Search

Background: Shared reading is an important opportunity for parents and children to connect and learn, which can support later independent reading skills. Much of the research to date has examined shared reading as parents read physical print books with their children. This research has demonstrated that parents tend to engage in more activities that emphasise the meaning of the stories over the code (i.e., print). Here, we examine the focus of shared reading when parents are reading with their children on paper versus on a digital device and whether this differs across the preschool years. Methods: A total of 253 parents of children aged 0–5 years completed an online self‐report questionnaire. Parents reported on the frequency of engaging in meaning‐ versus code‐related activities during shared book reading on paper and on screen with their youngest child. We conducted a linear regression analysis contrasting code‐ versus meaning‐related activities on paper versus screen modality with age as a continuous variable. Results: Key to our objectives, parents reported engaging in meaning‐related activities more frequently during shared reading on paper versus on screens and in code‐related activities more frequently during shared reading on screens than on paper. These effects did not differ across age, although overall, parents reported engaging slightly more frequently in shared reading activities in general when their child was older. Conclusions: The findings show that parents are engaging with their children differently as they read together on paper versus screens. Consistent with prior research, we found that activities emphasising the meaning of stories dominate shared paper book reading experiences in the preschool years. Critically shared reading on screens tips this balance, with parents reporting more code‐related activities. These patterns identify the learning opportunities enabled by the affordances of shared reading on screens. Highlights: What is already known about this topicResearch to date on shared reading has shown that parents tend to focus on the meaning of the story (meaning‐related activities) over the features of the print (code‐related activities).This research has largely described how parents read on paper.Parents and children are increasingly reading on screens. What this paper addsWe found that parents report engaging in more meaning‐related activities when reading with their children on paper than on screens.Parents engage in more code‐related activities when reading with their children on screens than on paper.While we found that the frequency of shared reading activities in general increased slightly with the age of the children, the frequency of parental engagement in both types of shared reading activities is similar across the preschool years. Implications for theory, policy or practiceThe findings show that parents report engaging with their children differently as they read together on paper versus screens.Consistent with prior research, we found that when reading on paper, parents emphasise the meaning of stories during shared book reading experiences in the preschool years.In contrast, parents report more code‐related activities when doing shared reading on a screen than on paper. These findings suggest that the affordances offered by reading on screens shift the learning opportunities offered by shared reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic created a unique learning experience, characterised by school closures and a shift to online learning. Research suggests that online learning during the pandemic negatively impacted the reading development of elementary school children. However, little is known about the challenges of learning a second language (L2) remotely. Therefore, this study investigates the impact of online learning during the pandemic on language and reading development among French immersion (FI) students who learn French as an L2. Methods: A total of 137 Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from two cohorts were included in the study. The in‐person cohort consisted of 72 students who attended school in person and were tested in person before the pandemic. The online cohort consisted of 65 students who received virtual instruction during the pandemic and were tested online. Measures of vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness were administered in English and French to both cohorts. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were carried out to assess the effects of cohort and grade on the measures, with guardian education as a covariate. Results: Students in the in‐person cohort performed significantly better on French vocabulary and English word reading accuracy than students online. The cohort effect was not significant for other French and English measures. Grade 2 students significantly outperformed Grade 1 students in both English and French vocabulary and word reading. Conclusions: The current results suggest that online learning may have had a moderately negative effect on French vocabulary but no impact on French phonological awareness or word reading. FI students' English skills were also largely unaffected. Therefore, FI students made progress on their language and literacy skills through online learning during the pandemic. The findings point to the importance of enhancing L2 vocabulary input during online learning. Highlights: What is already known about this topicElementary school children experienced learning losses in reading due to school closures and online learning.Learning losses were more pronounced for younger students, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and immigrant children.The very few studies that have investigated the impact of online learning on reading development in bilinguals have focused primarily on English second language learners who are educated in the societal language with ample exposure to English at school and in the community. What this paper addsThis study examines how online learning during the pandemic affects the language and literacy skills of Grade 1 and Grade 2 French immersion students, who only learn French at school.This paper provides a comparison between an in‐person and online cohort in English and French vocabulary, word reading accuracy and fluency, and phonological awareness.Students in the in‐person cohort demonstrated significantly higher scores on French vocabulary than students educated online during the pandemic. Implications for theory, policy or practiceLower French vocabulary during the pandemic may be due to reduced French language exposure in an online setting.Language teachers should intentionally increase second language exposure to directly target vocabulary development in an online environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is well evident that individuals' levels of print exposure are significantly correlated with their reading ability across languages, and an author recognition test is commonly used to measure print exposure objectively. For the first time, the current work developed and validated a Simplified Chinese Author Recognition Test (SCART) and examined its role in explaining Chinese online reading. Methods: In Study 1, we constructed the SCART for readers of simplified Chinese and validated the test using data collected from 203 young adults in Mainland China. Participants were measured on the SCART and three self‐report tasks about their reading experiences and habits. Study 2 recruited additional 68 young adults in Mainland and measured their print exposure (with the same tasks used in Study 1), reading‐related cognitive ability (working memory, rapid automatic naming, Chinese character reading, and vocabulary knowledge), and Chinese online reading via an eye‐tracking passage reading task. Results: Results of Study 1 support the high reliability and validity of the SCART. Results of Study 2 indicate that SCART scores significantly predicted participants' online reading processing while controlling for subjective reading experiences and habits, and reading‐related cognitive abilities. Across two studies, we found converging evidence that the in‐depth recognition of the authors (i.e., participants have read the books written by these authors) appears to be a better indicator of print exposure than the superficial recognition of the author names. Conclusions: Taken together, this work filled in the gap in the literature by providing an evidence‐based, objective print exposure measure for simplified Chinese and contributes to a broader understanding of print exposure and online reading processing across different writing systems. Highlights: What is already known about this topicIndividuals' print exposure correlates with reading ability across languages, including Chinese.An author recognition test (ART) is commonly used to measure readers' objective print exposure across languages.ART scores predict offline reading performances across languages and online reading processing in readers of English. What this paper addsThe simplified Chinese ART developed here works well for readers of simplified Chinese, with the largest reader population worldwide.Deep knowledge in author recognition reflects print exposure better than does surface knowledge.ART scores also predict online reading processing in the case of Chinese. Implications for theory, policy or practiceThe simplified Chinese ART is now available for future researchers and practitioners.Future researchers may also consider assessing deep print knowledge in their ARTs.The simplified Chinese ART provides a cost‐effective way to estimate readers' online reading processing and patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension use a wide range of syntactic comprehension tests that vary considerably in format. The goal of this study was to examine to which extent different formats of syntactic comprehension tests measure the same construct. Methods: Sixty‐nine Grade 4 students completed multiple tests of decoding, vocabulary, fluid‐reasoning skill, reading comprehension and three tests of syntactic comprehension: the TROG‐2, a sentence repetition test and a whodunnit test. Results: There was limited shared variance between the syntactic comprehension tests, indicating that they only partially tapped into the same construct. Furthermore, the TROG‐2 was more highly correlated with fluid‐reasoning skill than the other syntax tests. Finally, the TROG‐2 and the whodunnit test explained additional variance in reading comprehension after controls, while sentence repetition did not. Conclusions: There are important differences between syntactic comprehension tests. This has consequences both for the interpretation of previous studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension and for the design of future studies as the choice of syntactic comprehension measure may directly influence the results of the study. Highlights: What is already known about this topicPrevious studies show that different formats of sentence comprehension tests may measure different skills, but little is known about which specific skills different formats tap into. What this paper addsSyntactic comprehension tests tap into a construct that is partially separate from vocabulary and fluid‐reasoning skill.The TROG‐2 and the whodunnit test both capture variation in reading comprehension, but the TROG‐2 is highly correlated with fluid‐reasoning skill. Implications for theory, policy or practiceThere is some support for the idea that syntactic comprehension constitutes a source of individual differences in reading comprehension, indicating that some children have difficulties understanding what they read due to poor syntactic comprehension.Researchers who want to isolate the syntactic comprehension skills needed for reading comprehension from other language skills should opt for syntactic comprehension tests in the 'whodunnit' format or the TROG‐2 format rather than sentence repetition tests.Tests in the TROG‐2 format are dependent on fluid‐reasoning skill and are not appropriate for studies that need to isolate syntactic comprehension from fluid‐reasoning skill. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]