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

In this digital era, a fundamental challenge is to design digital reading materials in such a way that they improve children’s reading skills. Since reading books is challenging for many fifth graders—particularly for those genetically susceptible to attention problems—the researchers hypothesized that guidance from a digital Pedagogical Agent (PA) could improve students’ reading motivation and incidental vocabulary learning. Using a sample of 147 fifth-grade students, the researchers carried out a randomized control trial with three groups of students reading: (a) hardcopy (print) books, (b) digital books, and (c) digital books with a PA. For students with a genetic predisposition to attention problems, carriers of the DRD4 seven-repeat allele, the PA supported their incidental vocabulary learning. For noncarriers, there were no effects of the digital reading materials or the PA.

[1]  David B. Daniel,et al.  E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[2]  A. Taylor,et al.  Students Learn Equally Well From Digital as From Paperbound Texts , 2011 .

[3]  Russell Gersten,et al.  When Less May Be More: A 2‐Year Longitudinal Evaluation of a Volunteer Tutoring Program Requiring Minimal Training , 2000 .

[4]  Douglas Fuchs,et al.  Is There a Bidirectional Relationship between Children's Reading Skills and Reading Motivation? , 2007 .

[5]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[6]  H. Tiemeier,et al.  The magnificent seven: A quantitative review of dopamine receptor d4 and its association with child behavior , 2015, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[7]  De Graaf.  Genetic differential susceptibility , 2018 .

[8]  Yao-Ting Sung,et al.  Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[10]  Dara Williams-Rossi,et al.  Reluctant Readers in Middle School: Successful Engagement with Text Using the E- Reader , 2011 .

[11]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Growth in Reading and How Children Spend Their Time Outside of School , 1986 .

[12]  G. Clarebout,et al.  Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning , 2011 .

[13]  Aanshi Varshney,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments , 2014 .

[14]  Natascha Notten.  Parents and the media. Causes and consequences of parental media socialization , 2011 .

[15]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Web-Based Tutoring of the Structure Strategy With or Without Elaborated Feedback or Choice for Fifth- and Seventh-Grade Readers , 2010 .

[16]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  The design of motivational agents and avatars , 2011 .

[17]  Noah L. Schroeder,et al.  How Effective are Pedagogical Agents for Learning? A Meta-Analytic Review , 2013 .

[18]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching , 1998 .

[19]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis , 2011, Development and Psychopathology.

[20]  Alma S. Boutin-Martinez,et al.  Parental Provision of Early Literacy Environment as Related to Reading and Educational Outcomes Across the Academic Lifespan , 2015 .

[21]  Mimi Li,et al.  Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[22]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Research-Based Design of Pedagogical Agent Roles: a Review, Progress, and Recommendations , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[23]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge , 1982 .

[24]  A. Cunningham.  Vocabulary Growth Through Independent Reading and Reading Aloud to Children. , 2005 .

[25]  Adriana G. Bus,et al.  Differential Susceptibility in Early Literacy Instruction Through Computer Games: The Role of the Dopamine D4 Receptor Gene (DRD4) , 2011 .

[26]  Ekaterina Vasilyeva,et al.  Towards personalized feedback in educational computer games for children , 2007 .

[27]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? , 2007 .

[28]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension , 2013 .

[29]  Msl Swanborn,et al.  Incidental Word Learning While Reading: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[30]  J. Chall.  Stages of reading development , 1983 .

[31]  Michael Harrington,et al.  The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge , 2006 .

[32]  Donald J. Leu,et al.  An Online Learning Community as Support for At-Risk Students’ Literacy Growth: Findings, Implications, and Challenges , 2012 .

[33]  A. Bus,et al.  Genetic differential susceptibility in literacy-delayed children: A randomized controlled trial on emergent literacy in kindergarten , 2015, Development and Psychopathology.

[34]  Nele McElvany,et al.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation as Predictors of Reading Literacy: A Longitudinal Study. , 2010 .

[35]  Nadia Mana,et al.  Interactive stories and exercises with dynamic feedback for improving reading comprehension skills in deaf children , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[36]  P. Gaszner,et al.  Noninvasive genotyping of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) using nanograms of DNA from substance-dependent patients. , 2002, Current medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Anne Mangen,et al.  A Joker in the class: Teenage readers attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices , 2014 .

[38]  Suzanne E. Mol,et al.  Attentional bias toward reading in reluctant readers , 2016 .

[39]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[40]  D. Share,et al.  Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. , 2008, Advances in child development and behavior.

[41]  Jay Belsky,et al.  For Better and For Worse , 2007 .

[42]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Simulating Instructional Roles through Pedagogical Agents , 2005, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[43]  J. Kagan,et al.  The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among “at risk” first grade children , 1998 .

[44]  Daniel J. Boorstin.  Books in Our Future. , 1984 .

[45]  J. Belsky,et al.  Distinguishing ordinal and disordinal interactions. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[46]  Adriana G. Bus,et al.  Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children's emergent literacy , 2015 .

[47]  Suzanne E. Mol,et al.  To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[48]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Genetic differential susceptibility on trial: Meta-analytic support from randomized controlled experiments , 2015, Development and Psychopathology.

[49]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .