Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecresq

Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children T

Michelle M. Neumann
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, QLD 4222, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Touch screen tablets (e.g., iPads) are being increasingly used by young children due to their stimulating mul-
Emergent literacy timodal features and intuitive touch-based interface. However, little is known about the effects of tablets and
Touch screen tablets apps on the development of emergent literacy skills. This pre-post-test randomised controlled study explored the
iPads effects of using literacy apps on emergent literacy skills in English speaking children aged 2–5 years (N = 48).
Apps
There were 24 children in the iPad group and 24 children in the waitlist control group. The 9-week (30 min/
Young children
week) iPad literacy program focussed on three new alphabet letters each week using three apps (letter matching,
letter tracing, and drawing). Following the program, children in the iPad group showed significantly higher
letter name and sound knowledge, print concepts and name writing skills than children in the control group. No
significant group differences were found for letter writing skills or numeral knowledge. The findings showed that
tablets can positively support letter name and sound learning and aspects of emergent writing development. How
teachers can best utilise these digital tools in early childhood classrooms to support emergent literacy requires
further investigation.

1. Introduction
The touch based interface of tablet computers such as iPads allows
young children to interact with the digital world from an early age
(Marsh et al., 2015; Merchant, 2015). From a sociocultural perspective
(Vygotsky, 1978) tablets can transmit knowledge to children about
their world through a range of interactive media experiences, helping
them learn to use meaning making systems (Kucirkova,
Sheehy, & Messer, 2015; Marsh, 2016; Neumann, 2014a). Learning may
occur through the scaffolding of children’s interactions with tablets by
an adult or through the inbuilt features of an app itself
(Neumann & Neumann, 2016; Yelland & Masters,2007). As such, tablets
have the potential to provide young children with learning opportu-
nities that can foster emerging understandings about literacy
(Crescenzi, Jewitt, & Price, 2014; Kucirkova, Messer, Sheehy, & Flewitt,
2013). As young children play with apps, emergent literacy skills may
be fostered through children’s exploration of print (e.g., icons, symbols,
letters, and words) displayed on tablet screens (Marsh, 2016;
Neumann & Neumann, 2014; Neumann, Finger, & Neumann, 2016).
Emergent literacy develops from birth when infants begin their vi-
sual exploration of surrounding print (Goodman, 1986; Harste,
Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Development
of emergent literacy skills is important in the preschool years as these
skills strongly influence future reading and writing ability (Adams,
1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The emergent literacy skills young
children need to acquire in order to become successful readers and
writers include print concepts (Clay, 1998; Justice & Ezell, 2001;
Lomax & McGee, 1987), alphabet knowledge (letter sounds and names;
Bowman & Treiman, 2004; Foulin, 2005; Levin, Shatil-Carmon, & Asif-
Rave, 2006), phonological awareness (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989;
Mann & Foy, 2003), and emergent writing (Aram & Biron, 2004;
Welsch, Sullivan, & Justice, 2003). These are foundational skills upon
which children build proficient literacy skills with alphabet knowledge
being one of the strongest predictors of future word reading ability
(Adams, 1990; Ehri & Roberts, 2006; Molfese, Beswick,
Molnar, & Jacobi-Vessels, 2006; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Research
has highlighted how non-digital early literacy games and activities
(e.g., alphabet book reading, writing, and identifying environmental
print) can support the development of emergent literacy skills in the
years prior to school (Adams, 1990; Aram & Biron, 2004; Clay, 1998;
Neumann, 2014b; Welsch et al., 2003). These experiences can foster
children’s knowledge and understanding about print, preparing them
for school (Clay, 1998; Snow et al., 1998; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). In
addition, digital tools such as tablets and apps also have the potential to
support emergent literacy skills but little research to date has in-
vestigated this (Aram and Bar-Am, 2016; Neumann, 2014, 2015;
Neumann, 2015).
As touch screen tablets and apps are becoming increasingly common
in this digital world, it is important to explore the effects of these tools
on emergent literacy development. Tablets differ from traditional
computers because they are light weight, portable, mobile, and consist
of a flat glass screen that responds to a range of tactile actions such as

E-mail address: m.neumann@griffith.edu.au.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.006
Received 25 October 2016; Received in revised form 1 August 2017; Accepted 9 October 2017
Available online 22 October 2017
0885-2006/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.M. Neumann
tap, swipe, and drag. Unlike mouse operated computers that require
greater fine motor control, tablets remove this operational barrier and
provide increased opportunities for learning in the early years
(Merchant, 2015). Nearly half of 0–2 year olds and two thirds of
3–5 year olds are able to turn tablets on and off, swipe, drag, tap, open,
and exit apps (Marsh et al., 2015; N = 2000). Due to these user friendly
features, tablets are becoming an increasingly popular digital device
amongst toddlers and preschoolers in homes and early childhood set-
tings (Beschorner & Hutchsion, 2013; Marsh et al., 2015).
The multimodal features of tablets (e.g., sounds, animations, and
text) engage young children’s attention in multisensory ways by sti-
mulating visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, and tactile senses (Roskos,
Burnstein, Shang, & Gray, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that
young children are spending significant amounts of their time on ta-
blets. For example, in a UK based study, 0–5 year olds used tablets on
average for 79 min/day (Marsh et al., 2015). An Australian survey
(N = 109; Neumann, 2014a) reported that 61% of children had access
to tablets at home and were using them for 20 min per day on average.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) recommends that screen
time for children aged 2–5 years is limited to one hour per day of high
quality media experiences and it is important for parents and educators
to ensure that a balanced and supervised approach is adopted in order
to foster healthy development (Neumann, 2015).
Young children use tablets for a range of educational and en-
tertainment purposes and play downloadable educational (math, e-
book, literacy apps; Neumann, 2014a) and gaming apps (e.g., Temple
Run; Neumann, 2014a). Children also use apps for communicating
(e.g., Skype, Facetime, messenger chat, email), information gathering
(e.g., Google, You Tube), and creating (e.g., story making, drawing,
writing, music and audio recordings, photos and videos; Livingstone,
Marsh, Plowman, Ottovordemgentschenfelde, & Fletcher-Watson, 2014;
Marsh et al., 2015). Therefore, tablets are a potentially positive literacy
learning tool because children’s interactions with apps allow them to
make meaning, communicate through various digital representations
(e.g., icons, text, pictures, audio) and create digital products (Crescenzi
et al., 2014; Kucirkova et al., 2013; Sandvik, Smørdal., & Østerud,
2012). Such digital tools may also foster children’s motivation for lit-
eracy learning (Hatherly & Chapman, 2013; McManis & Gunnewig,
2012).
Little empirical research currently exists on the effects of tablets on
the development of emergent literacy skills (Neumann & Neumann,
2015), however, some qualitative work has begun to highlight potential
benefits of tablets for emergent literacy learning in the preschool set-
ting. An early literacy program was conducted with two children over
the course of a school semester that used alphabet matching and letter
tracing apps (Huang, Clark, & Wedel, 2013). The app activities involved
children dragging letters to match words and tracing letter shapes with
a finger. Following the program, the teacher reported positive outcomes
in the children’s letter name and sound knowledge. Although a case
study design makes it difficult to generalise these findings (Huang et al.,
2013) this work highlights the need to more closely investigate the
effects of letter tracing and matching apps on emergent literacy de-
velopment.
Larger qualitative preschool studies have described how tablets and
literacy apps can positively support emergent literacy in preschool
classrooms. Beschorner and Hutchison (2013) conducted a study across
two preschool classrooms (N = 35) over seven weeks and teachers were
provided with six iPads for individual, group, and whole class activities.
New apps (e.g., Magnetic ABCs, Story kit app, Doodle Buddy) were
introduced each week on a specific literacy area (e.g., print awareness
and writing) and children were free to use the apps for a variety of
purposes. The data collected for this study included anecdotal notes,
digital work samples, and semi-structured interviews. Children enjoyed
using tablets and were observed to develop an increasing awareness of
digital print through the use of tablets for emergent writing (e.g., letter
and name writing, symbols, typing, and constructing emails and
240
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246
messages to family members). The authors concluded that iPads are a
positive tool young children can use independently to develop their
knowledge and understanding about print. This study also reveals the
need to further evaluate what effects different literacy apps have on
specific emergent literacy skills.
Only a small number of studies to date have used a pretest-posttest
control group methodology to examine the effects of tablets on emer-
gent literacy skills. Brown and Harmon (2013) conducted a pilot study
that randomly allocated twenty English speaking preschool children
(aged 48–59 months) to either a treatment or control group. Children in
the treatment group used three literacy and numeracy based apps for a
60 min session per week over 10 weeks. Children were tested on upper
and lower case letter knowledge and number concepts before and after
the program. The control group used iPads with different apps for
60 min per week over 10 weeks (details of the apps used during the
study were not reported). No significant differences were found be-
tween groups on alphabet and numeral skills. As the details regarding
the content of the apps used in the treatment and control groups was
not reported and the sample size of the treatment group was small, it is
difficult to draw clear conclusions from this study.
A larger iPad literacy intervention involved 16 kindergarten class-
rooms (Cubelic & Larwin, 2014). Using a non-randomised experimental
design, the treatment classrooms (n = 144) were provided with iPads
and the children used literacy apps such as Pocket Phonics, ABC Pho-
nics, and ABC Touch n Learn for approximately 60 min per week over
the whole school year. Classroom teachers supervised children’s use of
the iPads during the sessions directing students to the app that best
supported children’s literacy learning. The non-treatment control group
classrooms (n = 147) did not receive iPads but engaged in regular face
to face literacy activities with their classroom teachers. Pre- and post-
test data was collected for letter name and sound fluency, phoneme
fluency, and nonsense word fluency. The iPad group showed greater
gains in phoneme segmentation and nonsense word fluency than the
control group. Children in the control group showed greater gains for
sound and letter naming fluency. Although, it was concluded that iPads
can have a positive impact upon aspects of emergent literacy skills more
research is needed to examine the effects of iPads and literacy apps on a
wider age range of preschool children.
As the findings of these studies are mixed it is necessary to further
examine the effects of iPads and apps on specific emergent literacy
skills. This would help clarify the benefits of iPads and apps on emer-
gent literacy and guide the direction of future research to support the
practical use of these tools in early childhood settings. Providing de-
tailed descriptions of the apps selected, considering home use of tablets,
and testing a range of emergent literacy skills in a wider age range of
preschool children would extend the work of current studies.
2. The present study
In order to explore the effects of using literacy apps and tablets on
emergent literacy, the present study used a pretest-posttest randomised
control group design. Children were given a 9 week iPad literacy in-
tervention program (using three literacy apps for a 30 min session per
week) and were tested on a range of emergent literacy skills (letter
name and sound knowledge, letter name and letter writing, and print
concepts). The literacy apps were selected based on digital application
criteria (e.g., interactivity and age appropriateness) developed by
Hillman and Marshall (2009) to ensure the apps were suitable for young
children and designed to support early literacy learning. These literacy
apps contained key literacy features and activities such as letter
matching (dragging letters into words), letter tracing (forming letter
shapes with a finger), and drawing (experimenting with mark making
and writing). These apps had the potential to support alphabet letter
knowledge, print concepts (e.g., concept of a letter and word), and
letter shaping and writing. For these reasons, literacy assessments were
conducted for print concepts, upper and lower case letter name
M.M. Neumann Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246

knowledge, and letter and name writing. Table 2

In addition, numeral name knowledge was assessed to check the Number of Participating Children in each Age Group from each Childcare Centre across
the iPad and Control Group.
specificity of the treatment for fostering literacy skills because the apps
did not contain any explicit instructions for number identification. Child iPad Group (n = 24) Control Group
Testing numeral name knowledge would also help to examine more Care (n = 24)
general differences between the intervention and control group. It was Centre
hypothesised that the iPad group would make significantly greater 2– 3 year 3– 4 year 4– 5 year 2– 3 year 3–4 year 4–5 year
olds olds olds olds olds olds
gains across each of the emergent literacy measures (letter knowledge,
print concepts, and letter and name writing) compared to the waitlist A 1 0 2 0 0 0
control group. It was further hypothesised that no significant differ- B 0 3 1 2 2 3
ences in numeral name knowledge would be found between groups. C 0 3 1 0 3 4
D 1 2 1 0 0 3
E 0 3 0 0 2 2
F 1 1 4 2 1 0
3. Method

3.1. Participants
Forty-eight typically developing English speaking children (25 boys,
23 girls) participated (M = 45.19 months; SD = 8.82; ran-
ge = 27–60 months). The children were recruited from six child care
centres in south east Queensland, Australia. Most parents were married
(93.7%), 2.1% were divorced, and 4.2% were single and never married.
The majority of children’s parents identified as Australian (mothers
72.8%; fathers 77.1%) and Australian Aboriginal (fathers 2.1%) with
families also identified as being from a range of cultural backgrounds
(New Zealander: mothers 4.2%, fathers 14.5%; English: mothers 10.4%,
fathers 4.2%; European: mothers 4.2%, fathers 2.1%; Asian: mothers
2.1%; Pacific Islander: mothers 2.1%; South African: mothers 4.2%).
Family socioeconomic status (SES) was calculated using Hollingshead’s
(1975) 4 factor index (SES range = 8-66) based upon parent education
and occupation. The mean SES of families fell in the middle SES range
(M = 46.1; SD = 10.9; range 14–63.5). The majority of families (85%)
reported having one or more touch screen tablets at home (M = 1.71;
SD = 1.34; range 0–6).
Of the mothers, 10.6% had completed up to grade 11, 17% had
completed high school, 34.2% had completed specialised training (e.g.,
TAFE or apprenticeship), with 19.1% gaining a bachelor degree.
Similarly, 11.6% of fathers had completed up to grade 11, 16.3%
completed high school, 41.9% had completed specialised training, and
20.9% had a bachelor degree. However, more mothers (19.1%) than
fathers (9.3%) held a post-graduate degree qualification. The modal
occupation type for mothers was professionals (39.1%) and for fathers
was tradesperson or related worker (33.3%).
Participating children at each of the six childcare centres were
randomly assigned to an iPad (intervention) group (n = 24) or a con-
trol group (n = 24). The details of the demographic factors (child
gender, child age, family SES, and number of tablets at home) across the
iPad and control group are presented in Table 1. The allocation of
children to groups was based upon random assignment
(Graziano & Raulin, 2007) using a random number generator. Initially,
the number of possible 3–4 children groups at each centre was de-
termined based on the total number of participating children at each
Table 1
Demographic Variables across the iPad and Control Group.
Demographic variables Group
iPad Group (n = 24) Control Group (n = 24)
Child gender 12 boys, 12 girls 13 boys, 11 girls
Child age 45.68 months (8.48; 44.70 months (9.31;
31.21–59.75) 27.09–59.41)
Socioeconomic status 48.25 (9.82; 23–63.50) 43.96 (11.68; 14–61)
Number of tablets at 1.58 (0.93; 0–3) 1.83 (1.66; 0–6)
home
Note: Frequencies are shown for child gender and the means are shown for the other
variables (standard deviation and range are in parentheses)
centre. Each of these groups was then randomly allocated to be an iPad
or control group with the constraint that the total number of iPad and
control groups was equal. As a result, each centre had from one to three
groups with the final allocation as follows, Centre A: 1 iPad group;
Centre B: 1 iPad group and 2 control groups; Centre C: 1 iPad group and
2 control groups; Centre D: 1 iPad group and 1 control group; Centre E:
1 iPad group and 1 control group; Centre F: 2 iPad groups and 1 control
group. In the next step of the allocation process, children were ran-
domly assigned to an iPad or control group as appropriate for their
centre with the constraint that there were 3–4 children per group.
Following this procedure, there were seven iPad groups and seven
control groups distributed across the six centres. The number of parti-
cipating children in each age group from each childcare centre across
the iPad and control groups is presented in Table 2.
3.2. Materials
3.2.1. Description of apps
The apps used in the current study were carefully selected for their
engaging features, ease of use for young children, and for their potential
to foster emergent literacy skills. Three apps were downloaded to iPad
Air 2 [64GB; 240 mm (h) × 169.5 mm (w) × 6.1 mm (d)] devices.
Endless Alphabet (Originator Inc., 2014) app is a letter matching activity
that introduces 26 letters of the alphabet. From the app’s menu page a
child can select a letter from 26 upper case letters listed at the top of the
screen by tapping a letter. For example, if W is selected, the word WAVE
appears on the screen. Animated characters run across the screen and
jumble all the letters leaving an outline of each letter behind. When
each displaced letter is touched it wiggles and makes the letter’s sound.
The child drags and matches each letter to its correct place in the word
then the letter name is said by the app’s audio voice. If the letter is
dragged to the incorrect place a brief alert is sounded indicating an
incorrect match. When all the letters are correctly matched in the word,
congratulatory music is heard and a new screen appears with a col-
ourful animation and narration that supports the word’s meaning.
Based on the app selection criteria by Hillman and Marshall (2009,
Endless Alphabet is considered a suitable literacy learning app for young
children because its multimodal features (e.g., sounds, animations) are
engaging and stimulate visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, and tactile
senses. The interactive features (e.g., dragging, swiping, and tapping)
are easy for young children to use to complete the letter matching tasks.
Navigating through the app’s interfaces may support technical and
operational skills and builds content knowledge about letters, words,
and the world. The app’s activities are open ended with no scores, le-
vels, or time limits.
Letter School app (Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V., 2014) is a
multimodal letter tracing game that takes children through three ac-
tivities (tapping, tracing, and writing) to form letter shapes. Upon
opening the app, an arrow icon appears which is tapped to enter the
next screen that contains 26 upper case alphabet letters. For example,

241
M.M. Neumann
when the letter L is tapped, the next interface presents a larger letter L,
then the word LION is formed and a picture of a toy lion appears below
the word with a singing narration of “This is the letter L for/L//L/
[letter sound] lion.” Following this, the child plays the tapping, tracing,
and writing activity. 1) Tapping activity: On the screen dots appear at the
top, corner, and far right end of the letter L. The child taps the top dot
and coloured beads automatically extend down to the corner dot. If the
child taps an incorrect dot, an alert sound is heard and the letter shape
is not formed. When the corner dot is tapped then the coloured beads
continue along to complete the shape of the letter L. 2) Tracing activity:
This time the child touches the dot at the top of the L and drags a yellow
segment down the L whilst a construction-like sound is heard. Then the
corner dot on the L is touched and dragged across the screen forming
the last segment of the L shape. 3) Writing activity: When the child
touches the dot at the top of the L, the L disappears and the child drags
a white chalk-like segment down and across to complete the L. On
completion, stars appear and clapping sounds are heard and the screen
automatically returns to the app’s home menu screen.
Based on the app selection criteria by Hillman & Marshall (2009)
Letter School is considered a suitable literacy app for young children
because its multimodal features (e.g., sounds, animations) positively
engage children with letter shapes. Its interactive features involve
tapping and dragging movements that are simple tactile and kinaes-
thetic movements for young children. Letter school is open-ended with
the child being able to repeat letter activities and select letters at their
own pace and has in-built features that scaffold letter formation. For
example, the third writing activity is the most challenging task because
it involves writing a letter without an outline of the letter to follow, but
the app provides additional supporting elements to minimise potential
frustration. Following three attempts at writing the letter, dotted ar-
rows moving in the correct direction of the letter’s shape appear to
prompt and guide the child to complete the letter shape.
The Draw Buddy (Byte By Byte LLC., 2014) app allows children to
freely draw pictures or form letters on the touch screen interface with a
finger. The screen has a white background with one side of the screen
consisting of a range of colours to select from and the opposite side of
the screen contains functional icons (save, settings, eraser, undo, and
new). The child selects a colour by tapping on it then draws and/or
writes on the screen with a finger. Although this app contains no in-
teractive sounds or animations, young children can use it for experi-
menting, mark making, drawing, and writing their own letters, name,
and words.
3.3. Emergent literacy measures
3.3.1. Print concepts
Clay’s Concepts About Print test (2005) test has good reliability (split
half reliability of 0.84–0.89) and acceptable validity (0.64–0.79;
Brassard & Boehm, 2007). Using 10 questions from Clay’s (2005) Con-
cepts about Print test, children were assessed on print concepts such as
left to right directionality, concept of a letter and word, and where to
start reading. Story books (Follow me moon, Clay, 2009a pre-test; No
shoes, Clay, 2009b post-test) were used to assess print concepts and
children scored 1 point for each correct response (max = 10). Test-
retest reliability was acceptable at r = 0.70.
3.3.2. Letter name and sound knowledge
Children were presented with each alphabet letter printed on a card
(8 cm × 8 cm) in century gothic font size 120 and asked “What is the
name of this letter? This was followed by ‘What is the sound of this
letter?’ All 26 upper case letters were presented first in random order
followed by all 26 lower case letters in random order. Each correct
response was scored 1 point. Total letter name knowledge was the sum
of upper and lower case letter name (max = 52) and total letter sound
knowledge was the sum of upper and lower case letter sound
(max = 52). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for total letter name
242
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246
knowledge (r = 0.88) and total letter sound knowledge (r = 0.78).
3.3.3. Numeral name knowledge
Children were presented with each numeral (0–9) in random order
printed on card (8 cm × 8 cm) in century gothic font size 120 and
asked what is the name of this numeral? Each correct response was
scored 1 point (max = 10). Test-retest reliability was acceptable at
r = 0.91.
3.3.4. Name writing
Children were asked to write their name with a pencil on a sheet of
A4 paper. Name writing was scored using a 7-point scoring scale:
0 = no production, 1 = random scribbling, 2 = controlled scribbling (e.g.,
dots, lines), 3 = random letter-like forms (pseudo-letters), 4 = strings of
non-phonetic conventional letters or the first letter of their name, 5 = some
correct letters of their name, 6 = name writing generally correct, 7 = name
written and spelled correctly (adapted from Bloodgood, 1999; Welsch
et al., 2003). Scoring was done by the author. To determine reliability,
responses from 25% of the participant sample was randomly selected
and independently scored by a second trained scorer. Inter-rater scores
were highly correlated indicating good reliability (r = 0.95) thus the
author’s scores were used. Test-retest reliability for name writing was
r = 0.87.
3.3.5. Letter writing
On a sheet of A4 paper children were asked to write each of the 26
alphabet letters that were dictated to them (e.g., “Can you write the
letter T?”). Letters written in their conventional form were scored 1
point (based on Schickedanz & Casbergue’s, 2009 examples of written
letters). For each letter, either upper or lower case forms were accepted
with repeated letters scored only once. Inter-rater reliability was as-
sessed using the same method as for name writing and again showed
high reliability (r = 0.99) thus, the author’s scores were used. Test-
retest reliability for letter writing was r = 0.74.
3.4. Procedure
Prior to the commencement of the study, university ethics approval
was gained and permission to conduct the iPad intervention program
was provided by the managing directors of six childcare centres in
south-east Queensland. The study was conducted during the second half
of the preschool year from July to December. All the parents of children
aged 2–5 years from each of the six childcare centres were provided
with information about the study. In each of the six centres there was a
room for each age group (2–3 year olds, 3–4 year olds, 4–5 year olds).
Consenting parents signed the consent form and completed a home
questionnaire about demographic details (e.g., child age, gender, parent
education, occupation) and the number of touch screen tablets children
had at home. Three children whose parents provided consent did not
participate in the program (one child was excluded due to delayed
speech and language development) and two children were too shy to
participate) leaving a total of 48 participating children. In a quiet room
at each child care centre, children were assessed for 30 min on emer-
gent literacy skills (print concepts, letter name and letter sound
knowledge, numeral name knowledge, name writing and letter writing)
at pretest (2 weeks prior to the program) then at posttest (in the 2
weeks following the program). There was no attrition of the 48 children
during the study.
Each 30 min iPad session was supervised by a trained instructor (a
qualified school teacher with 10 years of experience and who was not
affiliated with any of the childcare centres). Prior to each session the
instructor gathered the participating children from their respective
rooms and conducted the program in a quiet room separate to the
children’s regular classrooms. The mean weekly attendance of children
to the iPad session was M = 7.75 weeks out of 9 weeks (SD = 1.33;
range = 5–9 weeks). During the 9 week iPad sessions, the non-
M.M. Neumann Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246

treatment waitlist control group participated in activities with their Table 4

regular teachers (blocks, puzzles, painting, and sand play) and shared Correlations between Child Age and Emergent Literacy Measures at Pretest (top diagonal)
and Posttest (bottom diagonal) (N = 48).
story book reading. None of the childcare centres owned iPads or ta-
blets and none of the children’s teachers or children used iPads or ta- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
blets in their classrooms. Teachers were also blind to the iPad activities
being done as part of the intervention by the instructor. The same in- 1. Age – 0.55** 0.55** 0.70** 0.51** 0.68** 0.63**
2. Print concepts 0.56** – 0.60** 0.62** 0.52** 0.52** 0.53**
structor gave the intervention at all child care centres. This design thus
3. Log Letter name 0.52** 0.68** – 0.59** 0.77** 0.62** 0.64**
strengthened internal validity reducing potential childcare centre and 4. Log Letter sound 0.68** 0.71** 0.76** – 0.61** 53** 0.57**
teacher variability. In addition, children in each age group, in each 5. Numeral Name 0.59** 0.68** 0.79** 0.68** – 0.53** 0.43**
classroom did not receive formal or direct literacy instruction from 6. Name Writing 0.72** 0.71** 0.62** 0.74** 0.62** – 77**
their regular teachers for print concepts, letter sounds, or writing. 7. Log Letter Writing 0.66** 0.65** 0.65** 0.76** 0.51** 0.78** –

Following the completion of the posttest assessments, the waitlist

control group received the iPad program.
Children in the iPad group attended a weekly session in small
groups of 3–4 children that lasted 30 min. The children sat on a com-
fortable mat on the floor and each child was provided with an iPad for
each session. The instructor sat on a low chair in front of the children.
Children were introduced to three focus letters per week in the first 8
weeks and two letters in the 9th week (Week 1: ABC; Week 2: DEF;
Week 3: GHI; Week 4: JKL; Week 5: MNO; Week 6: PQR; Week 7: STU;
Week 8: VWX; Week 9: YZ) using three apps (Endless Alphabet,
Originator Inc., 2014; Letter School, Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V.,
2014, and Draw Buddy, Byte By Byte LLC., 2014). Children played each
app for 10 min each. During each session Endless Alphabet (letter
matching) was played first followed by Letter School (letter tracing) then
children wrote letters and/or drew pictures on the Draw Buddy app. The
instructor ensured that the children worked through the iPad program’s
weekly focus letters at a similar pace when using the Endless Alphabet
and Letter School app. In other words, children completed the letter A
activities first, then letter B, and so on. The instructor’s role was to
supervise the children to ensure they worked through the focus weekly
letters, remained on task, and completed each app activity.
4. Results
Descriptive statistics for pretest and posttest scores for the iPad
group and control group are presented in Table 3. Print concepts, nu-
meral name knowledge, and name writing, were normally distributed.
Due to significant positive skew, letter name and sound knowledge, and
letter writing required logarithmic transformation to normalise data.
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was not significant for all
emergent literacy measures (p > 0.05). Significant and positive cor-
relations occurred between measures at both pre- and post-test as
shown in Table 4 indicating that the measures reflected common un-
derlying concepts, namely emergent literacy skills. Child age was also
significantly correlated with all emergent literacy measures.
4.1. Pretest analyses
There were no associations between gender and group membership,
χ2 (1, N = 48) = 0.083, p = 0.77. Independent groups t-tests showed
that the iPad group and control group did not differ on child age, t (46)
Note: 2-tailed.
** p < 0.01
= 0.38, p = 0.71, SES, t (46) = 1.38, p = 0.18, or number of touch
screen tablets at home, t (46) = 0.64, p = 0.52, prior to the interven-
tion. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between groups
on any emergent literacy measures (print concepts t (46) = 0.14,
p = 0.89, d = 0.03; letter name t (46) = 0.80, p = . 43, d = 0.33;
letter sound t (46) = 0.36, p = 0.72, d = 0.10; numeral name t (46)
= 0.74, p = 0.46, d = 0.21; d = 0.10; name writing t (46) = 0.72,
p = 0.47, d = 0.21; and letter writing t (46) = 0.52, p = 0.60,
d = 0.15).
4.2. Intervention analyses
Univariate ANCOVAs were used to examine differences in post-test
scores between the control and intervention groups. Pre-test scores and
age were used as co-variates. The ANCOVAs showed that children in the
iPad group performed significantly better than the control group on log
letter name knowledge, F(1, 44) = 9.92, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.18, log
letter sound knowledge, F(1, 44) = 5.41, p = 0.025, ηp2 = 0.11, and
name writing, F(1, 44) = 7.13, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.14. No significant
differences between groups were found for letter writing, F(1, 44)
= 3.28, p = 0.08, ηp2 = 0.07, and numeral name knowledge, F(1, 44)
= 0.27, p = 0.60, ηp2 = 0.006. The iPad intervention had the largest
effect on letter name knowledge (ηp2 = 0.18). Medium effect sizes were
found for letter sound knowledge (ηp2 = 0.11) and name writing ability
(ηp2 = 0.14) with the intervention having the smallest effect on letter
writing (ηp2 = 0.07) and numeral name knowledge (ηp2 = 0.006).
5. Discussion
From an emergent literacy perspective (Teale & Sulzby, 1986)
young children develop understandings and knowledge about print
through interactions with non-digital and digital tools
(Hisrich & Blanchard, 2009; Kennedy et al., 2012). The present study
focussed on examining the effects of using tablets and apps to foster
young children’s emergent literacy skills. The apps selected for the in-
tervention program contained literacy focussed activities such as letter
matching, tracing letters, and shaping letters that had the potential to
foster alphabet skills, early writing, and print concepts. Children were

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Emergent Literacy Measures in the iPad Group and Control Group at Pretest and Posttest: Mean (Standard Deviation, Range).

Measure Pretest Posttest

iPad Group Control Group iPad Group Control Group

Print conceptsa 3.50 (1.75, 1–9) 3.58 (2.32, 0–10) 4.63 (2.08, 1–9) 3.58 (2.28, 0–9)
Letter nameb 11.21 (11.24, 0–33) 8.29 (10.45, 0–33) 19.13 (15.35, 1–50) 11.46 (13.67, 0–44)
Letter soundb 3.04 (5.65, 0–20) 3.79 (6.97, 0–25) 9.63 (11.27, 0–33) 6.21 (8.82, 0–30)
Numeral namea 4.50 (3.60, 0–10) 3.71 (3.79, 0–10) 5.71 (3.54, 0–10) 4.75 (3.95, 0k10)
Name writingc 3.50 (1.96, 1–7) 3.92 (2.04, 1–7) 4.88 (1.83, 1–7) 4.46 (2.19, 1–7)
Letter writingd 2.38 (2.95, 0k13) 2.13 (2.71, 0–11) 6.63 (5.59, 0–16) 4.33 (4.16, 0–12)

Note: Maximum test score: a = 10; b

= 52; c = 7; d
= 26.

243
M.M. Neumann
randomly assigned to an iPad intervention group or a waitlist control
group. The 9 week iPad program was provided to children in small
groups and three literacy apps were used to introduce new letters per
week. While there were no significant differences at pretest, children in
the iPad group showed significantly higher scores at posttest in letter
knowledge, print concepts, and name writing but not letter writing
when compared to the control group. The lack of a significant differ-
ence between groups on numeral name knowledge was expected be-
cause the apps focused on letters and words. Measuring both literacy
skills and numeral name knowledge provided evidence of the specificity
of the use of the literacy apps for enhancing emergent literacy skills
rather than numeral knowledge as the literacy apps used did not con-
tain numeral activities. The medium to large effect size of the inter-
vention program highlights the practical benefits and also confirms the
specificity of the intervention in that the literacy apps had benefited
emergent literacy skills and aspects of emergent writing.
Supported by previous research (Huang et al., 2013; Merchant,
2015; Neumann & Neumann, 2014) the present study showed that
young children can independently and competently use tablets and
apps for literacy learning. The literacy apps used in this study contained
a range of multisensory features that positively stimulated children’s
interactions and experiences with letters and words. Both Endless Al-
phabet and Letter School apps were animated, colourful, and accom-
panied with sounds and music. The children were observed to smile,
laugh, and move their bodies to the musical sounds during the iPad
sessions. The mobility of the iPad allowed children to freely change
positions during the sessions by using the iPad on their lap or lying on
their tummies. Many times following completion of the app tasks the
children displayed their excitement by exclaiming, “I did it!”
When using the letter matching app (Endless Alphabet), children’s
letter name and sound knowledge was fostered through visual, audi-
tory, tactile, and kinaesthetic experiences that involved connecting
letter shapes with the letter’s name and sound. Children enjoyed
touching animated letters and dragging them across the screen to match
them to correct place in a word. This helped children develop print
concepts such as left to right directionality and concepts about letters
and words. Matching a letter (whilst hearing its letter sound) to its
initial position in words also helped foster children’s letter sound
knowledge. The Letter School app (letter tracing) provided children with
multisensory experiences to learn about letter shapes and engaged
children in tracing letters. The inbuilt scaffolding features (e.g., ani-
mated arrows) of the Letter School app was important as it provided
further guidance if children were unable to trace the letter shapes
correctly after three attempts. The Draw Buddy app allowed children to
explore and interact with the iPad interface by using their fingers to
freely write their own letters, scribbles, shapes, and create drawings
using a selection of digital colours. Children also chatted with each
other about their creations when using the Draw Buddy app. For ex-
ample:
Child A: “I am doing orange, do you like my letter? Look what I
made, mine is a rainbow.”
Child B: “That’s good.”
Child C: “I am doing red on the inside.”
Child D: “I am making a flower too!”
Child C: “You got to make a circle first!”
Children in the iPad group had significant and positive gains in their
name writing ability compared with the control group. Welsch et al.
(2003) describe how children’s names are personal and significant to
young children. The visual representations of children’s names are often
one of the first stable written words children become familiar with in
terms the knowledge of the letters in their name and visual shapes of
letters (Treimen & Broderick, 1998). During children’s play with the
Draw Buddy app in the present study, some children were observed to
244
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246
write and shape elements of their names to label their digital drawings.
Although speculative it could be possible that children’s experimenta-
tion and name writing on the iPads may have deepened their name
writing abilities. It would be useful to systematically collect and analyse
children’s written representations on tablet screens to more closely
examine how drawing and writing apps can foster name writing skills in
young children.
In contrast to name writing, no significant difference was found
between the iPad group and control group for letter writing. This null
result may have been due to the lack of multisensory features (e.g.,
sounds and animations) and in-built app support (e.g., a narrator’s
guiding voice) in the Draw Buddy app which may have limited chil-
dren’s engagement in letter writing attempts. Moreover, it has been
suggested that the level of scaffolding provided by a more knowl-
edgeable person such as a teacher, parent, or peer, is an important
factor that may influence the effectiveness of tablets in supporting
emergent literacy (Neumann & Neumann, 2014).
Scaffolding guides and supports a child through a task that they
would be unable to master on their own (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
Yelland and Masters (2007) describe three types of scaffolding by a
teacher that may guide primary school children’s use of computers.
Cognitive scaffolding helps children solve problems and develop con-
ceptual and procedural understandings. Affective scaffolding provides
children with positive feedback and encouragement to complete tasks,
and technical scaffolding assists children with operating the device and
navigating through the software. This highlights the need to consider
providing preschool children with more direct teacher assistance when
using certain types of literacy apps. It is possible that providing cognitive
scaffolding with the Draw Buddy app in the present study may have
been required to further foster children’s letter writing.
Indeed, Beschorner and Hutchison (2013) and Bigelow (2013) de-
scribed the important role preschool teachers played in actively sup-
porting children during emergent writing activities on the iPad such as
giving physical prompts, spelling words, and providing encouragement
and technical help if touch movements were difficult. Other types of
scaffolding may also be beneficial to support children’s letter shaping
and name writing. For example, recent preschool literacy intervention
studies (Neumann, 2014b; Neumann, Hood, & Ford, 2013) have used
letter writing strategies such as directional language (saying up, down,
around, and across) to scaffold children’s writing with a paper and
pencil (e.g., T goes down and across). This strategy resulted in sig-
nificant improvements in children’s letter writing ability. Although
speculative, using directional language to support children during
writing of letters, words, and names on touch screen tablets may also be
helpful. In addition, using higher levels of mediation such as encoura-
ging children to label their iPad drawings (with their name or words
related to their picture), helping with word spelling, or asking more
cognitive based questions (e.g., “what are you drawing and/or
writing?” and “can I help you write that…what letter comes next?”) is
worth considering in future research.
5.1. Practical implications and recommendations
Children’s literacy learning and engagement with tablets has the
potential to be influenced by the types of multisensory features and
presence of in-built support features of apps. For example, it was ob-
served that children were more engaged and motivated to play with the
stimulating and interactive letter matching (Endless Alphabet app) and
letter tracing (Letter School) apps compared with the drawing app (Draw
Buddy) that lacked interactive features. However, the letter tracing and
matching apps contained some features that distracted children’s focus
during the letter activities. This has practical implications for educators
when selecting quality literacy apps to use in the classroom.
The Endless Alphabet app produced continuous background music
that made it more difficult to hear the letter sounds. A design feature
that allows finer adjustments to the volume would provide additional
M.M. Neumann
flexibility. The home screen of the Letter School app contained 26 letters
that continually and randomly flipped around and this triggered dis-
tractions for children. It was also not possible for children to touch
letters or move them around on the screen without the app instantly
launching to the next screen. This feature restricted children’s tactile
exploration of the 26 letters on the screen. Furthermore, the letter
names and sounds were not provided during the letter tracing tasks in
the Letter School app reducing opportunities for children to consolidate
letter shape, name, and sound connections.
With regard to the in-built scaffolding features of Letter School and
Endless Alphabet, these apps would be strengthened if they were de-
signed to adapt to young children’s individual learning needs. For ex-
ample, it would be useful to have an app that intuitively selects specific
letters the child had not yet mastered, rather than automatically re-
turning the child to the home screen containing all 26 letters. Also,
shorter words with fewer letters should be introduced in Endless
Alphabet before longer more difficult words such as “DEMOLITION.” In
summary, when using tablets to support emergent literacy it may be
important for teachers to select apps that engage young learners with
options to reduce distractive features. Young children may benefit from
literacy apps that are designed to contain multiple activities such as
letter matching, letter tracing, and a writing pad with in-built creative
activities that are tailored to suit individual literacy and learning needs.
In addition, in order to ensure quality apps are being designed to foster
specific literacy skills it is essential that app developers, early childhood
educators, and researchers collaborate closely together to ensure posi-
tive learning outcomes and benefits for young children
(Neumann & Neumann, 2015).
5.2. Future research and study limitations
The present findings add to the growing evidence that tablets can be
positive tools for fostering emergent literacy. However, the present
findings should be considered in the light of certain limitations. The
participant sample was small-scale and drawn from one Australian
middle SES community with typically developing English speaking
children, restricting generalisability of the outcomes. As the age range
(2–5 years) of the present participant sample is wide, language skill
variability may be present. Therefore, future research examining iPads
and emergent literacy should control for early language variability.
Providing a measure of instructor fidelity in future iPad interventions
would also strengthen the program’s validity. It would also be im-
portant to examine how children’s attention to apps and fine motor
abilities influence the extent of literacy learning during these digital
experiences with tablets. Touchscreen tablets are a more accessible
technology for young children than computers which require precise
motor skills to use a mouse and keyboard. Nevertheless, fine motor
skills are still required to use a tablet and these skills may moderate the
relationship between educational apps and learning. Likewise, cogni-
tive abilities like attention, executive functioning, and working memory
may influence what types of apps are most effective for a child at an
individual level.
The narrow selection of apps used in the present study does not
provide data on the effects of a wider range of apps (e.g., creating, story
making, typing, and e-books; Neumann, 2014a) on emergent literacy. A
further limitation of the study was that children’s letter and name
writing skills were assessed with the traditional method of using paper
and pencil. As children used the iPad screen via the Draw Buddy and
Letter School app to form letter shapes with their fingers rather than
pencils and paper, the use of a tablet based assessment may be a more
valid tool to assess letter and name writing. Further investigation into
the effects of cognitive, affective, and technical scaffolding to support
young children’s learning during tablet use is also needed. This will
help determine what types of teacher scaffolding are required to ef-
fectively extend and support specific aspects of early literacy learning
with tablets. In addition, it would also be important to further
245
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246
investigate the influence that children’s home use of tablets and literacy
apps have on emergent literacy. A deeper examination of this home-
school association may inform classroom teachers on how best to ca-
pitalise on children’s home digital experiences with mobile devices and
how to effectively integrate tablets and literacy apps into classroom
experiences.
The present study was exploratory and the iPad program was im-
plemented by an instructor not connected to any of the child care
centres. This may reduce regular inter-classroom variability of program
implementation and also reduces the ecological validity of the program.
The next step would be to test the iPad program with children’s regular
classroom teachers to determine the effectiveness of using iPads and
apps on emergent literacy using stronger control methods. For example,
classroom level factors that may impact upon learning may include
quality and quantity of digital resources, peer interactions, and a tea-
cher’s knowledge, skills, and confidence in using digital tools. There is a
need to consider these factors when examining how iPads and literacy
apps can be integrated into regular classroom activities rather than as a
separate special session as explored in the present study. In addition,
future studies could be designed that adopt a more equivalent control
group (e.g., face to face alphabet games) to examine the effects of iPads
on literacy skills. This could also help examine the outcomes of iPad-
child activities versus teacher-child activities on motivation, engage-
ment, and early literacy learning. This approach will provide further
guidance to teachers on how best to utilise tablets and apps in early
childhood settings.
6. Conclusion
The children in the present study enjoyed using tablets and literacy
apps to interact with letters and words in engaging and multisensory
ways. The tablets provided children with a platform to take ownership
of their learning and explore print using a stimulating and engaging
touch-based digital tool. This in turn positively fostered children’s letter
knowledge, print concepts, and name writing skills. However, letter
writing skills were not significantly enhanced following the iPad in-
tervention. The use of a more active scaffolding approach by children’s
regular teachers may be required to support emergent writing during
tablet experiences. Based on the exploratory nature of this study, fur-
ther empirical investigation with stronger comparison groups is re-
quired to more fully understand the effects of tablets and apps on early
learning.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New
Recommendations for Children’s Media Use. retrieved from https://www.aap.org/en-
us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-
Announces-New-Recommendations-for-Childrens-Media-Use.aspx.
Aram, D., & Bar-Am, O. C. (2016). Mothers helping their preschool children to spell
words: A comparison between interactions using the computer vs. pencil and paper.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interactions, 7, 15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijcci.2016.03.001.
Aram, D., & Biron, S. (2004). Joint storybook reading and joint-writing interventions
among low SES preschoolers: Differential contributions to early literacy. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 588–610.
Beschorner, B., & Hutchison, A. (2013). iPads as a literacy teaching tool in early child-
hood. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1,
16–24.
Bigelow, E. C. (2013). iWrite: Digital message making practices of young children. PhD Thesis.
USA: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from Proquest 3575558 http://gradworks.umi.
com/35/75/3575558.html.
Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy ac-
quisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 342–367.
Bowman, M., & Treiman, R. (2004). Stepping stones to reading. Theory into Practice, 43,
295–303.
Brassard, M. R., & Boehm, A. E. (2007). Preschool assessment: Principles and practices. New
York: Guildford Press.
Brown, M., & Harmon, M. T. (2013). iPad intervention with at-risk pre-schoolers: Mobile
technology in the classroom. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 14, 56–78.
M.M. Neumann
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in
the child’s acquisitions of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 313–321.
Byte By Byte LLC (2014). Draw buddy. [App]. Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.com/
us/app/draw-buddy/id560543032?ls=1&mt=8.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Clay, M. M. (2005). An observation survey of early literacy development. Auckland, NZ:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2009a). Follow me moon. Rosedale, NZ: Pearson.
Clay, M. M. (2009b). No shoes. Rosedale, NZ: Pearson.
Crescenzi, L., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2014). The role of touch in preschool children’s
learning using iPad versus paper interaction. Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 37, 87–95.
Cubelic, C. C., & Larwin, K. H. (2014). The use of iPad technology in the kindergarten
classroom: A quasi-experimental investigation of the impact on early literacy skills.
Comprehensive Journal of Educational Research, 47–59.
Ehri, L. C., & Roberts, T. (2006). The roots of learning to read and write: Acquisition of
letters and phonemic awareness. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research: Vol. 2, (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Guildford
Press.
Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to
read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155.
Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W. H. Teale, & E. Sulzby (Eds.).
Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 1–14). Norward, NJ: Ablex.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2007). Research methods a process of inquiry. New York,
NY: Pearson.
Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons.
Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann.
Hatherly, A., & Chapman, B. (2013). Fostering motivation for literacy in early childhood
education using iPads. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching
Technology, 25, 138–151.
Hillman, M., & Marshall, J. (2009). Evaluation of digital media for emergent literacy.
Computers in the Schools, 26, 256–270.
Hisrich, K., & Blanchard, J. (2009). Digital media and emergent literacy. Computers in the
Schools, 26, 240–255.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). The four-factor index of social status: Unpublished manuscript.
New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Huang, S., Clark, N., & Wedel, W. (2013). The use of an iPad to promote preschoolers’
alphabet recognition and letter sound. Practically Primary, 18 [24-16].
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Word and print awareness in 4-year-old children.
Child and Language Teaching and Therapy, 17, 207–225.
Kennedy, E., Dunphy, E., Dwyer, B., Hayes, G., McPhillips, T., Marsh, J., et al. (2012).
Literacy in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3–8 years)Dublin, National Council
for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. Retrieved from http://www.ncca.ie/en/
Publications/Reports/Literacy_in_Early_Childhood_and_Prima ry_Education_3-8_
years.pdf.
Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Flewitt, R. (2013). Sharing personalised stories
on iPads: A close look at one parent-child interaction. Literacy, 47, 115–122.
Kucirkova, N., Sheehy, K., & Messer, D. (2015). A Vygotskian perspective on parent-child
talk during iPad story sharing. Journal of Research in Reading, 38, 428–441.
Levin, I., Shatil-Carmon, S., & Asif-Rave, O. (2006). Learning of letter names and sounds
and their contribution to word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
93, 139–165.
Livingstone, S., Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Ottovordemgentschenfelde, S., & Fletcher-
Watson, B. (2014). Young children (0–8) and digital technology: A qualitative exploratory
study national report - UKLuxembourg: Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
Retrieved from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60799/.
Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print and reading:
Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22,
237–256.
Mann, V. A., & Foy, J. G. (2003). Phonological awareness, speech development, and letter
knowledge in preschool children. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 149–173.
Marsh, J., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., Lahmar, J., Scott, F., Plowman, L., et al. (2015).
Exploring Play and Creativity in Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps: Technology and Play.
Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from: http://www.techandplay.
org/tap-media-pack.pdf.
246
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 (2018) 239–246
Marsh, J. (2016). The digital literacy skills and competencies of children of pre-school
age. Media Education Studies and Research, 7, 197–214.
McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational tech-
nology with early learners. Young Children, 67, 14–24.
Merchant (2015). Keep taking the tablets: iPads, story apps and early literacy. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 38, 3–11.
Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J. L., Molnar, A., & Jacobi-Vessels, J. (2006). Alphabetic skills in
preschool: A preliminary study of letter naming and letter writing. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 29, 5–19.
Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 231–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-
013-0608-3.
Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2015). The use of touch screen tablets at home and
pre-school to foster emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17,
203–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468798415619773.
Neumann, M. M., Finger, G., & Neumann, D. L. (2016). A conceptual framework for
emergent digital literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 471–479. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z.
Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2016). An analysis of mother-child interactions
during an iPad activity. In K. Alvarez (Ed.). Parent-child interactions and relationships:
Perceptions, practices, and developmental outcomes (pp. 133–148). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Neumann, M. M., Hood, M., & Ford, R. (2013). Using environmental print to enhance
emergent literacy and print motivation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 26, 771–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9390-7.
Neumann, M. M. (2014a). An examination of touch screen tablets and emergent literacy
in Australian pre-school children. Australian Journal of Education, 58, 109–122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0004944114523368.
Neumann, M. M. (2014b). Using environmental print to foster emergent literacy in
children from a low-SES community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 005.
Neumann, M. M. (2015). Young children and screen time: Creating a mindful approach to
digital technology. Australian Educational Computing, 30. retrieved online from http://
journal.acce.edu.au/index.php/AEC/article/view/67.
Originator Inc (2014). Endless Alphabet app. [App]. Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.
com/au/app/endless-alphabet/id591626572?mt=8.
Roskos, K., Burnstein, K., Shang, Y., & Gray, E. (2014). Young children’s engagement with e-
books at school: Does device matter? Sage Open1–9 January-March.
Sandvik, M., Smørdal, O., & Østerud, S. (2012). Exploring iPads in practitioners' re-
pertoires for language learning and literacy practices in kindergarten. Nordic Journal
of Digital Literacy, 7, 204–220.
Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V (2014). Letter school [App]. Retrieved from: https://
itunes.apple.com/au/app/letterschool-learn-to-write/id435476174?mt=8.
Schickedanz, J. A., & Casbergue, R. M. (2009). Writing in preschool: Learning to orchestrate
meaning and marks. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to
reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38,
934–947.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy as a perspective for examining how
young children become readers and writers. In W. H. Teale, & E. Sulzby (Eds.).
Emergent literacy: Reading and writing (pp. 7–25). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Treimen, R., & Broderick, V. (1998). What’s in a name: Children’s knowledge about the
letters in their own names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 97–116.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welsch, J. G., Sullivan, A., & Justice, L. M. (2003). That’s my letter!: What preschoolers’
name writing representations tell us about emergent literacy knowledge. Journal of
Literacy Research, 35, 757–776.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69, 848–872.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. C., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age.
Computers and Education, 48, 362–382.