- Email: [email protected]
Mothers helping their preschool children to spell words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
)
–
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcci
Mothers helping their preschool children to spell words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper Dorit Aram ∗ , Orit Chorowicz Bar-Am School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel
article
info
Article history: Received 11 February 2014 Received in revised form 18 February 2016 Accepted 15 March 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Writing support Early literacy Writing mediation Keyboard Home literacy activities Technology
abstract Computers can serve as useful tools in developing children’s literacy. The study compared the nature of mother–child interactions spelling words using a computer vs. pencil and paper and explored whether mothers have a consistent mediation style beyond the writing tool. We videotaped 49 preschoolers and their mothers in their homes, spelling an eight-item shopping list, half of the words using a pencil and half using a computer. We coded the interactions, and compared between them while controlling for the child’s spelling level. The results show that mothers supported their children somewhat differently based on the writing tool. When using the computer, mothers supported their children through a more complete cognitive spelling process and gave them more independence. When using the pencil, mothers were more willing to ignore errors and entered into their child’s space more frequently. Beyond these differences, we found support for some consistency in the mothers’ mediation across the two writing tools. When given a choice of tools to spell a word, children preferred the computer. We call for raising parents’ and teachers’ awareness of the opportunities that the computer offers for joint writing and early literacy activities with children as a complement to traditional early literacy support. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Children develop within the context of the opportunities afforded to them in their culture [1]. Today, computers are an inseparable part of that culture and young children exhibit curiosity to engage in the experience of operating computers in their home environments. In 2013, 83.8% of U.S. households reported owning computers [2]. Similarly, 83% of the UK households [3], 93% of the Netherlands’ [4], and 89.0% of Israeli households [3] reported owning computers. In literate societies, children show an interest in written marks and attempt to produce their own writings long before they are formally taught to write or read (e.g., [5]). Young children actively use technology [6] and within the literacy realm, they find digital forms of print interesting [7,8]. In preschools, children use paper, pencils, and crayons for writing and drawing, along with computers. Computers are an integral part of the curriculum, supporting and enhancing literacy programs [9]. At home, parents join their young
∗ Correspondence to: School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 69907, Israel. Tel.: +972 52 2847346; fax: +972 3 6844834. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Aram). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.03.001 2212-8689/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
children’s interest in the written world; they encourage them to write and they frequently help them spell words (e.g., [10]). Although parents help their young children spell words on both paper and on digital screens, to date, the nature of parent–child spelling interactions has only been studied using pencil and paper (for a review see [11]). The present study addresses this issue by comparing the nature of mother–child spelling interactions using a computer to their spelling interactions with pencil and paper. Moreover, beyond the writing tool, we aimed to identify a possible maternal spelling support style. 2. Literature review 2.1. Children’s early writing and parental spelling mediation Spelling is an important skill that plays a fundamental role in children’s paths to literacy [12]. It integrates the central skills of phonological awareness and letter knowledge and provides a way to learn about sound to letter connections [13]. Young children who do not know yet how to spell words conventionally, frequently use random letters to write notes, lists, greetings, and the like (e.g., [10]). Children begin to understand the written code
2
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
when they start to spell words by representing the sounds within words using phonetically relevant letters [14,15]. In alphabetic orthographies, young children’s spelling levels provide evidence of their understanding of the alphabetic system [16] and predict early literacy, literacy growth, and literacy achievements in school (e.g., [17–20,16]). Children learn about the writing system through two main modalities: direct exposure to stimuli and mediated learning experiences [21]. Explicit instruction is required for children to master reading and writing; yet, children learn a great deal about the written language through informal interactions with their parents at home [22]. Parents familiarize their children with the alphabet and help their children write their names and names of other family members, birthday cards, notes, etc. (e.g., [23,10,24,25]). Writing activities with young children are valuable as they allow the practice of spelling and integration of literacy skills [26]. Research supports the important role of active parental mediation in enhancing children’s cognitive development (e.g., [27–29]). Effective mediation includes scaffolding at a challenging but not frustrating level, sensitivity to the child’s competence and perspective, encouragement of active participation on the part of the child, and assistance in alerting the child to metacognitive processes [30,31]. The parents’ mediation processes are gradually internalized by the child and facilitate the development of various cognitive functions. Parental spelling mediation refers to the ways in which parents help their young children cope with the spelling task. It mainly reflects the degree to which parents guide their child through the process of segmenting each word into its sounds and retrieving the required letter for each sound; the autonomy that parents allow their child in printing each letter; their elaborations; demand for precision; and the atmosphere that they create during the joint activity (e.g., [32,11]). There is evidence that the nature of parents’ spelling mediation in a pencil and paper-based interaction predicts children’s literacy achievements, across varied orthographies (e.g., [33] in Arabic; [34,35] in Chinese; [36] in English; [32] in Hebrew; [37] in Spanish). Furthermore, parents’ early writing mediation predicts children’s reading and writing in school ([38] in Hebrew; [39] in Arabic). From these studies, it seems clear that mothers’ spelling mediation can help children learn about the spelling process, which continues to influence children’s literacy development through early grade school. In all the above-mentioned studies, parents helped their children to graphically spell words on a paper. The present study is the first to assess whether the nature of mother–child spelling interactions varies based on the writing tool, i.e., the computer vs. pencil and paper. 2.2. Adult–child literacy interactions with computers Preschoolers have access to computers in their homes and they enjoy using them, alone or with their parents, for a range of educational and recreational activities [40,41]. Studies have been conducted on the use of computers in various areas of early literacy such as phonological awareness games (e.g., [42]), vocabulary promotion (e.g., [43,44]), alphabet knowledge [45], and the like. Nonetheless, our broad search failed to find studies on parent–child spelling interactions using computers. Adult guidance is important for effective use of the computer by young children [46]. Human mediation for computer use provides qualitative learning that suits the young child’s cognitive and emotional development, whereas computer support alone lacks this aspect [47–49]. Regarding literacy development, McKenney and Voogt [50] note that frequent use of technology can have a positive learning effect on children’s literacy development, at least in cases where adult facilitation is present. While children
)
–
tend to use computers daily in the home setting, most of the research exploring children’s interactions with computers has focused around classroom and educational settings, leaving the roles of parents and siblings understudied [51]. We therefore conducted this study in the children’s natural setting — their homes [52]. Given that the computer keyboard spreads the letters in front of both the child and the mother, we thought it would have the potential to enrich adults’ spelling mediation. Parents tend to match their support to the task and its complexity [53]. Aram [54] found that mothers provided more direction in guiding the writing of words than of names and were warmer and more cooperative when writing names. Still, mothers showed a consistent spelling support style across writing tasks such as dictated words, writing family names, or an invitation. For example, mothers who gave their children more independence or reinforcements in one task did so in the other task as well (e.g., [54,55]). Studying mothers’ spelling mediation when using two tools (computer vs. a pencil and paper) can teach about their spelling mediation style beyond the writing tool, a question that has not yet been answered. There is evidence that mothers adjust their spelling mediation to their children’s existing literacy skills and mediate on a higher level to children with stronger early literacy skills (e.g., [33]). Therefore, we controlled for children’s spelling in our comparison. Moreover, we aimed to learn about children’s preferred spelling tool. That is, do they prefer spelling a word using the computer or a pencil? We hypothesized that, beyond the children’s spelling level: (1) Mothers would encourage their children to spell longer words, support the children to go through a more complete cognitive process of spelling, and elaborate more often when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil and paper. (2) Given the visibility of the keyboard, mothers would allow their children more independence in producing the letters, and demand more corrections from the children when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. Mothers would enter into their children’s space more often to help them become familiar with the keyboard and the children would demand more independence when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. (3) Being sensitive to their children’ physical difficulty printing the letters, mothers would ignore more errors when spelling words using the pencil and paper. They would enter into their children’s space more often to print the letters for them than when using a computer. (4) Due to mothers’ stability across tasks, mothers would show consistency in their spelling mediation beyond the writing tool (computer or pencil). (5) Being attracted to digital tools, children would prefer using the computer for spelling than using a pencil. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The sample included 49 Israeli preschoolers (23 boys and 26 girls) and their mothers. The children’s ages ranged from 58 to 76 months (M = 63.80 months, SD = 3.94), with an average age of approximately 5 years and 3 months. The number of children in the families ranged from 1 to 4 (M = 2.41 children, SD = 0.81); twenty-nine children in our sample were first-born, 13 were the second, four were the third, and three were the fourth-born children in their families. The mothers’ mean age was 39 years (SD = 4.37) and their education ranged from high school (n = 11), through BA (n = 18) and MA (n = 18), to Ph.D. (n = 2). Most of the families were intact (86%) and all of them had at least one computer at home.
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
3.2. Procedure We collected the sample using the snowball method. We called and invited parents in two preschools to participate in the study. Participating parents referred us to their friends whose children were at the appropriate age and these parents referred us to their friends, etc. We invited both mothers and fathers to participate, but as only two fathers participated, we include only mothers in this paper. However, we did conduct statistical analyses with the fathers, which did not affect the results. We collected the data during one session that lasted approximately 30 minutes in the afternoon. We first assessed the child’s independent spelling. Then, the mother and child were asked to come up with a shopping list of eight products. The products were chosen freely by the mother and child in order to allow a natural dialog between them. We asked the mother to help her child spell four of these products using pencil and paper and four with the researcher’s laptop (in a counter-balanced manner). For the former, the researcher gave the mother and the child a paper and a pencil, and for the latter, the researcher opened a Word document and invited the mother and the child to spell the words on this ‘‘page’’. Lastly, the researcher asked the child to spell a word independently, using his/her favorite writing tool (the pencil or the computer). The entire mother–child interaction was videorecorded. Although tablets have grown in popularity, we used a computer because more households in Israel have computers than tablets [56]. Similarly, while children are probably used to their home computer, to avoid differences in keyboards and screen sizes we used the researcher’s laptop in all the homes. Since children’s familiarity with a computer system can impact the way they interact with a computer (e.g., [52]), we used the most prevalent computer system (Windows7) and the most popular word processor in Israel (Microsoft Word) at the time of data collection. According to mothers’ reports, all the children had previously encountered the software. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Mother–child interactions The videotaped interactions were transcribed and then coded. Coding was based on previous research [57,58] as follows. Grapho-phonemic mediation. This scale reflected the depth of the cognitive process that the mother encouraged her child to go through when spelling a word. The mediation of each printed letter was scored on a 6-point scale: (1) The mother refers to the word as a whole or as a sequence of sounds; (2) The mother dictates the letter names; (3) The mother retrieves a phonological unit (e.g., sub-syllable) and dictates the required letter name; (4) The mother retrieves a phonological unit and helps the child to link it with a letter name; (5) The mother helps the child to retrieve a phonological unit and link it with a letter name; and (6) The mother encourages the child to go through the process independently while monitoring the child along the steps. The average score across the letters of the words written using each spelling tool served as the grapho-phonemic mediation score (reliability across letters: Cronbach’s α = 0.96 and 0.95 for mediation with pencil and computer, respectively). Printing mediation. This scale reflected the autonomy that the mother gave her child when producing the printed letter (using either tool). We scored the mediation of each letter on a 5-point scale: (1) The mother prints the letter; (2) The mother prints the letter for the child to copy; (3) The mother scaffolds the child in printing the letter using visual clues; (4) The mother scaffolds the child in printing the letter using the child’s knowledge of words or letters; and (5) The child prints the letter, usually monitored by the mother. The average across the letters in each word within
)
–
3
each writing condition served as the printing mediation score (reliability across letters: Cronbach’s α = 0.96 and 0.91 for mediation with pencil and computer, respectively). Ignoring errors. We counted the times that the mother accepted an incorrect outcome (e.g., misspelling) without asking the child to correct it. Entering into the child’s space. We counted the times that the mother entered the child’s working space to help in (1) printing a letter, or (2) getting the child organized on the paper or the keyboard (e.g., clicking the backspace key). Demand for correction. We counted the times that the mother insisted that her child will correct an outcome (e.g., space between words, replace letters). Elaborations. We counted mother’s elaborations that directed her child toward an expansion of his/her cognitive awareness, beyond what is necessary to complete the spelling task at hand (expressions implying inductive and deductive reasoning, conclusions, etc.). Child’s demand for independence. We counted the times that the child requested independence to spell the word. Two MA students assessed the inter-judge reliability of the measures on 15% of the sample, retrieved randomly. The mean percentage of inter-judge agreement was 91% (grapho-phonemic mediation), 93% (printing mediation), 100% (ignoring errors), 100% (intrusion into the child’s space for writing), 96% (intrusion into the child’s space for organizing), 98% (demand for correction), 96% (elaborations), and 97% (child’s demand for independence). 3.3.2. Child measures Spelling level. We gave the child four cards, each of which displayed drawings of a noun (carrot, pencil, sofa, and umbrella) and asked the child to write each word using magnetic letters on a magnetic board. We said: ‘‘Please spell these words as well as you can’’. The words are frequently used in Hebrew and are composed of 16 letters that include half of the letters of the alphabet. Magnetic letters are effective in assessing early spelling because they help the avoidance of questions regarding the child’s written product (if the product is not clear) (e.g., [59]). We counted the number of letters spelled correctly across the four words. Preferred spelling tool. After the spelling interaction we asked the child to spell the word ARTIK (popsicle) independently. We assessed the child’s preferred tool (computer or pencil) to spell it. We chose this word thinking that it is an easy word to spell and children love popsicles and will like to write this word. 4. Results We first describe the children’s spelling level. Second, we describe the mother–child interactions using a computer and a pencil and compare between them, controlling for the children’s spelling level. Third, we present the correlation of mothers’ spelling support between the two writing tools. Last, we present the children’s writing tool preference. 4.1. Children’s independent spelling Results showed that on average, the children correctly spelled six out of the 16 given letters in the four words (M = 37.38%, SD = 35.08). Without their mothers’ help, they correctly spelled less than half of the letters of the dictated words, showing that they need adults’ help in spelling tasks.
4
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
)
–
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for mother–child interaction measures, one-way ANOVAs comparing the two writing tools controlling for the children’s spelling level (N = 49). Variable
Sum of mediated letters Duration (minutes) Grapho-phonemic mediation Printing mediation Demand for correction Ignoring errors Entering into the child’s space: Letter printing Organization Elaborations Child’s demand for independence * **
Pencil & paper
Computer
F
M
SD
Min.
Max.
M
SD
Min.
Max.
17.94 7.03 3.24 3.58 0.80 1.31
3.43 3.17 1.29 1.36 1.04 1.62
13 2.03 1.00 1.00 0 0
29 16.07 5.17 5.00 4 6
18.96 7.12 3.50 3.75 0.73 0.35
4.00 3.14 1.12 1.02 0.95 1.21
12 1.87 1.17 1.08 0 0
29 15.15 5.58 5.00 4 6
3.53 0.57 3.20 0.33
6.50 1.00 2.82 0.69
0 0 0 0
24 5 11 3
1.12 2.24 3.43 0.80
3.65 2.09 3.16 0.99
0 0 0 0
18 8 14 3
0.27 1.66 4.27* 6.97** 0.10 −19.54** 18.76** 11.21** 0.00 4.28*
p < 0.05. p < 0.01.
4.2. Mother–child interactions We compared the spelling interactions (computer vs. pencil) via one-way repeated measure ANOVAs, controlling for the children’s independent spelling level. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the interactions’ measures and the ANOVA’s F values comparing between them. We counted all the letters that parents helped their children spell with each writing tool and the length of the interactions. We did not find significant differences in the words’ length based on the tool. Mothers helped their children spell approximately 18 letters across the words regardless of tool (pencil or computer) and the spelling interactions lasted approximately seven and a half minutes with each tool. The mothers helped their children write everyday products that a family buys in the supermarket. Some of them were short words like milk (XLV1 ), strawberry (TUT), or bread (LXM) and others were longer like cucumber (MLPPON), candy (MMTK), or mandarin (KLMNTINA). Since the shortest words had three letter, in our support analyses we included only the first three letters of each word that the mother helped her child spell. We found that mothers supported their children through a significantly more complete cognitive grapho-phonemic process when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil, controlling for the children’s spelling level (see Table 1). The mothers’ mean grapho-phonemic mediation scores using the pencil show that they usually retrieved a phonological unit and immediately matched it with the required letter name (e.g., when spelling the word ‘MIZ’ (juice), a mother said ‘‘Let’s write MIZ. MMM’M – MEM’’ (letter name)). When using the computer, mothers tended to retrieve a phonological unit and encouraged their children to match it to the required letter (e.g., for the word ‘MIZ’ (juice) a mother said: ‘‘Let’s write MIZ. MMM’ which letter is it?’’). Mothers’ printing mediation was significantly higher when using the computer than when using the pencil, controlling for the children’s spelling level (see Table 1). When spelling words using a pencil, mothers more frequently printed the letters themselves or printed a letter on a page for the child to copy. For example, when spelling the word MIZ (juice) one mother printed the letter M on a paper and said to her child, ‘‘here is the letter MEM (M); copy it’’. A minute later when scaffolding the writing of the word MNGO (mango), she pointed to the letter M (that she printed before) and again asked the child to copy it. When spelling the words using the computer mothers gave their children more independence in producing the letters and used more visual clues
1 Hebrew spelling
to help their children remember the letter’s shape. When spelling the word ‘SHOKO’ (chocolate milk), one mother asked her son: ‘‘Do you remember what ‘SHIN’ (S) looks like? It’s like a Hanukkah candelabra’’. In general, mothers avoided asking their children to correct outcomes, yet they ignored errors significantly more when helping their children spell words using a pencil than the computer. In one case, a mother helped her child spell the word ‘MELAFEFON’ (cucumber) using a pencil and the child omitted the letter O and printed the letter N independently. The mother praised him and said ‘‘That’s correct, but for the sound of ‘ON’ we need to add an ‘O’ between the ‘F’ and the ‘N’, Next time we will add it’’. When spelling words using the computer, mothers more often ensured ahead that the words were spelled correctly. As we expected (see Table 1), mothers entered their children’s space significantly more times to help them produce a letter when spelling with the pencil than with the computer. Mothers entered into their children’s space to help them get organized more frequently when using the computer than the pencil. One mother pressed the enter key and said to her son: ‘‘If you press on this bottom, it will take us to the line below’’. Children did not like their mothers to enter into their space and clearly asked for independence. For example, a child moved her mothers’ hand from the keyboard in order to complete a word on her own and said, ‘‘Let me do it, I know how’’. At the same time, children demanded independence significantly more when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. We did not find significant differences between the two tools in terms of mothers’ elaborations. We found that, on average, mothers elaborated and challenged their children’s thinking (e.g., comparisons, conclusions) about three times per interaction when using both tools (computer or pencil). When elaborating, mothers mainly directed their children’s attention to the specifics of the language, such as one mother who said to her child: ‘‘. . . You’re right, it sounds like ‘TAF’ but this sound can be ‘TAF’ or ‘TET’ (homophonic letters for the sound ‘T’). We write ‘PASTA’ with ‘TET’’. Another mother said, ‘‘Look, we wrote two words that begin with the letter L - LIMON (lemon) and LEXEM (bread)’’. The mothers in our sample supported both their sons and daughters. We statistically assessed the differences in gender and did not find significant differences in the nature of the interactions between mother–son versus mother–daughter. To explore whether mothers exhibit a consistent mediation style across the two writing tools, correlations were computed between the maternal mediation measures. We found significant correlations across the measures (with the exception of entering into the child’s space for letter printing). The highest correlations were found between grapho-phonemic mediation (r = 0.82, p = 0.00), and printing mediation (r = 0.71, p = 0.00). These literacy-specific mediation measures reflect the way that a mother helps her child understand the spelling process, segmenting the word into its phonemes, connecting each phoneme to
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
a letter name, and printing the letter. We found somewhat moderate correlations for ignoring errors (r = 0.43, p = 0.00), entering into the child’s space for letter printing (r = 0.35, p = 0.02), and elaborations (r = 0.47, p = 0.00). The lowest, yet significant correlation, was for demand for corrections (r = 0.28, p = 0.02). 4.3. Children’s writing tool preference At the end of the session, the children were asked to spell the word ‘popsicle’ independently using their favored spelling tool (computer or pencil). In line with our fourth hypothesis, most of the children selected the computer (69%) over the pencil and paper (31%). 5. Discussion and conclusions In the current study we explored mothers’ support of their preschool children when spelling words using a computer versus pencil and paper. We wanted to discover how the change in the writing tool during the interaction is related to the nature of the interaction beyond the children’s spelling level and learn about mothers’ spelling mediation style beyond the writing tools. The results revealed that mothers seemed to show a consistent spelling mediation style beyond writing tools. At the same time, the nature of mothers’ support changed when using the different tools. In line with our first hypothesis, we found that when using the computer, mothers’ supported their children through a more complete and independent mental process of segmenting words into sounds and finding the appropriate letters to match each sound (grapho-phonemic mediation) than when using a pencil. When spelling words with a pencil on a paper, print production often preoccupies children. Word processors shift children’s attention from inscribing to encoding [60]. For mothers, it seems that when freed from the need to help their preschooler print the actual letters on the page, they use the opportunity to encourage their children to further understand the spelling system. Indeed, although printing on the computer is less time consuming, the spelling interactions using both tools took the same amount of time. We suggest that mothers used this extra time to discuss the alphabetic code. Since previous studies showed that higher levels of maternal grapho-phonemic mediation predicts literacy achievements across orthographies (e.g., [39,13]), the higher levels of mothers’ mediation when using the computer for spelling is an important finding. In line with our second hypothesis, we found that mothers gave their children more independence in printing the letters when using the computer than when using the pencil. Mothers in our study were aware of the fact that the keyboard frees children from the technical aspects of producing the letters [61] and encouraged the children to find the required letters independently. When the children did not find the letter, they gave their children visual clues, aided by the keyboard in front of the children. Effective mediation includes sensitivity to the child’s abilities and encouragement of active participation on the part of the child [30]. There is evidence that mothers are sensitive to their child’s abilities and difficulties and they adjust their spelling mediation accordingly [58]. Our results showing that mothers allowed their children to be more involved in spelling the words when using the computer than pencil and paper contribute further evidence of mothers’ sensitivity. Although mothers gave their children more autonomy in terms of spelling using the computer, they did frequently enter into their children’s space to help them get organized on the keyboard. This shows that mothers assumed that children do not know the computer functions (e.g., ‘enter’, ‘backspace’). Instead of explaining or guiding the children, mothers just clicked on the keyboard.
)
–
5
Haugland [62] indicated that young children feel comfortable with the computer functions and minimal scaffolding is often enough to teach them how to use these functions. Children did not like their mothers to enter into their space and clearly asked for independence. Supporting our third hypothesis, mothers entered into their children’s space to print or correct a letter shape more frequently when spelling using a pencil. Furthermore, mothers’ seemed more willing to accept errors on the page than on the screen. Overall, mothers seldom asked their children to correct a letter, rather they themselves corrected more mistakes on the screen than on the page. We assume that the fine motor skills involved in producing a letter when writing with pencil and the accuracy demanded in producing a readable letter on paper may be the reason for these maternal behaviors. There is evidence that correcting erroneous spellings pulls children toward greater understanding of the orthography (e.g., [58]). Nevertheless, mothers frequently avoided correcting their children’s spelling when they were writing with a pencil. In line with our fourth hypothesis, mothers showed a fairly consistent writing mediation style across the two writing tools. A consistent style was also found in mothers’ writing mediation to their fraternal twins [58] and across writing tasks [54]. We suggest that mothers’ spelling mediation style is the product of their past literacy experiences with their child [10], beliefs about their children’s competence [13], pedagogical beliefs about teaching, and about themselves as mediators [30,55]. Their consistency is more salient among the literacy specific mediation measures (grapho-phonemic and printing mediation), suggesting that mothers have a particular way of supporting their child’s spelling. It seems that mothers’ manner of support is more dependent on the writing tool when it comes to the more general mediation measures like their organization of the activity and reference to a mistake. Lastly, supporting our fifth hypothesis, the majority of the children preferred to independently spell a word using the computer. Children’s preference to use the computer may reflect their attraction to the technical environment that surrounds them in their homes. It may also reflect the fact that printing on a keyboard demands less effort because the letters are exposed and the child does not have to retrieve them from her memory. Similarly, it may be the ease of printing and erasing on the keyboard and the fact that the letters appear automatically in line and in the same size. Whitehurst and Lonigan [63] stress the importance of children’s attitude toward early literacy as a major key to their literacy development. Children’s interest and willingness to interact with literacy tools in their environment is important. Their interest in spelling words with the computer can open doors to more frequent writing activities. 5.1. Implications Comparing between parents’ writing support in their natural setting using different writing tools draws attention to the stability and variability in parental support. We learned that the different writing tools emphasize different aspects of parental support. We should draw parents’ attention to the keyboard’s benefits in the context of early literacy (e.g., the ease of producing the letter, the presence of the letters on the keyboard). At the same time, we should help them be aware of their tendency to organize their child when using the computer. Alerting adults to their behavior when supporting children with different writing tools can make them more aware and creative and help them be more effective mediators. Since supporting children’s spelling is productive in promoting their literacy achievements, parents should expose children to both digital (e.g., cell phones, tablets) and non-digital
6
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
(e.g., stickers, magnet letters) writing tools and be aware of their advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, preschool teachers should make use of a variety of writing tools in the classroom. The presence of technology is already a physical reality in most preschools and teacher–child interactions with the computer are helpful in supporting young children’s early reading skills [44,64]. Beyond this, play areas in preschools such as an office, grocery store, or restaurant invite writing activities. Teachers thus can help children write recipes, advertisements, menus, etc. [9]. We call for further use of computers in preschools for writing. Our study’s results also indicate the need for age-appropriate computer programs that will emphasize the grapho-phonemic process (i.e., segmenting the words into its phonemes and relating phonemes to letters) and teach children how to use the keyboard effectively (e.g., space between words). Since young children are unable to sufficiently analyze print to discover the alphabetic principle on their own, it is important that these programs include adult guidance and draw the adults’ and the child’s attention to the writing system in general and to the grapho-phonemic process in particular. Future studies can address some of the limitations of our study. First, they should address a larger, more varied sample in age and socio-economic background. It is important to learn about parental support across ages and parents’ background. Second, although the two participating fathers’ behaviors did not differ from that of the mothers, previous research has shown some differences between maternal and paternal writing support when using a pencil [57]. We urge researchers to further study fathers’ writing support using digital tools and learn how it differs from mothers’ support. Third, we found that the mothers tend to have a consistent spelling support style across the two writing tools, primarily across the more specific writing support measures — grapho phonemic and printing mediation. However, we assessed only one digital writing tool (a computer). Pencil and paper is different from the computer in several ways (e.g., the need to physically create the letters on the paper). To further discuss the unique virtues of the computer as a writing mediation tool it is important to compare it to comparative media. Future studies should explore how parents support their children’ spelling using different digital media (e.g., tablets, cell phone). The results of our study can serve as a beginning for future research that will explore parents’ spelling mediation with different technologies and demonstrate how these different writing tools can enhance children’s early literacy. Writing is about turning spoken words into printed letters. We call adults’ attention to the options that the computer offers for writing interactions with preschoolers. References [1] B. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Oxford University Press, 2003. [2] USA Census Bureau, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013, 2014. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/ acs-28.pdf. [3] Statista – the statistic portal, Percentage of households with home computers in the United Kingdom (UK) from 1985 to 2014, 2015.http://www.statista.com/statistics/289191/ household-penetration-of-home-computers-in-the-uk. [4] Statistics Netherlands, ICT usage by households, 2013. http://statline.cbs. nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71102ned&D1=0-3,30-34& D2=0-10&D3=0,l&HD=130422-1118&HDR=G2,T&STB=G1. [5] L. Tolchinsky, The Cradle of Culture and What Children Know About Writing and Numbers Before Being Taught, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2003. [6] X.C. Wang, I.R. Berson, C. Jaruszewicz, L. Hartle, D. Rosen, Young children’s technology experiences in multiple contexts. Brofenbrenner’s ecological theory reconsidered, in: I.R. Berson, M.J. Berson (Eds.), High-Tech Tots. Childhood in a Digital World, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2010, pp. 23–47.
)
–
[7] T. Downes, Children’s and families’ use of computers in Australian homes, Contemp. Issues Early Child. 3 (2002) 182–196. [8] J. Marsh, Young children’s play in online virtual worlds, J. Early. Child. Res. 8 (2010) 23–39. [9] J. Van Scoter, The potential of IT to foster literacy development in kindergarten, in: J. Voogt, G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Education, Springer, London, 2008, pp. 149–161. [10] M.M. Neumann, M. Hood, D.L. Neumann, The scaffolding of emergent literacy skills in the home environment: A case study, Early Child. Educ. J. 36 (2009) 313–319. [11] D. Aram, I. Levin, Home support of children in the writing process: Contributions to early literacy, in: S. Neuman, D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy, Vol. 3, Guilford Press, New York, 2011, pp. 189–199. [12] A. Mangen, J.L. Velay, Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing, in: M.H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in Haptics, InTechopen.com, 2009, pp. 385–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/8710. [13] D. Aram, S. Abiri, L. Elad, Predicting early spelling: The contribution of children’s early literacy, self-regulation, private speech during spelling, and parental spelling support, Read. Writ. 27 (2014) 685–707. [14] K. Roskos, S.B. Neuman, Environment and its influences for early literacy teaching and learning, in: S.B. Neuman, D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Guilford Press, New York, 2002, pp. 281–294. [15] L. Tolchinsky, The emergence of writing, in: C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research, Guilford, New York, 2006, pp. 83–95. [16] K.D. Ritchey, The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words, Read. Writ. 21 (2008) 27–47. [17] L.C. Ehri, L.S. Wilce, Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read words? Read. Res. Q. (1987) 47–65. [18] M. Caravolas, C. Hulme, M.J. Snowling, The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study, J. Mem. Lang. 45 (2001) 751–774. [19] H.S. Mäki, M.J.M. Voeten, M.M.S. Vauras, E.H. Poskiparta, Predicting writing skill development with word recognition and preschool readiness skills, Read. Writ. 14 (2001) 643–672. [20] C. McBride-Chang, The development of invented spelling, Early Educ. Dev. 9 (1998) 147–160. [21] D. Tzuriel, Mediated learning experience and cognitive modifiability, J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 12 (2013) 59–80. [22] B.H. Wasik, S. Herrmann, Family literacy: History, concepts, services, in: Handbook of Family Literacy, Lawrence Elbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2004, pp. 3–22. [23] N. Hall, Interactive writing with young children, Child. Educ. 76 (2000) 358–364. [24] M.M. Neumann, D.L. Neumann, Parental strategies to scaffold emergent writing skills in the preschool child within the home environment, Early Years 30 (2010) 79–94. [25] O.N. Saracho, Literacy development in the family context, Early Child Dev. Care 163 (2000) 107–114. [26] L.E. Skibbe, S.L. Bindman, A.H. Hindman, D. Aram, F.J. Morrison, Longitudinal relations between parental writing support and preschoolers’ language and literacy skills, Read. Res. Q. 48 (2013) 387–401. [27] M.H. Bornstein, C. Tamis-LeMonda, Activities and interactions of mothers and their firstborn infants in the first six months of life, Child Dev. 61 (1990) 1206–1217. [28] T.N. Cristofaro, C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, Mother–child conversations at 36 months and at prekindergarten: Relations to children’s school readiness, J. Early Child. Lit. 12 (2012) 68–97. [29] D. Tzuriel, Parent-child mediated learning transactions as determinants of cognitive modifiability: Recent research and future directions, Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 125 (1999) 109–156. [30] R. Feuerstein, Haadam Keyeshut Mishtana: Al Torat Halimida Hametavechet (The Theory of Mediated Learning Experience: About The Human as a Modifiable Being), Ministry of Defense, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1998, Hebrew. [31] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978. [32] D. Aram, I. Levin, Mother–child joint writing in low SES: Socio-cultural factors, maternal mediation, and emergent literacy, Cogn. Dev. 16 (2001) 831–852. [33] D. Aram, O. Korat, E. Saiegh-Haddad, S. Hassunah Arafat, R. Khoury, J. Hija, Early literacy among Arabic speaking kindergartners: The role of socioeconomic status, home literacy environment, and maternal mediation of writing, Cogn. Dev. 28 (2013) 193–208. [34] D. Lin, C. McBride-Chang, D. Aram, I. Levin, Y.M. Cheung, Y.Y. Chow, L. Tolchinsky, Maternal mediation of writing in Chinese children, Lang. Cogn. Process. 24 (2009) 1286–1311. [35] D. Lin, C. McBride-Chang, D. Aram, I. Levin, Mother–child joint writing in Chinese kindergartners: Metalinguistic awareness, maternal mediation, and literacy acquisition, J. Res. Read. 34 (2011) 426–442. [36] S.W. Bindman, L.E. Skibbe, A.H. Hindman, D. Aram, F.J. Morrison, Parental writing support and preschoolers’ early literacy, language, and fine motor skills, Early Child. Res. Q. 29 (2014) 614–624. [37] I. Levin, D. Aram, L. Tolchinsky, C. McBride, Maternal mediation of writing and children’s early spelling and reading: The semitic abjad versus the European alphabet, Writ. Syst. Res. 2 (2013) 134–155. [38] D. Aram, I. Levin, The role of maternal mediation of writing to kindergartners in promoting literacy in school: A longitudinal perspective, Read. Writ. 17 (2004) 387–409. [39] D. Aram, O. Korat, S. Hassunah Arafat, The contribution of early home literacy activities to reading and writing in Arabic in first grade, Read. Writ. 26 (2013) 1517–1536.
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction ( [40] L. Plowman, O. Stevenson, C. Stephen, J. McPake, Preschool children’s learning with technology at home, Comput. Educt. 59 (2012) 30–37. [41] R. Zevenbergen, H. Logan, Computer use by preschool children, Aust. J. Early Child. 33 (2008) 37–44. [42] E. Segers, L.L. Verhoeven, Long-term effects of computer training of phonological awareness in kindergarten, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21 (2005) 17–27. [43] D.L. Labbo, M. Love, T. Ryan, A vocabulary flood: Making words ‘sticky’ with computer-response activities, Read. Teach. 60 (2007) 582–588. [44] E. Segers, L.L. Verhoeven, Multimedia support of early literacy learning, Comput. Educt. 39 (2002) 207–221. [45] C.A.T. Kegel, A.G. Bus, M.H. Van IJzendoorn, Differential susceptibility in early literacy instruction through computer games: The role of the Dopamine D4 Receptor Gene (DRD4), Mind Brain Educ. 5 (2011) 71–78. [46] D.H. Clements, Young children and technology, in: Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 1999. [47] P. Klein, O. Nir-Gal, E. Darom, The use of computers in kindergarten with or without adult mediation: Effects on children’s cognitive performance and behavior, Comput. Hum. Behav. 16 (2000) 591–608. [48] O. Segal-Drori, O. Korat, A. Shamir, P.S. Klein, Reading electronic and printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading, Read. Writ. 23 (2010) 913–930. [49] D. Tzuriel, A. Shamir, The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 18 (2002) 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00204.x. [50] S. McKenney, J. Voogt, Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal initiative, Comput. Educ. 52 (2009) 719–729. [51] J.C. Read, P. Markopoulos, Child-computer interaction, J. Child Comput. Interact. 1 (2013) 2–6.
)
–
7
[52] P. Markopoulos, J.C. Read, S. MacFarlane, J. Hoysniemi, Evaluating Children’s Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2008. [53] H. Kermani, M.E. Brenner, Maternal scaffolding in the child’s zone of proximal development across tasks: Cross-cultural perspectives, J. Res. Child. Educ. 15 (2000) 30–52. [54] D. Aram, Joint writing in Hebrew of dictated words versus proper names: Analysis of low SES mother-kindergartner dyads, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 17 (2002) 47–61. [55] O. Korat, I. Levin, Maternal beliefs, mother-child interaction, and child’s literacy: Comparison of independent and collaborative text writing between two social groups, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 22 (2001) 397–420. [56] The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS), Families and Households in Israel, 2015. www.cbs.gov.il. [57] D. Aram, Writing with young children: A comparison of paternal and maternal guidance, J. Res. Read. 33 (2010) 4–19. [58] D. Aram, Sensitivity and consistency in maternal writing mediation to twin kindergartners, Early Educ. Dev. 18 (2007) 71–92. [59] I. Levin, D. Aram, Promoting early literacy via practicing invented spelling: A comparison of different mediation routines, Read. Res. Q. 48 (2013) 1–16. [60] M. Cochran-Smith, C.L. Paris, J.L. Kahn, Learning to Write Differently: Beginning Writers and Word Processing, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1996. [61] D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, Young children and technology: What does the research say? Young Child. 58 (2003) 38–40. [62] S.W. Haugland, What role should technology play in young children’s learning? Part 2-early childhood classrooms in the 21st century, Young Children 55 (2000) 12–18. [63] G.J. Whitehurst, C.L. Lonigan, Child development and emergent literacy, Child Dev. 69 (1998) 848–872. [64] J. Voogt, S. McKenney, Using ICT to foster (pre) reading and writing skills in young children, Comput. Sch. 24 (3–4) (2008) 83–94.
)
–
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcci
Mothers helping their preschool children to spell words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper Dorit Aram ∗ , Orit Chorowicz Bar-Am School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel
article
info
Article history: Received 11 February 2014 Received in revised form 18 February 2016 Accepted 15 March 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Writing support Early literacy Writing mediation Keyboard Home literacy activities Technology
abstract Computers can serve as useful tools in developing children’s literacy. The study compared the nature of mother–child interactions spelling words using a computer vs. pencil and paper and explored whether mothers have a consistent mediation style beyond the writing tool. We videotaped 49 preschoolers and their mothers in their homes, spelling an eight-item shopping list, half of the words using a pencil and half using a computer. We coded the interactions, and compared between them while controlling for the child’s spelling level. The results show that mothers supported their children somewhat differently based on the writing tool. When using the computer, mothers supported their children through a more complete cognitive spelling process and gave them more independence. When using the pencil, mothers were more willing to ignore errors and entered into their child’s space more frequently. Beyond these differences, we found support for some consistency in the mothers’ mediation across the two writing tools. When given a choice of tools to spell a word, children preferred the computer. We call for raising parents’ and teachers’ awareness of the opportunities that the computer offers for joint writing and early literacy activities with children as a complement to traditional early literacy support. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Children develop within the context of the opportunities afforded to them in their culture [1]. Today, computers are an inseparable part of that culture and young children exhibit curiosity to engage in the experience of operating computers in their home environments. In 2013, 83.8% of U.S. households reported owning computers [2]. Similarly, 83% of the UK households [3], 93% of the Netherlands’ [4], and 89.0% of Israeli households [3] reported owning computers. In literate societies, children show an interest in written marks and attempt to produce their own writings long before they are formally taught to write or read (e.g., [5]). Young children actively use technology [6] and within the literacy realm, they find digital forms of print interesting [7,8]. In preschools, children use paper, pencils, and crayons for writing and drawing, along with computers. Computers are an integral part of the curriculum, supporting and enhancing literacy programs [9]. At home, parents join their young
∗ Correspondence to: School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 69907, Israel. Tel.: +972 52 2847346; fax: +972 3 6844834. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Aram). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2016.03.001 2212-8689/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
children’s interest in the written world; they encourage them to write and they frequently help them spell words (e.g., [10]). Although parents help their young children spell words on both paper and on digital screens, to date, the nature of parent–child spelling interactions has only been studied using pencil and paper (for a review see [11]). The present study addresses this issue by comparing the nature of mother–child spelling interactions using a computer to their spelling interactions with pencil and paper. Moreover, beyond the writing tool, we aimed to identify a possible maternal spelling support style. 2. Literature review 2.1. Children’s early writing and parental spelling mediation Spelling is an important skill that plays a fundamental role in children’s paths to literacy [12]. It integrates the central skills of phonological awareness and letter knowledge and provides a way to learn about sound to letter connections [13]. Young children who do not know yet how to spell words conventionally, frequently use random letters to write notes, lists, greetings, and the like (e.g., [10]). Children begin to understand the written code
2
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
when they start to spell words by representing the sounds within words using phonetically relevant letters [14,15]. In alphabetic orthographies, young children’s spelling levels provide evidence of their understanding of the alphabetic system [16] and predict early literacy, literacy growth, and literacy achievements in school (e.g., [17–20,16]). Children learn about the writing system through two main modalities: direct exposure to stimuli and mediated learning experiences [21]. Explicit instruction is required for children to master reading and writing; yet, children learn a great deal about the written language through informal interactions with their parents at home [22]. Parents familiarize their children with the alphabet and help their children write their names and names of other family members, birthday cards, notes, etc. (e.g., [23,10,24,25]). Writing activities with young children are valuable as they allow the practice of spelling and integration of literacy skills [26]. Research supports the important role of active parental mediation in enhancing children’s cognitive development (e.g., [27–29]). Effective mediation includes scaffolding at a challenging but not frustrating level, sensitivity to the child’s competence and perspective, encouragement of active participation on the part of the child, and assistance in alerting the child to metacognitive processes [30,31]. The parents’ mediation processes are gradually internalized by the child and facilitate the development of various cognitive functions. Parental spelling mediation refers to the ways in which parents help their young children cope with the spelling task. It mainly reflects the degree to which parents guide their child through the process of segmenting each word into its sounds and retrieving the required letter for each sound; the autonomy that parents allow their child in printing each letter; their elaborations; demand for precision; and the atmosphere that they create during the joint activity (e.g., [32,11]). There is evidence that the nature of parents’ spelling mediation in a pencil and paper-based interaction predicts children’s literacy achievements, across varied orthographies (e.g., [33] in Arabic; [34,35] in Chinese; [36] in English; [32] in Hebrew; [37] in Spanish). Furthermore, parents’ early writing mediation predicts children’s reading and writing in school ([38] in Hebrew; [39] in Arabic). From these studies, it seems clear that mothers’ spelling mediation can help children learn about the spelling process, which continues to influence children’s literacy development through early grade school. In all the above-mentioned studies, parents helped their children to graphically spell words on a paper. The present study is the first to assess whether the nature of mother–child spelling interactions varies based on the writing tool, i.e., the computer vs. pencil and paper. 2.2. Adult–child literacy interactions with computers Preschoolers have access to computers in their homes and they enjoy using them, alone or with their parents, for a range of educational and recreational activities [40,41]. Studies have been conducted on the use of computers in various areas of early literacy such as phonological awareness games (e.g., [42]), vocabulary promotion (e.g., [43,44]), alphabet knowledge [45], and the like. Nonetheless, our broad search failed to find studies on parent–child spelling interactions using computers. Adult guidance is important for effective use of the computer by young children [46]. Human mediation for computer use provides qualitative learning that suits the young child’s cognitive and emotional development, whereas computer support alone lacks this aspect [47–49]. Regarding literacy development, McKenney and Voogt [50] note that frequent use of technology can have a positive learning effect on children’s literacy development, at least in cases where adult facilitation is present. While children
)
–
tend to use computers daily in the home setting, most of the research exploring children’s interactions with computers has focused around classroom and educational settings, leaving the roles of parents and siblings understudied [51]. We therefore conducted this study in the children’s natural setting — their homes [52]. Given that the computer keyboard spreads the letters in front of both the child and the mother, we thought it would have the potential to enrich adults’ spelling mediation. Parents tend to match their support to the task and its complexity [53]. Aram [54] found that mothers provided more direction in guiding the writing of words than of names and were warmer and more cooperative when writing names. Still, mothers showed a consistent spelling support style across writing tasks such as dictated words, writing family names, or an invitation. For example, mothers who gave their children more independence or reinforcements in one task did so in the other task as well (e.g., [54,55]). Studying mothers’ spelling mediation when using two tools (computer vs. a pencil and paper) can teach about their spelling mediation style beyond the writing tool, a question that has not yet been answered. There is evidence that mothers adjust their spelling mediation to their children’s existing literacy skills and mediate on a higher level to children with stronger early literacy skills (e.g., [33]). Therefore, we controlled for children’s spelling in our comparison. Moreover, we aimed to learn about children’s preferred spelling tool. That is, do they prefer spelling a word using the computer or a pencil? We hypothesized that, beyond the children’s spelling level: (1) Mothers would encourage their children to spell longer words, support the children to go through a more complete cognitive process of spelling, and elaborate more often when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil and paper. (2) Given the visibility of the keyboard, mothers would allow their children more independence in producing the letters, and demand more corrections from the children when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. Mothers would enter into their children’s space more often to help them become familiar with the keyboard and the children would demand more independence when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. (3) Being sensitive to their children’ physical difficulty printing the letters, mothers would ignore more errors when spelling words using the pencil and paper. They would enter into their children’s space more often to print the letters for them than when using a computer. (4) Due to mothers’ stability across tasks, mothers would show consistency in their spelling mediation beyond the writing tool (computer or pencil). (5) Being attracted to digital tools, children would prefer using the computer for spelling than using a pencil. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The sample included 49 Israeli preschoolers (23 boys and 26 girls) and their mothers. The children’s ages ranged from 58 to 76 months (M = 63.80 months, SD = 3.94), with an average age of approximately 5 years and 3 months. The number of children in the families ranged from 1 to 4 (M = 2.41 children, SD = 0.81); twenty-nine children in our sample were first-born, 13 were the second, four were the third, and three were the fourth-born children in their families. The mothers’ mean age was 39 years (SD = 4.37) and their education ranged from high school (n = 11), through BA (n = 18) and MA (n = 18), to Ph.D. (n = 2). Most of the families were intact (86%) and all of them had at least one computer at home.
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
3.2. Procedure We collected the sample using the snowball method. We called and invited parents in two preschools to participate in the study. Participating parents referred us to their friends whose children were at the appropriate age and these parents referred us to their friends, etc. We invited both mothers and fathers to participate, but as only two fathers participated, we include only mothers in this paper. However, we did conduct statistical analyses with the fathers, which did not affect the results. We collected the data during one session that lasted approximately 30 minutes in the afternoon. We first assessed the child’s independent spelling. Then, the mother and child were asked to come up with a shopping list of eight products. The products were chosen freely by the mother and child in order to allow a natural dialog between them. We asked the mother to help her child spell four of these products using pencil and paper and four with the researcher’s laptop (in a counter-balanced manner). For the former, the researcher gave the mother and the child a paper and a pencil, and for the latter, the researcher opened a Word document and invited the mother and the child to spell the words on this ‘‘page’’. Lastly, the researcher asked the child to spell a word independently, using his/her favorite writing tool (the pencil or the computer). The entire mother–child interaction was videorecorded. Although tablets have grown in popularity, we used a computer because more households in Israel have computers than tablets [56]. Similarly, while children are probably used to their home computer, to avoid differences in keyboards and screen sizes we used the researcher’s laptop in all the homes. Since children’s familiarity with a computer system can impact the way they interact with a computer (e.g., [52]), we used the most prevalent computer system (Windows7) and the most popular word processor in Israel (Microsoft Word) at the time of data collection. According to mothers’ reports, all the children had previously encountered the software. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Mother–child interactions The videotaped interactions were transcribed and then coded. Coding was based on previous research [57,58] as follows. Grapho-phonemic mediation. This scale reflected the depth of the cognitive process that the mother encouraged her child to go through when spelling a word. The mediation of each printed letter was scored on a 6-point scale: (1) The mother refers to the word as a whole or as a sequence of sounds; (2) The mother dictates the letter names; (3) The mother retrieves a phonological unit (e.g., sub-syllable) and dictates the required letter name; (4) The mother retrieves a phonological unit and helps the child to link it with a letter name; (5) The mother helps the child to retrieve a phonological unit and link it with a letter name; and (6) The mother encourages the child to go through the process independently while monitoring the child along the steps. The average score across the letters of the words written using each spelling tool served as the grapho-phonemic mediation score (reliability across letters: Cronbach’s α = 0.96 and 0.95 for mediation with pencil and computer, respectively). Printing mediation. This scale reflected the autonomy that the mother gave her child when producing the printed letter (using either tool). We scored the mediation of each letter on a 5-point scale: (1) The mother prints the letter; (2) The mother prints the letter for the child to copy; (3) The mother scaffolds the child in printing the letter using visual clues; (4) The mother scaffolds the child in printing the letter using the child’s knowledge of words or letters; and (5) The child prints the letter, usually monitored by the mother. The average across the letters in each word within
)
–
3
each writing condition served as the printing mediation score (reliability across letters: Cronbach’s α = 0.96 and 0.91 for mediation with pencil and computer, respectively). Ignoring errors. We counted the times that the mother accepted an incorrect outcome (e.g., misspelling) without asking the child to correct it. Entering into the child’s space. We counted the times that the mother entered the child’s working space to help in (1) printing a letter, or (2) getting the child organized on the paper or the keyboard (e.g., clicking the backspace key). Demand for correction. We counted the times that the mother insisted that her child will correct an outcome (e.g., space between words, replace letters). Elaborations. We counted mother’s elaborations that directed her child toward an expansion of his/her cognitive awareness, beyond what is necessary to complete the spelling task at hand (expressions implying inductive and deductive reasoning, conclusions, etc.). Child’s demand for independence. We counted the times that the child requested independence to spell the word. Two MA students assessed the inter-judge reliability of the measures on 15% of the sample, retrieved randomly. The mean percentage of inter-judge agreement was 91% (grapho-phonemic mediation), 93% (printing mediation), 100% (ignoring errors), 100% (intrusion into the child’s space for writing), 96% (intrusion into the child’s space for organizing), 98% (demand for correction), 96% (elaborations), and 97% (child’s demand for independence). 3.3.2. Child measures Spelling level. We gave the child four cards, each of which displayed drawings of a noun (carrot, pencil, sofa, and umbrella) and asked the child to write each word using magnetic letters on a magnetic board. We said: ‘‘Please spell these words as well as you can’’. The words are frequently used in Hebrew and are composed of 16 letters that include half of the letters of the alphabet. Magnetic letters are effective in assessing early spelling because they help the avoidance of questions regarding the child’s written product (if the product is not clear) (e.g., [59]). We counted the number of letters spelled correctly across the four words. Preferred spelling tool. After the spelling interaction we asked the child to spell the word ARTIK (popsicle) independently. We assessed the child’s preferred tool (computer or pencil) to spell it. We chose this word thinking that it is an easy word to spell and children love popsicles and will like to write this word. 4. Results We first describe the children’s spelling level. Second, we describe the mother–child interactions using a computer and a pencil and compare between them, controlling for the children’s spelling level. Third, we present the correlation of mothers’ spelling support between the two writing tools. Last, we present the children’s writing tool preference. 4.1. Children’s independent spelling Results showed that on average, the children correctly spelled six out of the 16 given letters in the four words (M = 37.38%, SD = 35.08). Without their mothers’ help, they correctly spelled less than half of the letters of the dictated words, showing that they need adults’ help in spelling tasks.
4
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
)
–
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for mother–child interaction measures, one-way ANOVAs comparing the two writing tools controlling for the children’s spelling level (N = 49). Variable
Sum of mediated letters Duration (minutes) Grapho-phonemic mediation Printing mediation Demand for correction Ignoring errors Entering into the child’s space: Letter printing Organization Elaborations Child’s demand for independence * **
Pencil & paper
Computer
F
M
SD
Min.
Max.
M
SD
Min.
Max.
17.94 7.03 3.24 3.58 0.80 1.31
3.43 3.17 1.29 1.36 1.04 1.62
13 2.03 1.00 1.00 0 0
29 16.07 5.17 5.00 4 6
18.96 7.12 3.50 3.75 0.73 0.35
4.00 3.14 1.12 1.02 0.95 1.21
12 1.87 1.17 1.08 0 0
29 15.15 5.58 5.00 4 6
3.53 0.57 3.20 0.33
6.50 1.00 2.82 0.69
0 0 0 0
24 5 11 3
1.12 2.24 3.43 0.80
3.65 2.09 3.16 0.99
0 0 0 0
18 8 14 3
0.27 1.66 4.27* 6.97** 0.10 −19.54** 18.76** 11.21** 0.00 4.28*
p < 0.05. p < 0.01.
4.2. Mother–child interactions We compared the spelling interactions (computer vs. pencil) via one-way repeated measure ANOVAs, controlling for the children’s independent spelling level. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the interactions’ measures and the ANOVA’s F values comparing between them. We counted all the letters that parents helped their children spell with each writing tool and the length of the interactions. We did not find significant differences in the words’ length based on the tool. Mothers helped their children spell approximately 18 letters across the words regardless of tool (pencil or computer) and the spelling interactions lasted approximately seven and a half minutes with each tool. The mothers helped their children write everyday products that a family buys in the supermarket. Some of them were short words like milk (XLV1 ), strawberry (TUT), or bread (LXM) and others were longer like cucumber (MLPPON), candy (MMTK), or mandarin (KLMNTINA). Since the shortest words had three letter, in our support analyses we included only the first three letters of each word that the mother helped her child spell. We found that mothers supported their children through a significantly more complete cognitive grapho-phonemic process when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil, controlling for the children’s spelling level (see Table 1). The mothers’ mean grapho-phonemic mediation scores using the pencil show that they usually retrieved a phonological unit and immediately matched it with the required letter name (e.g., when spelling the word ‘MIZ’ (juice), a mother said ‘‘Let’s write MIZ. MMM’M – MEM’’ (letter name)). When using the computer, mothers tended to retrieve a phonological unit and encouraged their children to match it to the required letter (e.g., for the word ‘MIZ’ (juice) a mother said: ‘‘Let’s write MIZ. MMM’ which letter is it?’’). Mothers’ printing mediation was significantly higher when using the computer than when using the pencil, controlling for the children’s spelling level (see Table 1). When spelling words using a pencil, mothers more frequently printed the letters themselves or printed a letter on a page for the child to copy. For example, when spelling the word MIZ (juice) one mother printed the letter M on a paper and said to her child, ‘‘here is the letter MEM (M); copy it’’. A minute later when scaffolding the writing of the word MNGO (mango), she pointed to the letter M (that she printed before) and again asked the child to copy it. When spelling the words using the computer mothers gave their children more independence in producing the letters and used more visual clues
1 Hebrew spelling
to help their children remember the letter’s shape. When spelling the word ‘SHOKO’ (chocolate milk), one mother asked her son: ‘‘Do you remember what ‘SHIN’ (S) looks like? It’s like a Hanukkah candelabra’’. In general, mothers avoided asking their children to correct outcomes, yet they ignored errors significantly more when helping their children spell words using a pencil than the computer. In one case, a mother helped her child spell the word ‘MELAFEFON’ (cucumber) using a pencil and the child omitted the letter O and printed the letter N independently. The mother praised him and said ‘‘That’s correct, but for the sound of ‘ON’ we need to add an ‘O’ between the ‘F’ and the ‘N’, Next time we will add it’’. When spelling words using the computer, mothers more often ensured ahead that the words were spelled correctly. As we expected (see Table 1), mothers entered their children’s space significantly more times to help them produce a letter when spelling with the pencil than with the computer. Mothers entered into their children’s space to help them get organized more frequently when using the computer than the pencil. One mother pressed the enter key and said to her son: ‘‘If you press on this bottom, it will take us to the line below’’. Children did not like their mothers to enter into their space and clearly asked for independence. For example, a child moved her mothers’ hand from the keyboard in order to complete a word on her own and said, ‘‘Let me do it, I know how’’. At the same time, children demanded independence significantly more when spelling words using the computer than when using a pencil. We did not find significant differences between the two tools in terms of mothers’ elaborations. We found that, on average, mothers elaborated and challenged their children’s thinking (e.g., comparisons, conclusions) about three times per interaction when using both tools (computer or pencil). When elaborating, mothers mainly directed their children’s attention to the specifics of the language, such as one mother who said to her child: ‘‘. . . You’re right, it sounds like ‘TAF’ but this sound can be ‘TAF’ or ‘TET’ (homophonic letters for the sound ‘T’). We write ‘PASTA’ with ‘TET’’. Another mother said, ‘‘Look, we wrote two words that begin with the letter L - LIMON (lemon) and LEXEM (bread)’’. The mothers in our sample supported both their sons and daughters. We statistically assessed the differences in gender and did not find significant differences in the nature of the interactions between mother–son versus mother–daughter. To explore whether mothers exhibit a consistent mediation style across the two writing tools, correlations were computed between the maternal mediation measures. We found significant correlations across the measures (with the exception of entering into the child’s space for letter printing). The highest correlations were found between grapho-phonemic mediation (r = 0.82, p = 0.00), and printing mediation (r = 0.71, p = 0.00). These literacy-specific mediation measures reflect the way that a mother helps her child understand the spelling process, segmenting the word into its phonemes, connecting each phoneme to
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
a letter name, and printing the letter. We found somewhat moderate correlations for ignoring errors (r = 0.43, p = 0.00), entering into the child’s space for letter printing (r = 0.35, p = 0.02), and elaborations (r = 0.47, p = 0.00). The lowest, yet significant correlation, was for demand for corrections (r = 0.28, p = 0.02). 4.3. Children’s writing tool preference At the end of the session, the children were asked to spell the word ‘popsicle’ independently using their favored spelling tool (computer or pencil). In line with our fourth hypothesis, most of the children selected the computer (69%) over the pencil and paper (31%). 5. Discussion and conclusions In the current study we explored mothers’ support of their preschool children when spelling words using a computer versus pencil and paper. We wanted to discover how the change in the writing tool during the interaction is related to the nature of the interaction beyond the children’s spelling level and learn about mothers’ spelling mediation style beyond the writing tools. The results revealed that mothers seemed to show a consistent spelling mediation style beyond writing tools. At the same time, the nature of mothers’ support changed when using the different tools. In line with our first hypothesis, we found that when using the computer, mothers’ supported their children through a more complete and independent mental process of segmenting words into sounds and finding the appropriate letters to match each sound (grapho-phonemic mediation) than when using a pencil. When spelling words with a pencil on a paper, print production often preoccupies children. Word processors shift children’s attention from inscribing to encoding [60]. For mothers, it seems that when freed from the need to help their preschooler print the actual letters on the page, they use the opportunity to encourage their children to further understand the spelling system. Indeed, although printing on the computer is less time consuming, the spelling interactions using both tools took the same amount of time. We suggest that mothers used this extra time to discuss the alphabetic code. Since previous studies showed that higher levels of maternal grapho-phonemic mediation predicts literacy achievements across orthographies (e.g., [39,13]), the higher levels of mothers’ mediation when using the computer for spelling is an important finding. In line with our second hypothesis, we found that mothers gave their children more independence in printing the letters when using the computer than when using the pencil. Mothers in our study were aware of the fact that the keyboard frees children from the technical aspects of producing the letters [61] and encouraged the children to find the required letters independently. When the children did not find the letter, they gave their children visual clues, aided by the keyboard in front of the children. Effective mediation includes sensitivity to the child’s abilities and encouragement of active participation on the part of the child [30]. There is evidence that mothers are sensitive to their child’s abilities and difficulties and they adjust their spelling mediation accordingly [58]. Our results showing that mothers allowed their children to be more involved in spelling the words when using the computer than pencil and paper contribute further evidence of mothers’ sensitivity. Although mothers gave their children more autonomy in terms of spelling using the computer, they did frequently enter into their children’s space to help them get organized on the keyboard. This shows that mothers assumed that children do not know the computer functions (e.g., ‘enter’, ‘backspace’). Instead of explaining or guiding the children, mothers just clicked on the keyboard.
)
–
5
Haugland [62] indicated that young children feel comfortable with the computer functions and minimal scaffolding is often enough to teach them how to use these functions. Children did not like their mothers to enter into their space and clearly asked for independence. Supporting our third hypothesis, mothers entered into their children’s space to print or correct a letter shape more frequently when spelling using a pencil. Furthermore, mothers’ seemed more willing to accept errors on the page than on the screen. Overall, mothers seldom asked their children to correct a letter, rather they themselves corrected more mistakes on the screen than on the page. We assume that the fine motor skills involved in producing a letter when writing with pencil and the accuracy demanded in producing a readable letter on paper may be the reason for these maternal behaviors. There is evidence that correcting erroneous spellings pulls children toward greater understanding of the orthography (e.g., [58]). Nevertheless, mothers frequently avoided correcting their children’s spelling when they were writing with a pencil. In line with our fourth hypothesis, mothers showed a fairly consistent writing mediation style across the two writing tools. A consistent style was also found in mothers’ writing mediation to their fraternal twins [58] and across writing tasks [54]. We suggest that mothers’ spelling mediation style is the product of their past literacy experiences with their child [10], beliefs about their children’s competence [13], pedagogical beliefs about teaching, and about themselves as mediators [30,55]. Their consistency is more salient among the literacy specific mediation measures (grapho-phonemic and printing mediation), suggesting that mothers have a particular way of supporting their child’s spelling. It seems that mothers’ manner of support is more dependent on the writing tool when it comes to the more general mediation measures like their organization of the activity and reference to a mistake. Lastly, supporting our fifth hypothesis, the majority of the children preferred to independently spell a word using the computer. Children’s preference to use the computer may reflect their attraction to the technical environment that surrounds them in their homes. It may also reflect the fact that printing on a keyboard demands less effort because the letters are exposed and the child does not have to retrieve them from her memory. Similarly, it may be the ease of printing and erasing on the keyboard and the fact that the letters appear automatically in line and in the same size. Whitehurst and Lonigan [63] stress the importance of children’s attitude toward early literacy as a major key to their literacy development. Children’s interest and willingness to interact with literacy tools in their environment is important. Their interest in spelling words with the computer can open doors to more frequent writing activities. 5.1. Implications Comparing between parents’ writing support in their natural setting using different writing tools draws attention to the stability and variability in parental support. We learned that the different writing tools emphasize different aspects of parental support. We should draw parents’ attention to the keyboard’s benefits in the context of early literacy (e.g., the ease of producing the letter, the presence of the letters on the keyboard). At the same time, we should help them be aware of their tendency to organize their child when using the computer. Alerting adults to their behavior when supporting children with different writing tools can make them more aware and creative and help them be more effective mediators. Since supporting children’s spelling is productive in promoting their literacy achievements, parents should expose children to both digital (e.g., cell phones, tablets) and non-digital
6
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (
(e.g., stickers, magnet letters) writing tools and be aware of their advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, preschool teachers should make use of a variety of writing tools in the classroom. The presence of technology is already a physical reality in most preschools and teacher–child interactions with the computer are helpful in supporting young children’s early reading skills [44,64]. Beyond this, play areas in preschools such as an office, grocery store, or restaurant invite writing activities. Teachers thus can help children write recipes, advertisements, menus, etc. [9]. We call for further use of computers in preschools for writing. Our study’s results also indicate the need for age-appropriate computer programs that will emphasize the grapho-phonemic process (i.e., segmenting the words into its phonemes and relating phonemes to letters) and teach children how to use the keyboard effectively (e.g., space between words). Since young children are unable to sufficiently analyze print to discover the alphabetic principle on their own, it is important that these programs include adult guidance and draw the adults’ and the child’s attention to the writing system in general and to the grapho-phonemic process in particular. Future studies can address some of the limitations of our study. First, they should address a larger, more varied sample in age and socio-economic background. It is important to learn about parental support across ages and parents’ background. Second, although the two participating fathers’ behaviors did not differ from that of the mothers, previous research has shown some differences between maternal and paternal writing support when using a pencil [57]. We urge researchers to further study fathers’ writing support using digital tools and learn how it differs from mothers’ support. Third, we found that the mothers tend to have a consistent spelling support style across the two writing tools, primarily across the more specific writing support measures — grapho phonemic and printing mediation. However, we assessed only one digital writing tool (a computer). Pencil and paper is different from the computer in several ways (e.g., the need to physically create the letters on the paper). To further discuss the unique virtues of the computer as a writing mediation tool it is important to compare it to comparative media. Future studies should explore how parents support their children’ spelling using different digital media (e.g., tablets, cell phone). The results of our study can serve as a beginning for future research that will explore parents’ spelling mediation with different technologies and demonstrate how these different writing tools can enhance children’s early literacy. Writing is about turning spoken words into printed letters. We call adults’ attention to the options that the computer offers for writing interactions with preschoolers. References [1] B. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Oxford University Press, 2003. [2] USA Census Bureau, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013, 2014. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/ acs-28.pdf. [3] Statista – the statistic portal, Percentage of households with home computers in the United Kingdom (UK) from 1985 to 2014, 2015.http://www.statista.com/statistics/289191/ household-penetration-of-home-computers-in-the-uk. [4] Statistics Netherlands, ICT usage by households, 2013. http://statline.cbs. nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71102ned&D1=0-3,30-34& D2=0-10&D3=0,l&HD=130422-1118&HDR=G2,T&STB=G1. [5] L. Tolchinsky, The Cradle of Culture and What Children Know About Writing and Numbers Before Being Taught, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2003. [6] X.C. Wang, I.R. Berson, C. Jaruszewicz, L. Hartle, D. Rosen, Young children’s technology experiences in multiple contexts. Brofenbrenner’s ecological theory reconsidered, in: I.R. Berson, M.J. Berson (Eds.), High-Tech Tots. Childhood in a Digital World, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2010, pp. 23–47.
)
–
[7] T. Downes, Children’s and families’ use of computers in Australian homes, Contemp. Issues Early Child. 3 (2002) 182–196. [8] J. Marsh, Young children’s play in online virtual worlds, J. Early. Child. Res. 8 (2010) 23–39. [9] J. Van Scoter, The potential of IT to foster literacy development in kindergarten, in: J. Voogt, G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Education, Springer, London, 2008, pp. 149–161. [10] M.M. Neumann, M. Hood, D.L. Neumann, The scaffolding of emergent literacy skills in the home environment: A case study, Early Child. Educ. J. 36 (2009) 313–319. [11] D. Aram, I. Levin, Home support of children in the writing process: Contributions to early literacy, in: S. Neuman, D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy, Vol. 3, Guilford Press, New York, 2011, pp. 189–199. [12] A. Mangen, J.L. Velay, Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing, in: M.H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in Haptics, InTechopen.com, 2009, pp. 385–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/8710. [13] D. Aram, S. Abiri, L. Elad, Predicting early spelling: The contribution of children’s early literacy, self-regulation, private speech during spelling, and parental spelling support, Read. Writ. 27 (2014) 685–707. [14] K. Roskos, S.B. Neuman, Environment and its influences for early literacy teaching and learning, in: S.B. Neuman, D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Guilford Press, New York, 2002, pp. 281–294. [15] L. Tolchinsky, The emergence of writing, in: C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research, Guilford, New York, 2006, pp. 83–95. [16] K.D. Ritchey, The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words, Read. Writ. 21 (2008) 27–47. [17] L.C. Ehri, L.S. Wilce, Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read words? Read. Res. Q. (1987) 47–65. [18] M. Caravolas, C. Hulme, M.J. Snowling, The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study, J. Mem. Lang. 45 (2001) 751–774. [19] H.S. Mäki, M.J.M. Voeten, M.M.S. Vauras, E.H. Poskiparta, Predicting writing skill development with word recognition and preschool readiness skills, Read. Writ. 14 (2001) 643–672. [20] C. McBride-Chang, The development of invented spelling, Early Educ. Dev. 9 (1998) 147–160. [21] D. Tzuriel, Mediated learning experience and cognitive modifiability, J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 12 (2013) 59–80. [22] B.H. Wasik, S. Herrmann, Family literacy: History, concepts, services, in: Handbook of Family Literacy, Lawrence Elbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2004, pp. 3–22. [23] N. Hall, Interactive writing with young children, Child. Educ. 76 (2000) 358–364. [24] M.M. Neumann, D.L. Neumann, Parental strategies to scaffold emergent writing skills in the preschool child within the home environment, Early Years 30 (2010) 79–94. [25] O.N. Saracho, Literacy development in the family context, Early Child Dev. Care 163 (2000) 107–114. [26] L.E. Skibbe, S.L. Bindman, A.H. Hindman, D. Aram, F.J. Morrison, Longitudinal relations between parental writing support and preschoolers’ language and literacy skills, Read. Res. Q. 48 (2013) 387–401. [27] M.H. Bornstein, C. Tamis-LeMonda, Activities and interactions of mothers and their firstborn infants in the first six months of life, Child Dev. 61 (1990) 1206–1217. [28] T.N. Cristofaro, C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, Mother–child conversations at 36 months and at prekindergarten: Relations to children’s school readiness, J. Early Child. Lit. 12 (2012) 68–97. [29] D. Tzuriel, Parent-child mediated learning transactions as determinants of cognitive modifiability: Recent research and future directions, Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 125 (1999) 109–156. [30] R. Feuerstein, Haadam Keyeshut Mishtana: Al Torat Halimida Hametavechet (The Theory of Mediated Learning Experience: About The Human as a Modifiable Being), Ministry of Defense, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1998, Hebrew. [31] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978. [32] D. Aram, I. Levin, Mother–child joint writing in low SES: Socio-cultural factors, maternal mediation, and emergent literacy, Cogn. Dev. 16 (2001) 831–852. [33] D. Aram, O. Korat, E. Saiegh-Haddad, S. Hassunah Arafat, R. Khoury, J. Hija, Early literacy among Arabic speaking kindergartners: The role of socioeconomic status, home literacy environment, and maternal mediation of writing, Cogn. Dev. 28 (2013) 193–208. [34] D. Lin, C. McBride-Chang, D. Aram, I. Levin, Y.M. Cheung, Y.Y. Chow, L. Tolchinsky, Maternal mediation of writing in Chinese children, Lang. Cogn. Process. 24 (2009) 1286–1311. [35] D. Lin, C. McBride-Chang, D. Aram, I. Levin, Mother–child joint writing in Chinese kindergartners: Metalinguistic awareness, maternal mediation, and literacy acquisition, J. Res. Read. 34 (2011) 426–442. [36] S.W. Bindman, L.E. Skibbe, A.H. Hindman, D. Aram, F.J. Morrison, Parental writing support and preschoolers’ early literacy, language, and fine motor skills, Early Child. Res. Q. 29 (2014) 614–624. [37] I. Levin, D. Aram, L. Tolchinsky, C. McBride, Maternal mediation of writing and children’s early spelling and reading: The semitic abjad versus the European alphabet, Writ. Syst. Res. 2 (2013) 134–155. [38] D. Aram, I. Levin, The role of maternal mediation of writing to kindergartners in promoting literacy in school: A longitudinal perspective, Read. Writ. 17 (2004) 387–409. [39] D. Aram, O. Korat, S. Hassunah Arafat, The contribution of early home literacy activities to reading and writing in Arabic in first grade, Read. Writ. 26 (2013) 1517–1536.
D. Aram, O.C. Bar-Am / International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction ( [40] L. Plowman, O. Stevenson, C. Stephen, J. McPake, Preschool children’s learning with technology at home, Comput. Educt. 59 (2012) 30–37. [41] R. Zevenbergen, H. Logan, Computer use by preschool children, Aust. J. Early Child. 33 (2008) 37–44. [42] E. Segers, L.L. Verhoeven, Long-term effects of computer training of phonological awareness in kindergarten, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21 (2005) 17–27. [43] D.L. Labbo, M. Love, T. Ryan, A vocabulary flood: Making words ‘sticky’ with computer-response activities, Read. Teach. 60 (2007) 582–588. [44] E. Segers, L.L. Verhoeven, Multimedia support of early literacy learning, Comput. Educt. 39 (2002) 207–221. [45] C.A.T. Kegel, A.G. Bus, M.H. Van IJzendoorn, Differential susceptibility in early literacy instruction through computer games: The role of the Dopamine D4 Receptor Gene (DRD4), Mind Brain Educ. 5 (2011) 71–78. [46] D.H. Clements, Young children and technology, in: Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 1999. [47] P. Klein, O. Nir-Gal, E. Darom, The use of computers in kindergarten with or without adult mediation: Effects on children’s cognitive performance and behavior, Comput. Hum. Behav. 16 (2000) 591–608. [48] O. Segal-Drori, O. Korat, A. Shamir, P.S. Klein, Reading electronic and printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading, Read. Writ. 23 (2010) 913–930. [49] D. Tzuriel, A. Shamir, The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 18 (2002) 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00204.x. [50] S. McKenney, J. Voogt, Designing technology for emergent literacy: The PictoPal initiative, Comput. Educ. 52 (2009) 719–729. [51] J.C. Read, P. Markopoulos, Child-computer interaction, J. Child Comput. Interact. 1 (2013) 2–6.
)
–
7
[52] P. Markopoulos, J.C. Read, S. MacFarlane, J. Hoysniemi, Evaluating Children’s Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2008. [53] H. Kermani, M.E. Brenner, Maternal scaffolding in the child’s zone of proximal development across tasks: Cross-cultural perspectives, J. Res. Child. Educ. 15 (2000) 30–52. [54] D. Aram, Joint writing in Hebrew of dictated words versus proper names: Analysis of low SES mother-kindergartner dyads, Journal of Research in Childhood Education 17 (2002) 47–61. [55] O. Korat, I. Levin, Maternal beliefs, mother-child interaction, and child’s literacy: Comparison of independent and collaborative text writing between two social groups, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 22 (2001) 397–420. [56] The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS), Families and Households in Israel, 2015. www.cbs.gov.il. [57] D. Aram, Writing with young children: A comparison of paternal and maternal guidance, J. Res. Read. 33 (2010) 4–19. [58] D. Aram, Sensitivity and consistency in maternal writing mediation to twin kindergartners, Early Educ. Dev. 18 (2007) 71–92. [59] I. Levin, D. Aram, Promoting early literacy via practicing invented spelling: A comparison of different mediation routines, Read. Res. Q. 48 (2013) 1–16. [60] M. Cochran-Smith, C.L. Paris, J.L. Kahn, Learning to Write Differently: Beginning Writers and Word Processing, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1996. [61] D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, Young children and technology: What does the research say? Young Child. 58 (2003) 38–40. [62] S.W. Haugland, What role should technology play in young children’s learning? Part 2-early childhood classrooms in the 21st century, Young Children 55 (2000) 12–18. [63] G.J. Whitehurst, C.L. Lonigan, Child development and emergent literacy, Child Dev. 69 (1998) 848–872. [64] J. Voogt, S. McKenney, Using ICT to foster (pre) reading and writing skills in young children, Comput. Sch. 24 (3–4) (2008) 83–94.