Digital Guidance for Susceptible Readers: Effects on Fifth Graders’ Reading Motivation and Incidental Vocabulary Learning

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 48-73

  Nielen, Thijs M J ^a   Smith, Glenn G ^b   Sikkema de Jong, Maria T ^a   Drobisz, Jack ^b   van Horne, Bill ^b   Bus, Adriana G ^c  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

attention problems; differential susceptibility; digital pedagogical agent; digital reading; guided reading; in school free reading; randomized control trial; reading motivation; susceptibility genotypes; vocabulary learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85041809361     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: 15414140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0735633117708283     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Anderson R. C., Freebody P., (1983) Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In: Hutson B., (ed.) Advances in reading/language research, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 231–256.
2. Anderson R. C., Wilson P. T., Fielding L. G., (1988) Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly 23: 285–303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2.
3. Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., van IJzendoorn M. H., (2011) Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology 23: 39–52. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000635.
4. Baker S., Gersten R., Keating T., (2000) When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly 35(4): 494–519. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.4.3.
5. Baylor A. L., (2011) The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development 59: 291–300. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3.
6. Baylor A. L., Kim Y., (2005) Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15: 95–115.
7. Becker M., McElvany N., Kortenbruck M., (2010) Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(4): 773–785. doi:10.1037/a0020084.
8. Belsky J., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., van IJzendoorn M. H., (2007) For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(6): 300–304.
9. Boor K., Ronai Z., Nemoda Z., Gaszner P., Sasvari-Szekely M., Guttman A., Kalasz H., (2002) Noninvasive genotyping of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) using nanograms of DNA from substance-dependent patients. Current Medicinal Chemistry 9(8): 793–797. doi:https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867024606821.
10. Boorstin D. J., (1984) Books in our future, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Bus A. G., Takacs Z. K., Kegel C. A. T., (2015) Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Review 35: 79–97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004.
12. Chall J. S., (1983) Stages of reading development, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
13. Cunningham A., (2005) Vocabulary growth through independent reading and reading aloud to children. In: Kamil M., Hiebert E., (eds) Teaching and learning new vocabulary: Bringing research to practice, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 45–68.
14. Daniel D. B., Woody W. D., (2013) E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education 62: 18–23. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.
15. EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy (2012) EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy: Final report, September 2012, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
16. Gottfried A. W., Schlackman J., Gottfried A. E., Boutin-Martinez A. S., (2015) Parental provision of early literacy environment as related to reading and educational outcomes across the academic lifespan. Parenting 15(1): 24–38. doi:10.1080/15295192.2015.992736.
17. Heidig S., Clarebout G., (2011) Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review 6(1): 27–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004.
18. Johnson W. L., Rickel J. W., Lester J. C., (2000) Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11: 47–78.
19. Kegel C. A. T., Bus A. G., van IJzendoorn M. H., (2011) Differential susceptibility in early literacy instruction through computer games: The role of the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). Mind, Brain and Education 5: 71–78. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01112.x.
20. Keuleers E., Brysbaert M., (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42: 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627.
21. Keuleers E., Brysbaert M., New B., (2010) SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods 42: 643–650. doi:10.3758/brm.42.3.643.
22. Kim Y., Baylor A. L., (2016) Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26: 160–169. doi:10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y.
23. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E., (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
24. Lusk M. M., Atkinson R. K., (2007) Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology 21(6): 747–764.
25. Mangen A., Walgermo B. R., Brønnick K., (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58: 61–68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
26. Meyer B. J. F., Wijekumar K., Middlemiss W., Higley K., Lei P.-W., Meier C., Spielvogel J., (2010) Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly 45(1): 62–92. doi:10.1598/rrq.45.1.4.
27. Mich O., Pianta E., Mana N., (2013) Interactive stories and exercises with dynamic feedback for improving reading comprehension skills in deaf children. Computers & Education 65(0): 34–44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.016.
28. Miranda T., Williams-Rossi D., Johnson K. A., McKenzie N., (2011) Reluctant readers in middle school: Successful engagement with text using the e-reader. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology 1: 81–91.
29. Mochida A., Harrington M., (2006) The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing 23(1): 73–98.
30. Mol S. E., Bus A. G., (2011) To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin 137(2): 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890.
31. Morgan P. L., Fuchs D., (2007) Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children 73(2): 165–183.
32. Nielen T. M. J., Bus A. G., (2013) Ontwikkeling van de leesattitude op de basisschool en de rol van sekse, leesniveau, de leescultuur thuis en kenmerken van de schoolbibliotheek [Development of reading attitude in primary school and the role of gender, reading skill, home literacy environment and school library characteristics]. In: Schram D., (ed.) De aarzelende lezer over de streep [Winning reluctant readers over], Delft, Nederland: Eburon, pp. 207–226.
33. Nielen T. M. J., Bus A. G., (2015) Enriched school libraries: A boost to academic achievement. AERA Open 1(4): 1–11. doi:10.1177/2332858415619417.
34. Nielen T. M. J., Mol S. E., Sikkema-de Jong M. T., Bus A. G., (2016) Attentional bias toward reading in reluctant readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology 46: 263–271.
35. Notten N., (2011) Parents and the media. Causes and consequences of parental media socialization (Doctoral Dissertation), Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
36. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852630.pdf. doi:10.1787/9789264083943-en
37. Pappa I., Mileva-Seitz V. R., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., Tiemeier H., van IJzendoorn M. H., (2015) The magnificent seven: A quantitative review of dopamine receptor d4 and its association with child behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 57: 175–186.
38. Plak R. D., Kegel C. A. T., Bus A. G., (2015) Genetic differential susceptibility in literacy-delayed children: A randomized controlled trial on emergent literacy in kindergarten. Development and Psychopathology 27(Special Issue 01): 69–79. doi:M63-10.1017/S0954579414001308.
39. Pressley M., (2006) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
40. Rimm-Kaufman S. E., Kagan J., Byers H., (1998) The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among “at risk” first grade children. Reading Research and Instruction 38(2): 143–152. doi:10.1080/19388079909558284.
41. Schroeder N. L., Adesope O. O., Gilbert R. B., (2013) How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytical review. Journal of Educational Computing Research 49(1): 1–39. doi:10.2190/EC.49.1.a.
42. Share D. L., (2008) Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. In: Kail R. V., (ed.) Advances in child development and behavior Vol. 36, Waltham, MA: Academic Press, pp. 31–82.
43. Smith G. G., Li M., Drobisz J., Park H., Kim D., Smith S. D., (2013) Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers & Education 69: 274–286. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.015.
44. Smith, G. G. (2013). IMapBooks [Online program]. Retrieved from http://www.IMapBooks.com/
45. Sung Y.-T., Chang K.-E., Huang J.-S., (2008) Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior 24(4): 1552–1571. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009.
46. Swanborn M. S. L., de Glopper K., (1999) Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69(3): 261–285. doi:10.3102/00346543069003261.
47. Sweller J., Ayres P., Kalyuga S., (2011) Cognitive load theory, New York, NY: Springer.
48. Taylor A. K., (2011) Students learn equally well from digital as from paperbound texts. Teaching of Psychology 38(4): 278–281. doi:10.1177/0098628311421330.
49. Taylor M., (2013) Reading for pleasure in Britain: Trends, patterns, and associations, Oxford, England: University of Oxford.
50. Teale W. H., Lyons K., Gambrell L., Zolt N., Olien R., Leu D. J., (2013) An online learning community as support for at-risk students’ literacy growth: Findings, implications, and challenges. In: Shamir A., Korat O., (eds) Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 141–156.
51. Tveit A. K., Mangen A., (2014) A joker in the class: Teenage readers’ attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices. Library & Information Science Research 36(3–4): 179–184. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.001.
52. van IJzendoorn M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., (2015) Genetic differential susceptibility on trial: Meta-analytic support from randomized controlled experiments. Development and Psychopathology 27(Special Issue 01): 151–162. doi:10.1017/S0954579414001369.
53. Vasilyeva, E. (2007). Towards personalized feedback in educational computer games for children. Paper presented at the Sixth IASTED International Conference, Chamonix, France
54. Weekers A., Groenen I., Kleintjes F., Feenstra H., (2011) Wetenschappelijke verantwoording papieren toetsen Begrijpend Lezen voor groep 7 en 8. [Scientific justification paper tests Reading Comprehension for 5th and 6th grade], Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
55. Widaman K. F., Helm J. L., Castro-Schilo L., Pluess M., Stallings M. C., Belsky J., (2012) Distinguishing ordinal and disordinal interactions. Psychological Methods 17(4): 615–622. doi:10.1037/a0030003.
56. Witte, E., & van Nood, B. (2014). Rapportage boekenbranche meting 30: 2e thema meting van 2014, naar digitaal lezen [Report book branche measure 30: 2nd theme measure of 2014, toward digital reading]. Retrieved from http://www.kvb.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/consumentenonderzoek/nov-2014