionability.Also,theyoungerchildreninthetalkingbooksgroupappearedtochangetheirapproachtowordreading.Thiswasevidencedinthenatureofthereadingerrorsthattheymade,withthefive-year-oldchildreninpar-ticularshowingadecreasedtendencytomispronouncewordstheywereattemptingtoread.Moreover,useofthe‘readthepage’functionofthesoftwarewasassociatedwithadecreaseinbothmispronunciationsandrefusalstoreadanunknownword,andanincreasedlike-lihoodtomakewordsubstitutions.TheresultsofWood(2005)suggestthattheinteractionalprocessofengagingwithtalkingbooks(a)maybedifferentfromwhatweseeinthecontextofadultsupportand(b)thataspectsofachild’sliteracyinteractionwiththeir‘tutor’(beithumanorcomputer-based)maybeassociatedwithimprovementinphonologicalawarenessfrompretopost-test.ArecentreviewofresearchintoliteracyandtechnologyinprimaryclassroomsbyBurnett(2009)iscriticaloftherelativeabsenceofworkinthisareathatexamines‘‘theprocessesinvolvedinaccessingandinteractingwithtextsonscreen.Exploringchildren’sengagementwithprogramsasdigitaltextscouldprovideinsightsintoreasonswhytheydoordonotachievetheintendedimpact”(p.26).ThepresentstudythereforeaimstoaddressthisissuebyextendingtheanalysisoftheWood(2005)studybyanalysingvideotapesmadeofthechildrenwhoparticipatedinmoredetail.Thenatureofthechildren’sinteractionswitheitherthetalkingbookortheadulttutorwerecategorisedtocapturetheoverallnatureoftheteachingandlearningtakingplacearoundeitherthepaperorcomputer-basedbooks.These‘process’ori-entateddatawerethenanalysedalongsidetheexistingdataonthechildren’spreandpost-testscorestoaddresstheresearchquestionsdiscussedabove.Anadditionalresearchquestionconsideredinthispaperisthedegreetowhichthetalkingbooksmightfacilitatespontaneous‘dialogicreading’.Dialogicreadingmostcommonlyreferstoaninterventionapproachinwhichparticulartypesofstandardisedpromptsareusedbytutors(usuallyteachersorparents)toengagetheyoungreaderwiththecontentofwhatisbeingreadduringjointstorybookreading(Mor-gan&Meier,2008;Whitehurstetal.,1994).Theserequirethetutortoaskopen-endedquestionsaboutaspectsofthestorybeingread,andexpandontheseresponses,praisethechildrenandbuildinterest.Thepromptstrategiesareintendedtofosterorallanguageskillsandlis-teningcomprehension;twoskillswhichunderpinsuccessfulreadingcomprehension.Thereisnowasubstantialliteraturewhichdemon-stratesthatsuchdialogicreadinginterventionsareeffectiveinraisingdevelopingreceptiveandexpressivevocabularyscores,narrativeskillsandsyntacticskillsinpre-schoolchildren,(e.g.Arnold,Lonigan,Whitehurst,&Epstein,1994;Hargrave&Sénéchal,2000;Hay&Field-ing-Barnsley,2007;Whitehurst&Lonigan,1998;Zevenbergen,Whitehurst,&Zevenbergen,2003).So,intermsofthechildren’sbehaviours,dialogicreadingreferstotheir‘abilitytoengageproductivelyindiscourse’aroundthestorythatisbeingread,whichiseffectivelyfosteringbothnewknowledgeanddeeperunderstandingoftheconceptsandexperiencesunderdiscussion(Bereiter&Scardamalia,2005).Intermsofwhatthismightlooklike,Fox(2002)suggeststhatthiswouldbeexpressedbehavio-urallybychildren:...seeing(andexpectingtosee)patternsandconnections;formingopinions;speculatingaboutwhatwillhappen;anticipatingeventsandresponses;placingqueries,uncertainties,ambiguitiesandcontradictionsintemporarystorageandrecognisingwhen(orif)theyhavebeenresolved;accommodatingsurprises;acknowledgingthe‘ringoftruth’anddetectingthefalseorcontrived;beingawareof,andvaluing,inter-textualresonances;suspendingdisbelief;andcolludingwiththeauthor(p.151)..However,Fox(2002)hasalsoarguedthatsuchdialogicalreasoningisoftenspontaneouslyapparentinchildren’stalkwhentheyareinteractingwithtalkingbooks.Thiswouldsuggestthatthisformofstorybook,withoutusingthetraditional‘Wh-?’promptsthatcharac-teriseinterventionprogrammes,seemtostimulatechildrentogeneratetheirowncommentaryandreflectiononthestory.TherewouldappeartobesomeevidencetosupportthisassertionfromtheworkofWoodetal.(2005)whoobservedthatyoungchildrenusingthetalkingbooksontheirown(withoutatutor)wouldengageinspontaneouscommentaryontheactionandcharactersinthestory.Inthisstudythechildren’stranscriptswerethereforealsoanalysedforevidenceofspontaneousdialogicreadingintheirlearninginteractionswithboththetalkingbookandtheadulttutor,toseewhetherthetalkingbookwasbetterplacedtoelicitthesetypesofcontribution.192C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198Wealsoconsideredwhethertherewasanyevidenceofanassociationbetweenindividualdifferencesinvocabularyandthechildren’sabilitytoengageindifferentformsofinteractionalstyle.Thatis,itwouldalsoseemlikelythatthewayinwhichchildrenchoosetointeractwiththeirtutor(beithumanorcomputer)couldbeinfluencedbythechildren’sownlanguageabilitiesatthatpointintheirdevelopment.Consequently,wealsoconsideredtheideathatvocabularymightmediateassociationsbetweenuseofparticularlearningstylesandob-servedgainsinphonologicalawareness.2.Method2.1.Participants80childrenparticipatedinthestudy;40five-year-oldsand40six-year-olds.Thesetwoagegroupsweresplitintotwogroupsoftwenty.Twentyofthefive-year-oldchildrenand20ofthesix-year-oldchildrenparticipatedinthe‘talkingbooks’intervention,whiletheremain-ingchildrencomprisedthecomparisongroup,whoreceivedone-to-onereadingsupportfromanadult.AllthechildrenwererecruitedfromasingleprimaryschoolintheUK(intheUKchildrenbegintoattendschoolandreceiveformaltuitioninreadingintheyearthattheyarefive-years-old).2.2.MatchingprocedureThechildrenintheinterventiongroupwerematchedtothechildreninthecomparisongrouponage,genderandphonologicalaware-nessasfaraspossible.Specifically,thechildrenwereassessedonreceptivevocabularyusingtheBritishPictureVocabularyScalesII(BPVSII;Dunn,Dunn,Whetton,&Burley,1997),andonrhymedetection,alliterationdetection,rapidpicturenamingandfluency(phonologicalpro-duction)usingsubteststakenfromthePhonologicalAssessmentBattery(PhAB;Frederickson,Frith,&Reason,1997).Detailsoftheseassess-mentsaregivenindetailinWood(2005).Eachgroupdemonstratedabroadrangeofinitialphonologicalawareness.TheNealeAnalysisofReadingAbility:Revised(NARAII;Neale,1997)wasalsoadministeredatpreandpost-testtoenableananalysisofthechildren’sreadingerrors(miscues)whenreadingstandardisedstorypassages.Thechildren’serrorswerenotedandcategorised.TheNARAIIgivesguidanceontheanalysisofmiscuesandusesthefollowingcategories:mispronunciation,substitution,refusal,addition,omissionandreversal(seeNeale,1997).Thechildrenwerelimitedtoreadingnomorethanthefirstthreelevelsofdifficulty,andtoavoidrepetitionForm1oftheNARAIIwasusedatpre-testandForm2wasusedatpost-test.Thenumberoftimeseachchildusedaparticularmiscueatpreandpost-testwasexpressedasapercentageofthetotalnumberofmiscuesusedbythatchildatthatassessmentpoint.Thedifferencebetweenthesepercentageswasthencalculatedtoprovideametricoftheextenttowhichtherewasachangeinuseofaspecifictypeofmiscuefrompretopost-test(positivevaluesindicatinganincreaseduse,negativevaluesindicatingareducedlevelofuse).ItshouldbenotedthatsimpleaccuracyscoresfromtheNARAIIwerenotincludedintheanalysisbecause,asnotedinWood(2005),therearedifferencesinvocabularybetweenForm1(usedatpre-test)andForm2(usedatpost-test),whichmeansmakesacomparisonofthenumberofwordsreadateachtimepointproblematic.2.3.ProcedureInitially,theteachersoftherelevantagegroupsintheschoolwereaskedtoidentify20five-year-oldsand20six-year-oldstoparticipateinthefirststageofthestudy.Inparticular,theywereaskedtoensurethatthechildrenrepresentedthefullrangeofabilityintheyeargroup.Theteacherswerenottoldwhetherthesechildrenwouldparticipateinthecomputer-basedinterventionorinthecomparisoncon-dition.ThechildrenwereassessedontheBPVSII,theNARAII,andtheselectedtasksfromthePhonologicalAssessmentBattery.Thecomparisonconditionwascompletedfirstsothattheadultwhowasconductingthesessionscoulddosowithoutanypriorknowl-edgeorexperienceoftheChera(2000)talkingbookssoftware.Theadultinquestionwasaresearchassistantwhohadexperienceofwork-ingwiththechildrenintheschoolasavoluntaryclassroomassistantandresearcher.ShewasinstructedtoworkthroughthefirstthreebooksfromtheBangersandMashreadingschemewiththechildreninawaythatshefeltwasappropriatetotheirageandreadingability;itwasimportantthatthesesessionswereasunrehearsedandspontaneousaspossible.DuringthesesessionsthechildrenwereaskedtoreadaloudfromtheBangersandMashbooks,andwereencouragedtoattemptasmanyofthewordsaspossible.Theyweretoldtoasktheadultiftheygotstuckonaletteroraword.Theonlyconstraintsplacedonthesesessionswerethattheyshouldlastnolongerthan15min,andthatthefirsttwosessionsshouldbewiththefirstbookfromthescheme(‘TheHatTrick’),thenexttwosessionsshouldbewiththesecondbook(‘Eggs’)andthefinaltwosessionshadtobewiththethirdbook(‘WigglyWorms’).Eachsessionwasapproximately3daysapartandallchildrenwereassessedindividually,inthe‘library’areaoftheschoolwherethechildrencametoselectnewreadingbooks.Whenallthechildreninthecomparisongrouphadbeenassessed,theremainingchildrenintheyeargroupwereassessedontheBPVSandtheirperformanceonthePhABtasks.Fromthesedata,thechildrenwhowereclosesttoamemberofthecomparisongrouponallthesemeasures,plusage,wererecruitedtotheinterventiongroup.So,althoughtherewasasmalldelayofabout4weeksbetweentheassess-mentofthechildreninthecomparisongroupsandthechildrenintheinterventiongroups,thematchingprocedureensuredthattherewaslittledifferenceintheabilityofthetwocohortsofchildrenatpre-test.ThechildrenintheinterventiongroupwereintroducedtothefirstbookfromtheChera(2000)BangersandMashtalkingbooks.Thefeaturesofthesoftwarewerebrieflydemonstratedtothechildren(seeChera&Wood,2003,forafulldescription),afterwhichtheywerelefttousethesoftwareunguided.Thelength,contentandoccurrenceofthesessionswereidenticaltothesessionsofthechildreninthecomparisongroup.Thefourthsessionwiththecomputer(outofatotalofsix)wasvideotaped,aswasthefourthsessionofthecomparisongroup’sintervention.Thesetapesformthebasisoftheinteractionanalysisreportedinthispaper(althoughduetoatechnicaldifficultyitwasnotpossibletoanalysesevenofthechildrenwhoparticipatedinthecomparisoncondition,andoneofthechildrenfromtheexper-imentalcondition).AllthechildrenwereposttestedontheNARAIIandthePhABtasks1weekaftertheyhadcompletedtheirinterventionsessions.C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198193Informedconsentwasobtainedfromtheschoolandfromtheparentsofthechildrenparticipating.Allthechildrenweregiventheopportunitytowithdrawfromthestudyatanypoint,andcouldoptnottocompleteanyoftheassessmentsiftheydidnotwishto.Afterthestudyconcluded,thesoftwarewasmadeavailabletothechildreninthecomparisongroups,sothatthosechildrencouldalsoexperi-enceanybenefitsobtainedfromusingthesoftware.2.4.Thecodingscheme:capturingliteracyinteractionsTheaimofthecodingschemewastocaptureingeneraltermsthenatureofthechildren’sinteractionswiththeir‘readingtutor’–eithertheadultorthetalkingbook.Thechallengewastodevelopcategoriesthatwouldreflectgenuineinteractionwithoutbeingconstrainedbythefactthatinonecontext(thetalkingbook)thechildrenwereentirelyincontrolofthelearninginteraction,whereasinthehumancon-texttheadultwasmorelikelytoassumecontrolofthesession.ThestartingpointforthecodingschemewasGuppyandHughes’(1999)descriptionofthetypesofteachingandlearninginteractionthatchildrenandtutorspassthroughduringthecourseofregular,school-basedandadult-ledreadingtuition.Theyidentifiedfivekeystagesinthehandoverofresponsibilityforreadingfromtheadulttothechild:bookbinding,chimingin,cuetalk,assistedreadingandbranch-ingout.Theydescribeindetailthekindsofbehavioursthatboththechildandthetutormightbeexpectedtodemonstratewithineachofthesestages.Theseprovedausefulstartingpointforthinkingaboutthenatureofteachingandlearninginteractionsaroundstorybookreading,buttheydidnottransferwelltocapturethenatureofchildren’sinteractionsaroundaresourcesuchasatalkingbook,astheyincorporatedawiderangeofresponsiveadultbehaviourswhichdidnothaveanequivalentinthecontextoftheBangersandMashsoftware.Inher1998paper,Medwelldescribesfourtypesofinteractionthatthechildreninherresearchappearedtoengageinaroundatalkingbook.Theseweredemonstration,jointactivity,supportedactivityandindependentreading.LikeGuppyandHughes’(1999)characterisation,thesedescriptionscapturethedegreetowhichthechildrenreliedontheir‘tutor’,andthewaysinwhichthechildrenusedthecomputertosupporttheirreading.ThecodingschemedevelopedherethereforedrawsonelementsofbothMedwell’s(1998)andGuppyandHughes’(1999)observationsofyoungchildren’slearninginteractions,whichwerethenadaptedtomakethemapplicabletobothoftheteachingandlearningcontextsexploredinthisstudy.Asubsetoftranscriptswascodedinitiallytoensurethatthecategorieswereabletocapturekeyfeaturesoftheinteractionsobserved.Thisresultedinfivecategoriesbeingreducedtofour(SupportedReadingdescribedbelowwasoriginallypilotedastwocodes–supportedreadinganddeductivereading–butitquicklybecameapparentthattherewasagooddealofoverlapbetweenthesetwocodeswhenappliedtothetranscripts).Beloweachofthefourfinalisedcategoriesarrivedataredescribed.2.4.1.BookbindingThistermwastakenfromGuppyandHughes’(1999)descriptionofthewaythatyoungchildrenwithlittleornoreadingabilityareintroducedtothenatureofstories,readingandtextthroughjointstorybookreading.ThistermalsoresonateswithMedwell’s(1998)descriptionofdemonstration.Inthesetypeofinteractionsweseethattheadult/computerisentirelyresponsibleforreadingthestory,andthey‘standinfortheauthor’(Guppy&Hughes,1999,p.27).Thechildrenmaycommentonthestory,orpointtoandrepeatawordoccasionally,buttheyarelargelysilentbutattentive.Anexampleofbookbindinginthecontextoftalkingbookuseispresentedbelow.Notethewaythatthechildisusingthetalkingbooktoreadthetexttohim,punctuatedbysomeexplorationofindividualwords.Throughallofthisheissilent,withtheexceptionofonecommentonthestory,whichconfirmshisengagementwiththestoryasastory:Computer:Child:Computer:Itsfuntothrowtheeggandcatchit.hchildturnspageiBangersthrowstheeggupone,twothreetimes.Bangersthrowstheeggupone,twothreetimeshchildturnspageiMash...runs...in...hat...he...has...no...hat...onhchildturnspageiHebumpsintohim.Isthattheeggdownthere?Hebumpsintohimthentheegglandsonhim.Runs...he...runs...into...into...Bangers...Bangers...Bangers.HerunsintoBangers.hchildturnspageiMash...egg...will...egg...will...can...c-an...can...see...the...hit...Mash...Will...it...hit...egg...will...it...hit...will...it...hit...mash...egg...egg...Canyouseetheegg?Willithitmash?hchildturnspageidid...top...Itdid!Bangontopofhishead.2.4.2.ChiminginAgain,thistermistakenfromGuppyandHughes(1999)butitisusedinaslightlybroaderwayhere,asitalsoresonateswithMedwell’sdescriptionofjointactivityinatalkingbookcontext.Theadult/computerstillhasprimaryresponsibilityforreadingthetext,similartobookbinding,butthesesessionsarecharacterisedbymoreconsistentcontributionsfromthechildrenwho‘chimein’whentheyknowawordandmayalsocommentonthestorynarrative.Manychildrenwhochimeinwillrepeatwordsjustaftertheyhavebeenreadbytheadult/computer,orwillattempttoreadsimultaneouslywiththeadult/computer,eventhoughtheirreadingisnotyetsufficientlydevelopedtoenablethemtoreadthetextunaided.Inthesecasestheirspeechwilloverlapwiththatoftheadult/computer,butitwillbeclearthatthechildisrelyingonthe‘tutor’tostarttosaythewordbeforetheyareabletojoinin.Anexampleofchimingintakenfromtheadult-ledsessionsispresentedbelow.Notethewaythattheadultandchildalternatetheircontributions,althoughthechildislargelyrepeatingwhatshehasjustheard.Theadultencouragesthisbytryingtohintattheidentityofthenextwordinthesentence:Child:Adult:Child:Adult:Child:Adult:Child:Adult:hholdsbookiBangersBangers...gets...a...anegganeggfromtheboxonthe...?onthe...?194C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198Child:Adult:Child:Adult:Child:the/t/.../t/.../t/chairtabletable2.4.3.SupportedreadingDuringsupportedreadingthechildrenareattemptingtoassumeresponsibilityforreadingthetextmostofthetime.However,theywillencounterwordsthattheyareunfamiliarwith,andturntotheadult/computertoassistthemwhentheygetstuck.Theirownstrategiesforindependentlydecodingwordsmayalsobevisible,andtheremaybefrequentwordsubstitutionstomaintaintheflowoftheirreading.GuppyandHughes(1999)describechildrenintheircuereadingstageasadopting‘adetective-likeapproachtounknownwords’(p.50),andthisisalsoacharacteristicofmanyofthechildreninthisstudyclassifiedasengaginginsupportedreading.Thecrucialelementofthistypeofinteraction,however,isthatthechildrenmakeuseoftheadult/computertohelpthemtoreadwordsthattheyareunsureofand/ortocheckthattheyhavereadawordcorrectly,asillustratedbythefollowingextracttakenfromoneofthetalkingbooktranscripts:Child:Computer:Child:Computer:Child:Computer:Child:Computer:Child:Computer:Bangershlookspuzzledi/i//s/.../i//s/.../i//s/.../i//s/...No,Icannotrememberthatonehmovesmouseiisisis...ItsItis...ItsBangers.Heisdig.../d//i//g/.../b//i//g/...big...Hehasaredhaton.hturnsthepageiMmm.Bangers...um...bangerssomething...bangers...Bangers...um...Bangersgota...Bangersgota...anhmovesmouseithe...from...Bangers...gets...aan/e//g/egg2.4.4.FluentreadingChildrenwhoarefluentreadersworkindependentlyandreadfluently.Appropriatestrategiesareappliedwhentheyareconfrontedwithanunknownword,andmistakesareseldommade.Crucially,theadult/computerisnotusedbythesechildrenforsupportatall.2.5.ApplicationofthelearninginteractioncodesAllthetranscriptswerecodedoninteractionalstyle,statementbystatement.Thesewerethencollatedsothatforeachchildadecisionwasmaderegardingwhatitsdominantstyleoflearninginteractionwasoverall,andalsopage-by-page.Thenumberofdifferentstylesemployedbyachildoverthecourseofthesessionwasalsonoted;aswasthenumberoftimestheyswitchedinteractionalstylesduringthesession.2.5.1.DialogicreadingThechildrenwerealsocategorisedintermsofwhetherornottheymadeanyspontaneouscommentsaboutthestorythatmetFox’s(2002)descriptionofdialogicreading.Onlyonecommentwasneededforthechildtobecodedasshowingevidenceofthistypeofengage-mentwiththetext.Forexample,thecommentofferedbythechildintheBookbindingextractgivenabovewouldbeclassifiedasevidenceofdialogicreading.Thenumberofdifferentspontaneousdialogicreadingcommentsmadebythechildrenwasalsonoted.2.6.Inter-rateragreementAnindependentraterwasaskedtoindependentlycodeallthetranscriptsfordominantinteractionalstyle,numberofdifferentstylesused,numberofstylechanges,andtostatewhethertherewasevidenceofdialogicalreading(asperFox’sdefinition)occurringinthosetranscripts.Thedegreeofagreementbetweenratersintermsofdominantinteractionalstylewasacceptable(Kappa=.75),andtherewasasignificantrelationshipbetweentheraters’assessmentsofthenumberofdifferentstylesused(rs=.613,p<.001)andthenumberoftimesthechildrenchangedstyles(rs=.640,p<.001).Therewasexcellentagreementbetweenratersintermsofthenumberofdialogicalcommentsobservedperchild(rs=.911,p<.001).3.Results3.1.AnalysisofliteracylearninginteractionsTable1presentsthedistributionofchildrenwhowereobservedtoengageineachofthedifferentkindsofliteracyinteraction.Itcanbeseenthatthereisevidencethatdifferentteachingandlearninginteractionswereassociatedwithwhetherthechildrenusedthetalkingbooksornot,v2(3,N=72)=13.163,p=.004.Inparticular,itcanbeseenthatbookbindingwasassociatedwithuseoftheinteractivetalkingbooks.Itwouldseemthatthetalkingbookenabledthechildrenwhowereintheveryearlystagesofreadingtoengagewiththetextsasstoriesratherthanasa‘readingtask’,whichcontrastedwithwhatseemedtobehappeningintheadult-ledsessions,whereeventheleastablechildrenchimedin.Table2comparestheperformanceofthechildrenintheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsonthevariouslearninginteractionmeasuresobtained.Mann–WhitneyanalysesrevealednosignificantdifferencesbetweentheexperimentalandcomparisongroupintermsoftheC.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198Table1

Thenumberofchildrencategorisedasengagedineachstyleofliteracyinteractionwithineachoftheexperimentalgroups.

BookbindingTalkingbooksAdultsupportTotals15116Chimingin71118Supportedreading347195Fluentreading141731Table2

Meanscoresonthelearninginteractionmeasures,bygroup(SDinparentheses).

TalkingbooksNo.No.No.No.No.No.ofofofofofofstylesusedstylechangespagesbookbindingpageschiminginpagessupportedreadingpagesfluentreading1.854.055.622.791.365.95(.93)(4.99)(7.07)(4.84)(2.95)(7.18)Adultsupport1.884.70.394.882.527.76(.82)(4.88)(1.60)(6.31)(3.48)(7.30)numberoftimesthechildrenchangedtheirstyleofliteracyinteraction(U=587,N1=39,N2=33,p=.508)orthenumberofinteractionalstylesusedduringasinglesession(U=610.5,N1=39,N2=33,p=.690).Therewas,however,asignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsintermsofthenumberofpagesinwhichthechildrenengagedinbookbinding(U=362.5,N1=39,N2=33,p<.001)andsupportedreading(U=474.5,N1=39,N2=33,p=.034).Thechildrenusingthetalkingbooksspentsignificantlymorepagesengagedinbookbindingthanthechildrenincomparisongroupdidwiththeiradulttutor,butthechildrenworkingwithanadultspentmoretimeengagedinsup-portedreadingthanthechildreninthetalkingbookscondition.Thenextquestionconsideredwaswhethertheinteractionalstyleadoptedbythechildrenmostofthetimeinfluencedtheirphonolog-icalawarenessdevelopment.Thedifferencesbetweenthepreandpost-testscoresoneachphonologicalawarenessmeasurewerecon-vertedtoz-scoresandtotalledtocreateacompositemeasureofthechildren’soverallphonologicalawarenessimprovement.Anychangesinthechildren’smiscuesbetweenpreandpost-testwerealsoconsidered.Summarystatisticsfortheseoutcomevariablesarepre-sentedinTable3.AKruskalWallistestwasconductedtoconsiderwhethertherewasasignificanteffectofliteracyinteractionstyleonthechildren’simprovementinphonologicalawareness,withineachexperimentalgroup(talkingbooksvs.adulttutor).Thisresultedinamar-ginallyreliableeffectofinteractionalstyleonphonologicalawarenessdevelopmentforthechildreninthetalkingbookscondition,v2(3,N=36)=7.784,p=.051,butnosignificantequivalenteffectforthechildrenintheadulttutorgroup,v2(2,N=32)=2.395,p=.302(NB=Bookbindinggroupintheadult-ledconditionisexcludedfromtheseanalysesasN=1).Therewasalsoevidenceofasignificantinter-actionbetweenexperimentalconditionandinteractionalstyleonphonologicalawareness,v2(6,N=71)=15.11,p=.019.ThiseffectwasattributabletoasignificantdifferenceinphonologicalawarenessimprovementbetweenBookbindingchildreninthetalkingbookscondi-tion(M=1.30,SD=1.75),andtheChimingInchildreninthetutorledgroup(M=À1.40,SD=2.40),(Bonferronicorrectionappliedsuchthatp<.002forpairwisecomparisonstobeconsideredsignificant).Nosignificanteffectsofinteractionalstylewereobservedforanymiscuetypewithinthetalkingbooksgroup.However,therewasasignificanteffectofinteractionalstyleonwordsubstitutions,v2(3,N=32)=10.068,p=.007andrefusals,v2(3,N=32)=9.020,p=.011,amongstthechildrentutoredbyanadult(NB.BookbindingwasexcludedasaconditionfromthisanalysisasN=1forthisgroup).Inbothcases,theseeffectsareattributabletosignificantdifferencesbetweenchildrenwhowerechiminginandfluentreaders(Bonferronicorrectionappliedsuchthatp<.0083forthepairwisecomparisonstobeconsideredsignificant).3.2.DialogicalreadingTable4showsthenumberofchildrenwhoshowedevidenceofself-initiateddialogicalreadingduringthevideotapedsession,andthemeannumberofdialogicreadingstatementsmadebythechildrenduringthesession.ItcanbeseenthatwhilethereappearstobeaTable3

Meanscoresontheliteracy-relatedoutcomevariables,bygroup(SDinparentheses).

BookbindingTalkingbooksPhonologicalawarenessMispronunciationsSubstitutionsRefusalsAdditionsOmissionsAdulttutorPhonologicalawarenessMispronunciationsSubstitutionsRefusalsAdditionsOmissionsN=151.30(1.75)À.1176(4.83)10.73(17.87)À20.53(35.24)6.09(23.57)3.83(14.15)N=1.5515–––––ChiminginN=61.56(2.55)À3.66(5.80)22.40(26.85)À19.72(28.50).0(.0).98(2.40)N=11À1.40(2.40)1.34(3.21)40.69(38.94)À41.02(40.07)À.70(2.32)À.31(13.24)SupportedreadingN=3À1.45(1.55)1.00(26.40)À4.31(28.05)À1.95(8.36)5.26(9.11).0(.0)N=4À1.15(2.20)8.35(13.76)14.06(35.05)À20.90(43.11).0(.0)À1.51(8.92)FluentreadingN=12À.657(2.21)16.02(41.58)À14.55(46.54)À3.89(31.79)1.67(5.77).76(2.62)N=17.32(2.53)12.87(46.28)À16.27(43.02)8.11(32.75)À2.94(12.13)À1.76(10.15)196C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198Table4

Summaryofchildrenwhoshowedevidenceofdialogicreading.

NumberofdialogicalreadersTalkingbooksAdultsupport2419Meannumberofdialogicalstatementsmadebythedialogicalreader2.91(3.06)2.09(4.45)Maximumnumberofdialogicalstatementsobservedinasession2013Table5

Numberofchildrenineachliteracystylegroupwhoshowedevidenceofdialogicalreading.

BookbindingNo.ofchildrenforwhomdialogicreadingobservedNo.ofchildrenforwhomdialogicreadingobservedMeannumberofdialogicstatementsmade(total)TalkingbooksAdulttutor1243.56(5.02)3.47(5.18)5.00(–)Chimingin1444.56(4.78)5.00(6.00)4.27(4.13)Supportedreading521.00(1.00).67(.58)1.25(1.26)Fluentreading12191.19(2.17)1.79(2.83).71(1.31)Table6

Zeroorderandpartialcorrelationcoefficients(controllingforvocabularyscores)betweennumberofpagesreadinagiveninteractionalstyleandimprovementinphonologicalawareness(PA).StyleBookbindingChiminginSupportedreadingFluentreading*ZeroordercorrelationwithPA.215À.076À.299*À.027PartialcorrelationwithPA.287*À.113À.253*À.013Partial(talkingbooksonly)PA.329.136À.204À.362*Partial(adultledonly)PA.053À.246À.249.376*p<.05.slightlygreaterproportionofthechildreninthetalkingbooksgroupmakingdialogicreadingstatements,thisassociationwasnotsignif-icant,v2(1,N=72)=.117,p=.733,andtherewasnoevidenceofasignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsintermsofthetotalnum-berofdialogiccommentsmadeduringthesession,U=603.5,N1=39,N2=33,p=.638.Thedatawerealsoanalysedtoseewhethertherewasaneffectofinteractionalstyleonthenumberofdialogicreadingcommentsmade,andasignificantmaineffectwasobserved,v2(3,N=72)=12.46,p=.006.Thiseffectwasattributabletothedifferencebetweenthechil-drenwhowerechimingincomparedtothechildrenwhowerefluentreaders(seeTable5).Thefluentreadersweremuchmorereluctanttoengageindialogiccommentscomparedtothechildrenintheearlierdevelopmentalstageofreading(Bonferronicorrectionapplied).Thisanalysiswasthenwasrepeatedwithineachoftheexperimentalconditions.Theeffectoflearninginteractiongrouponnumberofdialog-icalcommentsmadewasonlysignificantforthechildrenwithintheadulttutorgroup,v2(3,N=72)=11.007,p=.012.Inthefinalsetofanalyses,weconsideredwhethertherewererelationshipsbetweenthenumberofpagesreadusingagiveninterac-tionalstyleandphonologicalawarenessgains(seeTable6).InthefirstcolumnofthetablewecanseethatthereisasignificantnegativecorrelationbetweenphonologicalawarenessgainsandnumberofpagesreadinaSupportedReadingstyle.However,additionalanalysesshowedthattherewasevidenceofsignificantassociationsbetweenvocabularyscoresandthenumberofpagesreadinaBookbindingstyle(rs=À.311,p=.008),inaChimingInstyle(rs=À.356,p=002)andinaFluentstyle(rs=.463,p<.001),anditwasthereforepossiblethatindividualdifferencesinvocabularymaymediatetherelationshipsbetweenuseofthesestylesandgainsinphonologicalawareness.Sub-sequentcorrelationcoefficientswerecalculatedaftercontrollingfortheinfluenceofvocabulary,andarealsopresentedinTable6.TheseshowthatnotonlyistherestillasignificantnegativeassociationbetweenSupportedReadingandphonologicalawarenessimprovement,butthatthereisalsoasignificantpositiveassociationbetweennumberofpagesreadinaBookbindingstyleandphonologicalawarenessimprovement.Thesecorrelationswerealsocalculatedforthetalkingbooksgroupandtheadulttutorgroupseparately.Theseanalysesshowedthatforthechildrenintheadult-tutoredgrouptherewasasignificantpositiveassociationbetweenuseofaFluentReadingstyleandphonologicalawarenessimprovementaftertheinfluenceofvocabularyscoreshadbeencontrolled(p=.034).Inthetalkingbookscon-ditiontherewasasignificantnegativeassociationbetweenfluentreadingandphonologicalawarenessindependentlyofvocabulary(p=.032)andtheassociationbetweenbookbindingandphonologicalawarenesswasmarginallyreliable(p=.058).4.DiscussionThispaperfoundthatthereweredifferentpatternsofliteracyinteractionoccurringwitheachtypeofreadingsupport.Inparticularitwasnotedthatthechildreninthetalkingbooksgroupusedtheresourcetosupportbookbindingactivity;somethingthatwasmuchlessevidentintheadult-ledsessions,whereweobservedthechildrenattemptingtojoininwiththeadult’sreading.However,accordingtoGuppyandHughes(1999)bookbindingservesanimportantliteracyfunctioninearlyreadingdevelopment:itencourageschildrentode-velopmeaningmakingskills,itofferstheopportunityfortalkaboutthestoryanddevelopschildren’sunderstandingofwhatastoryis,howtointeractwithatextandhowtomakepredictionsaboutwhatwillhappennext.Italsosupportstheinitialdevelopmentofphonologicalandalphabeticawareness,asitcansupportletterrecognition,recurringpatternsoftextandsound,andhelptobuildachild’ssightvocab-ulary.DatafromthisstudyshowedthatchildreninthetalkingbooksgroupwhoengagedinBookbindingactivityhadsignificantlybetterimprovementinphonologicalawarenessrelativetothechildrenintheadult-ledsessionswhowereChimingIn.Consequently,thefactthatC.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198197thechildrenintheadult-ledgroup,manyofwhomwereonlyfive-years-old,showedlessbookbindingactivitywhentheirtalkingbookscounterpartsoptedtoelicititmaybeacauseforsomeconcern.Asnoted,therewassomeevidencethattheliteracystyleadoptedbythechildrenwithinthetalkingbookconditionmayimpactonpho-nologicalawarenessattainment.Thatis,althoughtheeffectobservedwithinthetalkingbooksgroupitselfwasonlymarginallyreliable(p=.051),therewasclearevidencethatbookbindingactivityinthisconditionresultedinbetterphonologicalawarenessimprovementthanwasseeninchildrenwhochimedinwithanadulttutor.Thisfindingisinlinewithotherstudiesthathavefoundevidenceofmodestbenefitsfortalkingbooksuseintermsofskillsdirectlyrelatedtoreading(e.g.Chera&Wood,2003;Medwell,1998).However,thispaperhasgonefurtherthanpreviousstudiesbyconsideringthemeditationalrolethatinteractionalstylemayplaywhenlearningfromcom-puter-basedresources.Wehavealsodemonstratedthatindividualdifferencesinvocabularyappeartomediaterelationshipsbetweenhowchildrenrelatetotheir‘tutor’andhowmuchtheylearnasaconsequence.Forexample,wesawthatthetwoleastmaturestylesofliteracyinteractionwerenegativelyassociatedwithvocabularylevel(theyweremorelikelytoadoptthesestylesiftheirvocabularywasweak),butfluentreadingwaspositivelyrelatedtovocabularylevel.Whenwecontrolledfortheserelationshipsinsubsequentanal-yses,wealsosawthatwhileBookbindingwasassociatedpositivelywithgainsinphonologicalawareness,SupportedReadingwasassoci-atednegativelywithphonologicalawarenessimprovementoverall.Thissuggeststhatsupportedreadingapproachesingeneralmayfosterdeclinesinphonologicalawarenessovertime.Interestingly,whenweconducttheseanalyseswithinthetalkingbooksgroup,fluentread-ingisfoundtobenegativelyassociatedwithimprovementinphonologicalawarenessovertime,buttheoppositeistruefortheadult-ledcondition.Thisresultsuggeststhatuseofmorematureinteractionalstylesonthecomputerdoesnotnecessarilyfostergainsinreadingskills,andsoadulttutoringmaybemoreappropriateforchildrenwhoaremoreablereaders,whereasthebookbindingresultsimplythatchildrenintheearlieststagesoflearningtoreadarelikelytobenefitthemostfromtheseresources.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesoverallbetweenthetwoconditionsintermsofspontaneousdialogicreadingbythechildren.How-evertherewasaneffectofinteractionalstyleonspontaneousdialogicreading,butthiswasonlyobservedforthechildrenintheadult-tutoredgroup.Itwouldseemthattheinteractionalstyleadoptedwhenreadingwithanadulthasamuchmorepowerfulimpactondialogiccommentingthanweseeinthecomputer-basedcondition.Thisresultrunscountertowhatwehadexpectedtofindattheoutsetofthisstudy,butmaybeexplainedbyFox’s(2002)ownobservationthat:Mycontentionisthatthesortofplayfulactivitieschildrenengageinwhentheyusetalkingbooksathomecanalsoencouragethedevelopmentofdialogicreading...Butthefearisthatifthetextisignoredaltogethertheycanencouragealazyapproachtostory(p.154).However,thedatafromthisstudyalsosuggeststhattheissuemayhingeontheseparationofreading-relatedknowledge,suchaspho-nologicalawareness,andtheabilitytoapplythatknowledgeduringreadingbyadoptingvariedandappropriatestrategiesforworkingouttheidentityofunfamiliarwords.Forexample,weobservedthatthechildren’sstyleofliteracyinteractionwasrelatedtochangesintheirreadingstrategieswithintheadult-tutoredgroup.Inparticularthecontrastwasmadebetweenthechildrenwhoengagedinchimingin,andthosewhowerefluentreaders.Thefluentreaders,bydefinition,werethosewhodidnotelicitsupportfromtheadultorcomputerduringthesessionthatwastaped.Itseemsthattheactofchiminginwithappropriateadultsupportmayencouragethechildrenintheearlierstageofdevelopmenttotrialalternativeapproachestotacklingunknownwords.Theabsenceofthiseffectforthechildreninthetalkingbookgroupsuggeststhatthenatureofthechildren’sinteractionswithsuchtechnologydonotaffordthescaffoldingneededtodemonstratealternativereadingstrategies.Thisresultexplainstheresultsofpreviousstudieswiththissoftwareinwhichgainsinpho-nologicalawarenesswereobserved,buttherewasnotransferoftheseskillstowordreadingitself(Chera&Wood,2003).Therearemethodologicallimitationsofthetalkingbooksworkthathasbeendonesofar.Thatis,allhavebeenofrelativelysmallscaleandtheperiodofintervention,asinthisstudy,relativelybrief.Whatisneededisnotjustalargerandlonger-terminterventionstudy,butalsoonethatismoredirectlygroundedinclassroomactivity.Thatis,therealacidtestoftheseresourceswouldbetomonitortheirnaturalisticuseinthecontextofapreandpost-testdesignwithamatchedcontrolgroup;withoutthesekindsofstudieswewillnotknowwhetherthelimitedgainsinattainmentobservedsofarareoverestimatesorunderestimatesofwhatsuchresourcesarecapableofachieving.Insummary,thispaperfoundevidencethattherearedifferencesintheliteracyinteractionsthatareelicitedinadultledandtalkingbooksbasedreadingsupport.Thetypeofliteracysupportprovidedappearstofacilitatedifferentinteractionalstylesamongstthechildrenatthelowestlevelsofattainmentinparticular.Forthechildrenusingthetalkingbooks,theirpreferenceforbookbindingwouldseemtosupportphonologicalawarenessdevelopment,whichwasnotobservedintheadult-tutoredgroup.However,theinteractionalapproachesobservedintheadult-tutoredgroupwereassociatedwithchangesinthechildren’sreadingstrategies.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroupsintermsofthespontaneousdialogictalkproducedbythechildrenduringthesessionsanalysed,buttheinteractionalstyleadoptedwithintheadult-tutoredgroupwasassociatedwithlevelsofdialogiccommenting,whereasinteractionalstylewiththecom-puterhadnosimilarimpact.AcknowledgementTheauthorswouldliketothanktheschoolandchildrenwhokindlyagreedtoparticipateinthisprogrammeofresearch,EvaVass,ElaineWeatherbyandKatieBaker.ThanksarealsoduetoPavCherawhogenerouslyallowedtheuseoftheBangersandMashsoftware,andtoJohnBurnswhorevisedandupdatedthesoftware.ThisprojectwassupportedinitiallybyanawardfromtheInternationalReadingAssociation’sElvaKnightGrantscheme.TheadditionalanalysispresentedinthispaperwasfundedbytheBritishAcademy(SG37159).ReferencesArnold,D.H.,Lonigan,C.J.,Whitehurst,G.J.,&Epstein,J.N.(1994).Acceleratinglanguagedevelopmentthroughpicture-bookreading:Replicationandextensiontoavideotapetrainingformat.JournalofEducationalPsychology,86,235–243.Bereiter,C.,&Scardamalia,M.(2005).Technologyandliteracies:Fromprintliteracytodialogicliteracy.InN.Bascia,A.Cumming,A.Datnow,K.Leithwood,&D.Livingstone(Eds.),Internationalhandbookofeducationalpolicy.Dordrecht,Netherlands:Springer.Burnett,C.(2009).Researchintoliteracyandtechnologyinprimaryclassrooms:Anexplorationofunderstandingsgeneratedbyrecentstudies.JournalofResearchinReading,32,22–37.198C.Woodetal./Computers&Education54(2010)190–198Chera,P.(2000)MultimediaCALandearlyreading:Iterativedesign,developmentandevaluation.UnpublishedPhDThesis,UniversityofBristol,UK.Chera,P.,&Wood,C.(2003).Animatedmultimedia‘talkingbooks’canpromotephonologicalawarenessinchildrenbeginningtoread.LearningandInstruction,13,33–52.Davies,H.,&O’Sullivan,O.(2002).LiteracyandICTintheprimaryclassroom:Theroleoftheteacher.InA.Loveless&B.Dore(Eds.),ICTintheprimaryschool.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Dunn,L.M.,Dunn,L.M.,Whetton,C.,&Burley,J.(1997).TheBritishpicturevocabularyscales(2nded.).Windsor:NFER-Nelson.Fox,B.(2002).Talkingstories,textoidsanddialogicalreading.InM.Monteith(Ed.),TeachingprimaryliteracywithICT.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Frederickson,N.,Frith,U.,&Reason,R.(1997).Phonologicalassessmentbattery.Windsor:NFER-Nelson.Guppy,P.,&Hughes,M.(1999).Thedevelopmentofindependentreading:Readingsupportexplained.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Hapeshi,K.,&Jones,D.(1992).Interactivemultimediaforinstruction:Acognitiveanalysisoftheroleofauditionandvision.InternationalJournalofHumanComputerInteraction,4(1),79–99.Hargrave,A.C.,&Sénéchal,M.(2000).Abookreadinginterventionwithpre-schoolchildrenwhohavelimitedvocabularies:Thebenefitsofregularreadinganddialogicreading.EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly,15,75–90.Hay,I.,&Fielding-Barnsley,R.(2007).Facilitatingchildren’semergentliteracyusingsharedreading:Acomparisonoftwomodels.AustralianJournalofLanguageandLiteracy,30,191–202.Lefever-Davis,S.,&Pearman,C.(2005).Earlyreadersandelectronictexts:CD-ROMstorybookfeaturesthatinfluencereadingbehaviors.TheReadingTeacher,58(5),446–454.Lewin,C.(1998).Talkingbookdesign:Whatdopractitionerswant?ComputersandEducation,30,88–94.Littleton,K.,Wood,C.,&Chera,P.(2005).Interactionswithtalkingbooks:Phonologicalawarenessaffectsboys’useoftalkingbooks.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,22,382–390.Medwell,J.(1998).Thetalkingbooksproject:Somefurtherinsightsintotheuseoftalkingbookstodevelopreading.Reading,32,3–8.Miller,L.,Blackstock,J.,&Miller,R.(1994).AnexploratorystudyintotheuseofCD-Romstorybooks.ComputersandEducation,22,187–204.Monteith,M.(2002).TeachingprimaryliteracywithICT.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Morgan,P.L.,&Meier,C.R.(2008).Dialogicreading’spotentialtoimprovechildren’semergentliteracyskillsandbehavior.PreventingSchoolFailure,52(4),11–16.Neale,M.D.(1997).Nealeanalysisofreadingability(revised).Windsor:NFER-Nelson.Phillips,R.(1996).Developersguidetointeractivemultimedia.Amethodologyforeducationalapplications.WesternAustralia:CurtinUniversityofTechnologyPerth.Underwood,J.(2002).Computersupportforreadingdevelopment.InM.Monteith(Ed.),TeachingprimaryliteracywithICT.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Underwood,G.,&Underwood,J.D.M.(1998).Children’sinteractionsandlearningoutcomeswithinteractivetalkingbooks.ComputersandEducation,30,95–102.Watson,D.(1987).DevelopingCAL:Computersinthecurriculum.London:Harper&Row.Whitehurst,G.J.,Arnold,D.S.,Epstein,J.N.,Angell,A.L.,Smith,M.,&Fischel,J.E.(1994).Apicturebookreadinginterventioninday-careandhomeforchildrenfromlow-incomefamilies.DevelopmentalPsychology,30,679–689.Whitehurst,G.J.,&Lonigan,C.J.(1998).Childdevelopmentandemergentliteracy.Childdevelopment,69,848–872.Wood,C.(2005).Beginningreaders’useof‘talkingbooks’softwarecanaffecttheirreadingstrategies.JournalofResearchinReading,28,170–182.Wood,C.,Littleton,K.,&Chera,P.(2005).Beginningreaders’useoftalkingbooks:Stylesofworking.Literacy,39,135–141.Zevenbergen,A.A.,Whitehurst,G.J.,&Zevenbergen,J.A.(2003).Effectsofashared-readinginterventionontheinclusionofevaluativedevicesinnarrativesofchildrenfromlow-incomefamilies.JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,24,1–15.