Digital Devices Use and Chinese-Canadian First Graders’ Early English Literacy Development: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

This mixed-methods study investigates the impact of digital devices use at home on early English literacy development among 121 Chinese-Canadian first graders, as well as their parents’ perspectives on the families’ purposes and practices of digital devices use for English literacy, highlighting bilingual children’s experiences with multiple digital devices. To understand the relationships between the children’s digital practices and early English literacy development, we collected quantitative data on children’s English literacy skills—including reading comprehension, decoding, and receptive vocabulary—alongside frequency data on digital devices use including those on computer use and television viewing. Parents of 66 children participated in interviews, providing context-specific insights into devices use purposes and language learning practices. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests to examine group differences. Hierarchical linear regression explored associations between digital devices use and early English literacy outcomes, while thematic analysis identified patterns from parental interviews. Results indicate a positive association between controlled television exposure and receptive vocabulary. However, no significant relationship was observed between television or computer use and decoding or reading comprehension. Findings emphasize the multifaceted but limited role of digital devices, with parents struggling to balance educational benefits and long-term concerns.

1. Introduction

Digital devices are becoming increasingly pervasive in young children’s domestic environments, with early and frequent engagement documented in the recent literature. Computers and televisions remain prevalent digital devices in most households, along with the proliferation of mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones (Auxier et al., 2020; Kabali et al., 2015; Lauricella et al., 2015). With a survey conducted in March 2020, Auxier et al. (2020) found that 93% of children aged 3–4 years and 91% of children aged 5–8 years were regularly exposed to television. Tablet exposure rose from 35% among toddlers aged 0–2 years to 81% for 5–8 year olds; smartphones were used by 62% of 3–4 year olds and 67% of 9–11 year olds; and computers showed more engagement among older children (73% of 9–11 year olds). The trend toward early and increased digital engagement is not limited to the North American context. For example, a study in Italy (Operto et al., 2020) found that even children as young as 8–36 months were frequent users of digital media, with television (60%) and smartphones (66%) being the most prevalent devices.

These digital devices have played an increasingly important role in facilitating entertainment, social connections, and children’s education since the COVID-19 pandemic. Sonnenschein et al. (2023) reported a notable rise in domestic study time using digital devices with 177 American elementary-aged children due to the school closures induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, children reportedly spent around 3.91 h on reading, an increase of 54%, and 3.14 h on writing, which was increased by 50% from pre- to post-COVID. The surge of research attention toward digital devices use at home during the pandemic has sparked ongoing discussions about its impact on literacy development. While some (e.g., Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Postman, 1985) argue that over-exposure to electric media might overwhelm children with inappropriate knowledge and content and negatively affect critical thinking and early literacy, others (e.g., Buckingham, 2003; Neuman, 1991; Okwir & Nuur, 2022) point out that the media effects theory lacks a rational understanding of the positive effects of digital content on literacy development as it misrepresents human agency in the digital world. As Hoikkala et al. (1987) summarized, the media effects theory is concerned “only with how children and adolescents are exploited by the media, not with how the media are exploited by children and adolescents” (p. 87).

Considering the inevitable and sometimes even overwhelming exposure to digital content children have at home, parents, especially immigrant parents, are in high need of reliable advice or professional consultations on digital devices use (Moursad et al., 2023) to well utilize digital resources with their agencies for literacy learning, particularly in the second language (L2). It is with these considerations, in this study, we examine the relationship between bilingual Chinese-Canadian children’s home digital devices use and their early L2 English literacy development as well as their parents’ perspectives of their digital use.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Digital Use and Early Literacy Development

For early literacy development, Teale and Sulzby (1987) argued that literacy is an emergent skill and behavior gradually acquired by children in their early stages by interacting with the environment. Therefore, early experiences in a rich literacy environment that incorporates both print and digital resources can enhance children’s long-term reading skills and overall development (e.g., Rose et al., 2018; Segers & Kleemans, 2020; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2014). According to the Simple View of Reading model (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), reading ability is the product of two main domains: language comprehension and decoding skills. Empirical studies of home literacy environments conducted in various contexts evidence that informal literacy activities at home—such as shared reading or exposure to literacy content on digital devices—are associated with children’s language comprehension and vocabulary development (e.g., Evans et al., 2000; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2014; Skwarchuk et al., 2014). This study applies the Simple View of Reading framework to assess children’s early English literacy skills, focusing on vocabulary, reading comprehension, and decoding abilities.

When examining factors influencing early language and literacy development, a key focus is the role of language exposure and quality of such input. Early scholars (Garrett, 1991; Tomasello, 2005) highlight that language development is heavily influenced by the child’s language environment, whether physical or digital. As Garrett (1991) puts it, language and literacy skills are so complex that learners need “an environment—in class or in our [digital] materials—in which students can work on acquiring that ability” (p. 92). Herein, the central issue in assessing the impact of digital use on language development is whether the digital world can help foster highly interactive and linguistically rich environments for learners (Chapelle, 2009). For second language learners, comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982), i.e., language that is just slightly beyond the learner’s proficiency level, is essential for second language acquisition. Quality input can occur in both formal settings, such as classrooms, and informal contexts, like digital use and daily home interactions. Krashen (1982) introduces the Affective Filter Hypothesis, suggesting that learners who are motivated and relaxed are more likely to have a low affective filter, making them more receptive to language input. In home contexts, digital use can provide essential second-language exposure and input that bilingual children often receive in formal settings outside the home. The engaging features of digital technologies may lower children’s affective filter; however, the comprehensible input they receive might be incidental or unregulated. Informed by these theoretical complexities, we aim to examine whether digital use supports or hinders children’s early L2 literacy development within the home environments, and the conditions under which it may be beneficial or detrimental.

2.2. Home Digital Use and Its Possible Impacts on Literacy Development

With the widespread of digital devices and access to internet connection among households in this digital world, extended research studies have been conducted in the past decades exploring the digital resources and media exposure in home literacy environment (e.g., Masur et al., 2016; Segers & Kleemans, 2020), with a particular focus on the displacement effect (Neuman, 1991). This concept suggests that children’s exposure time to television may displace other essential activities for their language development, such as parent–child interaction and shared reading. For instance, Masur et al. (2016) examined the impact of background television on maternal speech in a study involving 25 mother–infant pairs. They found that increased background television reduced both the quantity and lexical diversity of maternal speech during play. Moreover, increased exposure to background television during play predicted infants’ lower vocabulary acquisition at 17 months. Another large-scale study (Khan et al., 2017) using data from more than ten thousand American preschoolers identified a negative correlation between the frequency of parent–child shared book reading and children’s television watching time. Gath et al. (2023) investigated the relationship between screen time, language development, and parent–child relationships among 84 preschoolers in New Zealand. The findings showed that higher levels of television viewing and digital media use were related to lower language skills and reduced parent–child closeness. In particular, the quality of parent–child interactions mediated the negative association between television viewing and parent–child closeness, while decreased shared reading mediated the association between television viewing and children’s oral language production skills and language comprehension.

However, different findings were found by Dore et al. (2020b), who expanded the examination of the displacement effect to children ranging from preschool to third grade. By exploring the association between media use (watching television and videos and playing games) and children’s vocabulary skills and word recognition, they revealed a threshold effect, where only high levels of media use (4 or more hours per day) were related to smaller literacy gains. The authors hence argued that, while high media use may displace important literacy skills, certain features of media use, such as educational content and adult co-viewing, could moderate the displacement effect or amplify the diversity of home language input. This may speak to research conducted during the pandemic (Sonnenschein et al., 2023), where a positive correlation was found between digital devices use and home literacy activities for both younger and older children. Therefore, the impacts of screen exposure on children’s literacy development are highly contingent on the quantity, content, and context of use. Future research is needed to explore the more nuanced context-specific picture of digital devices surrounding young children.

Another theme emerging across the studies is that the impacts of digital exposure varied in different age groups. For infants and toddlers, research has consistently reported potential negative associations between smart media exposure and language development (Alamri et al., 2023). Tomopoulos et al. (2010) found a negative correlation between the amount of media exposure at 6 months and language development at 14 months; high exposure to television was also found to predict a higher risk of language delay at 15–35 months (Lin et al., 2015). Among highly educated British families, Taylor et al. (2018) found no significant relationship between multiple media exposure and vocabulary size in children aged 6–36 months. Even educational digital content has been associated with poorer language outcomes in children under age 2 (Zimmerman et al., 2007), as increased screen time was negatively associated with the quantity and quality of parent–child interactions.

As children progress to preschool age, the relationship between digital screen exposure and language development becomes mixed (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2017), with only limited evidence suggesting that the effects may be more dependent on parental engagement (Neumann & Neumann, 2014). A comprehensive meta-analysis (Jing et al., 2023) examined various digital devices (including television or movies, video games or applications, and e-books) for children aged 0–6 years. Contrasting with previous studies, they found a small but significantly positive relationship between digital use and vocabulary development, moderated by factors such as research methods, child age, digital device type, and interactivity. Notably, the positive impacts were more salient for children aged 36 months and older. Fitzpatrick et al. (2023) also emphasized considering the types, content, and context of digital use, as well as child characteristics; they noted that, while background media exposure has been associated with poorer language development, parent co-viewing or interactive media has been found to have positive impacts. Research on the impacts of multiple devices exposure is still in its early phases. Also, most of the recent research (e.g., Gath et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2017; Masur et al., 2016) has focused on children at the preschool stage, leaving space for more research on its impacts on school-aged children.

2.3. Digital Exposure and Early English Literacy Development for Bilingual Children

A smaller group of studies (e.g., Hudon et al., 2013; Li et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2023) have investigated the case of bilingual children, revealing a complex relationship between digital exposure and English language and literacy development, which may differ from that of monolingual English-speaking children. For instance, in Canada, Hudon et al. (2013) conducted a study with 56 monolingual and 29 English-French bilingual toddlers, where parents completed questionnaires on home literacy and television habits. The results showed that it was the quality, rather than the quantity, of television viewing that was significantly associated with bilingual infants’ English vocabulary. No such association was found among monolingual infants. The findings suggested that the L2 literacy of bilingual infants might be more sensitive to the quality of television content. Those infants who watched more English educational programs and were often accompanied by parents scored higher in their English vocabulary.

Similarly, a study conducted in the U.S. (Cycyk & Anda, 2021) examined media exposure and language experience in 30 children from Mexican immigrant households. Using natural recordings in the home space, they found that media exposure made up about 14% of the total auditory environment. Interestingly, the authors found that media exposure was negatively related to the quantity of children’s vocalization and parent–child conversational turns, but not to the quantity of adult words in the environment. This indicated that the impact of media exposure on language development might be mediated by children’s opportunities to engage in conversation and practice expression. Moreover, child-directed media (more often in English rather than the home language) was positively correlated with children’s vocalizations. In this way, bilingual children living in English-dominant societies might gain more from exposure to higher-quality English-language digital media, increasing their opportunities to learn English.

Although some studies have proven that digital use can be a positive input for bilingual children’s home language learning (Dixon et al., 2012; Li et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2023; Sun & Yin, 2020), research is not yet congruent about the impacts of home digital use on their English language and literacy development, especially with multiple devices present at home nowadays. It is crucial to explore this issue for bilingual children as they have to balance input and development in two languages, which may complicate the trade-offs among various types of language exposure. Parents of bilingual children also face greater challenges in supporting English learning or conducting home literacy activities in English, making other resources, including home digital use, potentially more important (Elias & Abdulaev, 2022; Li et al., 2023). Furthermore, attention should be given to these children’s literacy skills, particularly vocabulary size and reading comprehension, which are crucial for future academic performances (Babayiğit et al., 2022; Bialystok et al., 2008) and have reportedly lagged behind those of monolingual peers (Bialystok et al., 2010; Papastefanou et al., 2021). Thus, understanding how digital exposure at home can challenge or support English language and literacy development is critical for early bilingual learners, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave rise to the extensive use of digital devices at home (Li et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023). It is against this backdrop that this study aimed to understand the impact of home digital use on children’s early literacy development while they transitioned to formal mainstream education, as well as context-specific digital practices related to children’s English language learning from parents’ perspectives. We set out the study with the following research questions:

1. What are the patterns in the frequency of Chinese-Canadian first graders’ digital devices use and their early English literacy achievements?

2. What is the relationship between the children’s digital devices use and their English literacy skills?

3. What are the contexts (e.g., purposes and practices) of the children’s digital devices use at home for English and what are their parents’ perceptions of its impact on the children’s English language development?

3. Methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to explore the use of multiple digital devices at home and its relationship with the early English literacy development of 121 Chinese-Canadian bilingual first graders, as well as the practices and context of digital device usage for English literacy learning. Data for this analysis were derived from a larger longitudinal, mixed-methods project conducted from December 2020 to May 2022 in a metropolitan area in British Columbia, Canada. Chinese, including Mandarin and Cantonese, is the second most-spoken immigrant language in the region (Statistics Canada, 2022). This study followed a convergent parallel design through which the quantitative and qualitative data collections were conducted simultaneously and equal priority was given to each of the methods. The quantitative and qualitative data analyses were conducted separately and then combined together for interpretation. Specifically, we analyzed quantitative data regarding children’s early English literacy skills including reading comprehension, decoding (letter and word recognition), and oral receptive vocabulary and data on children’s frequency of digital devices use. For qualitative analysis, we thematically analyzed interview transcripts of the parents who had agreed to participate for an in-depth understanding of digital devices use at home and how parents perceived the impact of the usage on children’s English literacy.

3.1. Participants

Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. We targeted children from families whose parents were Chinese immigrants, spoke either Mandarin or Cantonese at home, and the children themselves were in first grade during the 2019–2020 or 2020–2021 academic year. A total of 121 first graders and their parents were included in the final sample for this analysis. The average age of the 121 first graders was 79.50 months (around 6.5 years). The sample was relatively balanced in gender, with 63 girls (52.07%) and 58 boys (47.93%). Socioeconomic status was determined by the families’ annual household income and parents’ educational background. Among families who disclosed the information, most participants (77.69%) came from non-low-SES backgrounds, while 27 were from low-SES families. The majority of the participating children (78.51%) were born in Canada, with 21.49% immigrating after they were born. Detailed participant information is shown in Table 1.

The parent participants (3 fathers and 63 mothers) included in the interviews were the parents of 66 children (see Table 2); 38 were girls (57.58%) and 28 were boys (42.42%). In total, 52 children were from non-low-SES families, while 14 children came from low-SES households. In terms of immigration status, the majority of the children (83.33%, n = 55) were born in Canada and 11 children immigrated after birth. The average age of these children was 78.24 months, roughly around 6.5 years.

3.2. Measures and Procedures

3.2.1. English Receptive Vocabulary

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test fifth edition (PPVT-5; Dunn, 2019) was used to measure English receptive vocabulary. The PPVT-5 was designed for individuals ranging from 2 years and 6 months to over 90 years of age. It has been widely applied and demonstrates strong reliability, with an average internal consistency of 0.97, alternative form reliability averaging 0.86, and a test–retest stability of 0.84 across various age groups. The test included 240 items in English and began with age-appropriate words for each participant. Each test item presented a word with four images, and the participant was instructed to point to or select the number of the image that best matched the word. The items were arranged in order of increasing difficulty. The test had no time constraints, but it was discontinued after six consecutive incorrect answers. Each correct item earned one point, and the raw scores were then converted to standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) based on age norms for final analyses.

3.2.2. English Reading Comprehension and Decoding Skills

The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement third edition (KTEA-3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014) was applied to assess English reading skills, focusing on the reading comprehension and word recognition sub-tests. The KTEA-3 is a standardized, individually administered battery of tests that measures core academic abilities from pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Normed among North American populations, it has been proven to be a reliable instrument with the reported reliability falling between 0.87 and 0.95 across its sub-tests (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014).

Since the study was conducted during the breakout of the pandemic, tests were carried out individually via Zoom by trained bilingual researchers. The reading comprehension test of KTEA-3 includes 30 items designed to measure participants’ understanding of written English. Each participant was first asked to read simple instructions and respond by performing specific actions, such as looking at the door or pointing to a subject. Then, the participant read short passages of increasing difficulty and answered corresponding comprehension questions. By following the administration manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014), the test was not timed but was discontinued if the participant gave five consecutive incorrect answers.

The letter and word recognition test includes 100 items. Each participant first identified letters as they were read aloud, followed by pronouncing the letters shown to them. They then continued to read words of increasing difficulty, from single-syllable words to more complex, multi-syllable words. There was no time limit, but the test was stopped after four consecutive incorrect responses.

3.2.3. Frequency of Digital Devices Use

We measured the frequency of children’s use of digital devices for their literacy activities using a Chinese version of the Alberta Environment Questionnaire (ALEQ; Paradis et al., 2010). Two questions on a 3-point Likert scale were posed to the parents: how frequently does your child engage in English literacy activities by (1) using personal computers (which includes internet, games, storybooks on CD-ROMs, etc.); or by (2) watching television programs or movies in English which include video or DVD on computer or television). One parent of each participating child responded to the questions, choosing from the following options: (0) almost never, (1) no more than five times a week, or (2) more than five times a week. The scores for the two questions were examined separately, with higher scores indicating a greater frequency of using personal computers or television programs for literacy activities at home.

3.2.4. Interview Procedures

To gain a better understanding of home digital devices use and parents’ perceptions of their impact on their children’s English early literacy development, we conducted semi-structured interviews with one parent from each of the 66 families who agreed to be interviewed, among whom 3 were fathers and 63 were mothers. The interview protocol was guided by questions focusing on digital activities and parents’ attitudes toward their children’s digital use. We also included detailed questions about the content and context of various digital resources for English learning. Sample questions from the interview included the following: “What does your child typically use digital devices for (e.g., language learning, games, watching cartoons, or other activities)?”, “How is their screen time divided between learning and entertainment?”, “Which applications or programs on digital devices do you find most helpful for your child’s English language learning?”, “What role do you think digital devices and technology play in your child’s English language learning?”, and “What rules do you have for your child’s use of digital devices?” Several interviews were carried out after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, so we included additional questions concerning the special context. These questions asked about parents’ views on online learning provided by schools during the pandemic.

Interviews were conducted in the parent’s preferred language—either Mandarin, Cantonese, or English—and typically lasted between one hour to one and a half hours. All interviews were recorded with parental consent and transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 in their original language for analysis. Translation into English was later completed for reporting purposes by bilingual Chinese-English research assistants and later reviewed by the principal investigator of the project who is also a Chinese-English bilingual researcher.

3.3. Data Analysis

3.3.1. Quantitative Data Analyses

The SPSS version 29.0 was used in all the quantitative analyses of this study. To begin with, we conducted a descriptive analysis of children’s digital devices use frequency and English literacy assessment results. The independent samples t-tests were also used to compare the difference in digital devices use and English literacy assessments between the demographic groups (i.e., gender, family SES, and immigration status).

To explore the relationship between digital devices use and English literacy skills, we conducted the hierarchical linear regression by adding their English literacy assessment results (i.e., receptive vocabulary, letter and word recognition, reading comprehension) separately as the dependent variable. The assessment raw scores were converted to standard scores based on first-grade levels suggested in the test manuals before final analyses. The normed group means for the first graders were M = 100, SD = 15. The demographic factors, inclusive of gender (dummy coded as 0 for boys and 1 for girls), family SES (dummy coded as 0 for low-SES families and 1 for non-low-SES families), and immigration status (dummy coded as 0 for immigrants and 1 for born in Canada) were added as the control variables, then the digital devices use frequency (i.e., the use of computers and TV programs or movies) was added individually as the key variable. A total of six models with two for each dependent variable were examined. The missing value was removed from our analyses so only those with the complete data set were included in the final analyses.

3.3.2. Qualitative Data Analysis

After transcribing all the interviews, we conducted thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) to identify key patterns. We first familiarized ourselves with the complete interview transcripts and extracted segments that addressed digital resources, digital activities related to English learning, and parental attitudes toward digital devices. During the initial round of analysis, descriptive codes were used to analyze the segments, such as “school online learning”, “English television programs”, “surfing on the Internet”, “reading applications”, “frequency of digital devices use”, “family digital rules”, and “parent attitudes”. In the second phase, the descriptive codes were merged into broader thematic categories, including themes like “using computers for school-related activities”, “watching television as an intentional language input”, “the use of various digital resources to learn English”, and “parents’ conflicted attitudes toward digital devices”. The identified themes were triangulated with the findings from quantitative analyses to gain a more comprehensive explanation of home digital use and early English literacy development for these English-Chinese bilingual first graders.

4. Findings

4.1. Patterns of Digital Devices Use and Achievements in English Literacy Skills

Based on the descriptive statistics (Table 3), children had an average score of 1.36 (SD = 0.79) in the frequency of computer use and 1.19 (SD = 0.75) in the frequency of watching TV programs or movies in English. The results indicated that in general, the children engaged in multiple times of using computers or watching TV programs at home per week. Looking into each demographic category, we noticed that, on average, girls (M = 1.38, SD = 0.81) used computers more frequently than boys (M = 1.33, SD = 0.78) while boys watched TV programs or movies (M = 1.25, SD = 0.76) more frequently than girls (M = 1.14, SD = 0.74). Children from low-SES families had less frequency in using computers (M = 1.19, SD = 0.83) or watching TV programs (M = 0.93, SD = 0.78) than their peers from non-low-SES families (M = 1.40, SD = 0.78 for computers; M = 1.27, SD = 0.72 for TV programs or movies). Additionally, the difference in TV programs and movie-watching frequency is statistically significant: t = −2.12, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.74. Immigrant and born-in-Canada children were close in their computer use frequency while immigrant children watched TV programs (M = 1.35, SD = 0.75) more frequently.

On average, children scored 91.33 (SD = 14.12) in their English receptive vocabulary, 106.22 (SD = 18.93) in their letter and word recognition, and 105.26 (SD = 17.61) in their reading comprehension. By comparing different demographic groups (Table 4), boys (M = 88.93, SD = 13.84 for receptive vocabulary; M = 105.68, SD = 18.74 for letter and word recognition; M = 102.68, SD = 17.64 for reading comprehension) and children from low-SES families (M = 86.89, SD = 17.91 for receptive vocabulary; M = 104.13, SD = 17.03 for letter and word recognition; M = 100.20, SD = 17.59 for reading comprehension) scored lower in their average scores across assessments than girls (M = 93.54, SD = 14.13 for receptive vocabulary; M = 106.66, SD = 19.33 for letter and word recognition; M = 107.37, SD = 17.53 for reading comprehension) and children from non-low-SES families (M = 92.61, SD = 12.67 for receptive vocabulary; M = 106.80, SD = 19.54 for letter and word recognition; M = 106.67, SD = 17.52 for reading comprehension), respectively. The differences are not statistically significant, nevertheless. The immigrant children and children born in Canada were close to each other in the average score of receptive vocabulary and immigrant children scored higher in letter and word recognition, M = 112.91, SD = 17.07, while children born in Canada scored higher in reading comprehension: M = 105.59, SD = 16.76.

4.2. The Relationship Between Children’s Digital Devices Use and Their Achievements in Early English Literacy Skills

In examining the relationship between home digital devices use frequency and English receptive vocabulary, we found that the TV program or movie-watching frequency had a significant effect on English receptive vocabulary, after controlling for the demographic factors: β = 0.18, p < 0.05. The results revealed that the more frequently they watched per week, the higher their English receptive vocabulary scores were. Adding the TV programs or movie-watching frequency explained an extra three percent of the variation in English receptive vocabulary: F = 4.11, p < 0.05. However, there was not any significant relationship between the frequency of TV programs or movie-watching and the scores of letter and word recognition or reading comprehension (see Table 5). Further, no significant association of computer use frequency was found with the scores of receptive vocabulary, letter and word recognition, or reading comprehension after controlling for demographic factors.

4.3. Purposes of Multiple Digital Devices at Home

To better understand how multiple digital devices were used, we looked into parents’ mention of computers and televisions in the interviews. Notably, the use of computers was often related to school requirements or online schooling during the pandemic. For instance, when asked which device they used for online schooling, one mother said they used “the computer” and she “had to sit with him (the child) throughout the half-hour sessions” (Family 1 or F1, boy). Another parent shared that they usually limited the child’s use of digital devices, but she “would let her use [the computer] when she needed it for studying” (F18, girl). The mother of F69 added that “some study tasks required using the computer” and it was “half an hour at most for each session…roughly once every other day” (F69, boy). One mother described the use of computers for school purposes during the pandemic:

From Monday to Friday, the teacher said that from 9:30 to 10:00, there will be story-telling. So they (the students) listen in front of the computer. After that, they take a 20 min break. Then they start class again. They have three breaks of 15 to 20 min… No (class) in the afternoon. Many of the assignments are done online… For those that need to be printed, we print them out and he (the child) completes them, and then sends them to the teacher on the computer… If [the assignments are] less, they can be completed in half an hour. If more, it may take him an hour.

(F159, boy)

The requirements from schools might explain the higher frequency of computer use shown in quantitative data. However, some parents were hesitant about using computers during the first grade. One mother complained that her child used the computer “everyday…for a very long time if without restrictions”; when asked about her opinion, she said, “You can’t say it (computer) is bad, right? The school gave them computers to use…It’s conflicting. You can’t say it’s bad, nor can you say it’s good. I don’t know what to say about it” (F44, boy). The mother of F65 also tried to minimize her son’s time using the computer, because she “wanted to postpone the time when he [get used to] using the phone or computer. I can foresee that he may use these digital devices all the time, so I will try my best to postpone it” (F65, boy). It is plausible that the parents kept each session of computer use to a minimum, even though the frequency was relatively high.

The situation was different with television. The majority of the families reported television exposure as it was harder to avoid than other digital devices. While devices like computers, tablets, and smartphones are primarily used by one individual, the television is naturally shared among members within the same space. The mother of F30 told us that she “didn’t allow her (the child) to use iPad or smartphone, so her digital exposure [for entertainment] was just television… it was hard to control… she had a little brother… If you asked her to stop [watching], she would, but the little one wouldn’t” (F30, girl). It was the same for F150: the mother “allowed him (the child) to watch television for an hour after school… which program to watch was always controlled by his brother… they watched together” (F150, boy).

It is worth noticing that several families intentionally used television as a source of English input for children. One mother emphasized “I only let him watch [programs] in English. For cartoons, I asked him to watch English ones. Because people told me that if you let him watch more English stuff, his English can improve faster” (F15, boy). The mother was not certain if her son understood all the content but “it can attract him.” The mother of F140 did not allow her daughter to use tablets or phones, but “she (the child) could watch television when I was cooking. She chose whatever she wanted to watch as long as it was in English. I just let her listen to it.” She also found it quite effective for learning English:

I found that watching cartoons was actually the fastest way to learn a language. Because I was like that before. When I was a child, I moved to Shenzhen… I was not local [Cantonese speakers]… then we were only exposed to television stations in Hong Kong, so I picked up Cantonese very fast as we watched [Cantonese] cartoons at that time… I often found my daughter repeating the sentences from those [English] cartoons… so they were learning the language.

(F140, girl)

However, these practices were not shared among all families. One mother, for example, banned all television and digital use, and noticed that such absence was not good for her family’s English exposure: “In my household, we didn’t watch television, didn’t use the computer, and there was no screen time, so our English language environment at home was not that ideal…just for myself, my English was getting worse” (F6, girl). Interestingly, F150 had followed the no-screen rule, but later brought television into the household because the child “had to chat with classmates…about television programs”, and “if there was no television, it might be difficult [for the child] to find topics” in school (F150, boy). This might suggest that watching television not only served as an additional exposure to English but also provided contexts for social interaction in English outside the household.

We consider it crucial to mention that many families placed restrictions on children’s television watching. For example, for F24, they “were gradually helping her (the child) to control television exposure…usually three times a week, for half an hour at each time…She didn’t have the time concept yet…so I reminded her of the time” (F24, girl). The mother of F49 allowed her children “to watch one episode at a time…when it’s playing the ending song or the end credits, they had to turn it off” (F49, girl). For both families, it was effective for their young children to develop the habit of watching television in a controlled way. The children’s television exposure in English was possibly below the threshold (Dore et al., 2020b) or not displacing other literacy activities to positively impact English receptive vocabulary scores, as found in quantitative analysis.

4.4. Diversity in Digital Resources for English Learning

In addition to computers and televisions, parental interviews revealed a richer variety of digital resources utilized by parents to support children’s English learning, including reading applications (apps), audiobooks, online libraries, and gamified educational content. Online reading applications were the most popular resource, and schools played an important role in promoting reading applications at home. One parent shared that “the school was using Epic, an English reading app. During that time (online schooling), it was free, so we had been using it. Recently, I bought RazKids for her” (F106, girl). The situation was similar for F144, where “the teacher gave us RazKids [account]… they also used it to read at school. So, they gave access to us parents so that we can read it at home… the teacher told us that if he could read, let him read some [on it]” (F144, boy).

Some teachers provided instructions for parents on how to support children’s reading activities using applications. The mother of F127 shared that “[using the app] was assigned by the school…like to encourage the children [to read] … You can arrange for your child to read books on this application every week. The teacher also had arrangements…maybe they can see what books they had read [on the app]” (F127, girl). Some families were suggested to have children reading on applications “for 15 min every day…or 25 min for the elder child” (F205, girl) to cultivate a reading habit at the early stage of primary school. One mother would “read two short stories with him (the child)”, or “if there was no written homework…I read three short stories” (F180, boy). Furthermore, a father reported that his child developed interests and independence in reading, as “sometimes I was not paying attention to him. Then I found him reading non-stop for like half an hour…Now he likes reading e-books” (F201, boy). Other parents also found that reading applications provided additional incentives for children to read, because “all the peers in class had this (the reading app) … sometimes she (the child) looked at the progress her peers reached [on the app], and she thought, ‘oh, I want to read more than others.’” (F214, girl).

The parents particularly praised the read-aloud function afforded by reading applications. In the case of F202, when the child “started reading books, she couldn’t understand the words. Recently I found that she could read aloud now.” The mother described that “the reading applications can read the books aloud for her”, and maybe the child “had also learned more words at school…she can read books by herself now” (F202, girl). Similarly, the mother of F176 found her child improving in English listening skills, “because when she read e-books, it was not just reading the books…some platforms read to you and then you answer questions after listening. There was no picture. You just listen…it was helpful” (F176, girl). The child of F133 also benefited from the same function, as “you had to finish the comprehension questions to pass the section…the questions were read to you, and I saw that she got most questions correct” (F133, girl).

Additionally, a few parents appreciated the leveled system embedded in some reading applications. It served as a supportive scaffolding for the child to build up vocabulary and reading skills step by step, and it visualized children’s improvement, which enabled parents to track their progress more easily. One parent described that “there were more than twenty levels. As you level up, you can read relevant books. So, she (the child) started from text with only two or three lines and now read to where there are…ten lines on one page. I can feel that she has made progress…and she can feel it too” (F145, girl).

Besides reading applications, families have explored other digital resources. One mother mentioned using an online library, on which they “didn’t need to go to the library to borrow books.” The children were reading “both fiction and non-fiction books” in English, increasing exposure to various genres of text through the online library (F140, girl). Similarly to the online library, one family explored an audiobook platform, “and there were English books like Harry Potter and other fiction and non-fiction books…it was helpful for increasing their (the children’s) English input” (F212, boy).

A few parents considered the gamification design of certain educational resources to be helpful to grab children’s attention and stir up their learning interests. The mother of F108 found her child “really attached” to a popular educational platform which designed animal figures to accompany children’s learning. “There were a lot of animals that they (the platform) actually describe what they do, what are their features, their habits and all sorts. She (the child) really liked these things.” The practices on the platform were designed interactively, for instance, “they have puzzle pieces…you put numbers in front of the camera [of your digital device] and they will send it to the game on the screen.” The child “often spent her allowed screen time” to learn on this platform when the mother “did not allow her to watch YouTube” (F108, girl). Other parents also found “phonics games on some applications” (F194, boy) to help children learn English. It merits attention that many of the digital resources allowed children to learn independently, or with less assistance from the parents as compared to conventional literacy activities, which might be an affordance particularly helpful for families whose first language is not English.

4.5. Parental Attitudes Toward the Role of Digital Devices

Although parents were gradually embracing various digital resources for children’s English literacy development, we found that most parents still showed concerns about the long-term effects of extensive digital exposure. The most common worry shared among parents was not toward the content of digital resources but the length of digital exposure. One mother shared that, although they used reading apps during the pandemic, they “seldom used it after she (the child) went back to school…we tried to reduce it (screen time) as much as possible” (F127, girl). Another parent expressed the concern that “basically, reading books online… that may cause poor eyesight for her (the child), which is bad thing” (F111, girl). The mother of F30 already saw that her child’s “eyesight became poorer…she might have watched too much on the iPad. After her eye examination, we seldom let her use the iPad or smartphone anymore.” The only digital exposure was controlled to the limited time of “watching television and cartoons…then she went downstairs to play” (F30, girl). For these families, while they found digital devices helpful for children’s language learning, they struggled to balance between additional English exposure and early digital exposure, with the latter possibly risking health aspects.

Some other parents noticed the potential challenge of children being over-reliant on digital assistance for learning. When asked about the view on digital resources, one mother commented, “When they (children) read books using a tablet now, if they don’t know the meaning of a word, they can highlight it and the pronunciation will come out. I think this will be a kind of dependence [on digital functions].” The mother was afraid that, even after hearing the pronunciations, her child “still could not master the words” (F158, boy). Another parent observed the child’s writing practices and found that, “when she encountered words she didn’t know, she asked the tablet, ‘how do you spell [the word]?’ I told [her] that you didn’t need to ask [the tablet], just spell it out by yourself. It doesn’t matter if you make a mistake.” But when the mother was not around her, “she’d still ask. It has become a habit” (F145, girl). These digital functions, while providing convenient shortcuts, may bear the risk of encumbering children to explore and try out to learn by themselves.

5. Discussion

This study revealed nuanced relationships between Chinese-Canadian first graders’ digital use and early English literacy development. Quantitative results suggest that the first graders in our study engaged with both computers and television, with computer use being slightly more frequent. However, only television viewing showed a positive relationship with children’s English receptive vocabulary, whereas the use of digital devices (TV viewing and computers) was not significantly associated with decoding or reading comprehension skills. While our findings differed from studies finding negative impacts of media exposure among toddlers and preschoolers (e.g., Blankson et al., 2015; Gath et al., 2023; Masur et al., 2016), the results align with the meta-analysis by Jing et al. (2023) on vocabulary acquisition and multiple digital devices use among children aged 0–6 years.

Our findings expand upon the existing literature by distinguishing the relationships between computer use and television and different literacy competencies. In particular, our study highlights the significant association between television viewing in English frequency and English receptive vocabulary, which suggests the possible impact of informal literacy activities on children’s language comprehension (Evans et al., 2000; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2014; Skwarchuk et al., 2014). Exposure to television programs with comprehensible content in English could support “incidental vocabulary learning” (Peters & Webb, 2018, p. 551) among bilingual children when they recalled and recognized the meaning of the content. Furthermore, the significant association should be interpreted in the context of bilingual homes, where bilingual children’s second language (L2) has been found to be particularly sensitive to television exposure in that language (Cycyk & Anda, 2021; Hudon et al., 2013). In this study, since our participants predominantly spoke and were exposed to Chinese at home, English content on TV (and computers) could serve as a source of English language acquisition within the home environment. However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of this exposure largely depends on the quality of the content and the level of parental engagement.

Our qualitative findings provide context-specific insights into families’ digital practices in relation to English language and literacy learning. Computer use was primarily limited to school-related activities, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting a more structured and purposeful engagement. Meanwhile, much of the television exposure occurred incidentally as part of family viewing, while some parents intentionally used it as a source of English language input for their children. Notably, many parents reported setting time limits on television viewing for their first graders, which echoes previous research by Dore et al. (2020a), who found that moderate media use was positively associated with language gains for children from kindergarten to first grade. The positive association we found with controlled television exposure may suggest that limited exposure to child-oriented television programs can be beneficial for children’s vocabulary development at the early school stage. For non-English speaking households, controlled television watching provided a moderate amount of English language input and incidental exposure that allowed the children to acquire English vocabulary (Teng, 2022; Wong et al., 2021).

This study also revealed a diverse use of digital literacy resources among families. Reading apps, often recommended by schools, were perceived as beneficial for fostering independent reading habits and increasing literacy exposure. Parents particularly valued the audio functions of these apps for bridging the gap between oral language and literacy skills for children transitioning to mainstream education; the leveled systems within reading applications provided visual progress tracking for parents and children. Previous studies have suggested that reading apps offer many of the same benefits as print books, although children’s language gains from print books are still found to be larger (Reich et al., 2019). On reading apps, children may benefit from motivational features and automatic animations or illustrations assisting their reading comprehension, evidencing the Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982). However, caution needs to be taken for features that may distract children’s attention from reading itself (Korat & Falk, 2019). Other digital resources, including audiobooks and online libraries, expanded children’s opportunities to listen to and read English at home. The gamification elements incorporated in some digital platforms appeared to heighten children’s interest in learning, broadly proved in both quantitative (Sailer & Homner, 2020) and qualitative studies (Saleem et al., 2022) focusing on diverse groups of learners.

Nevertheless, parental attitudes toward digital resources were cautiously positive. While recognizing the benefits and gradually accepting these digital resources into their children’s home literacy environments, parents expressed ongoing concerns about potential long-term health effects and the risk of over-reliance on digital media. Our finding is similar to Kucirkova and Flewitt’s (2022) study on parents’ conflicting beliefs about children’s digital book reading, where the researchers observed that parents oscillated between opposing views, neither fully acknowledging its educational benefits nor entirely condemning it as “innately risk-filled” (Kucirkova & Flewitt, 2022, p. 172). As researchers (e.g., Zhao & Flewitt, 2020) suggested, mediating children’s digital use has become a crucial yet frequently ambiguous and conflicted aspect of parenting in the current world. Our findings further contribute to the understanding of multiple digital devices use and early English literacy development of bilingual learners, highlighting the need to support parents in decision-making regarding their children’s media exposure.

6. Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, this study suggests that the relationships between digital devices and bilingual children’s early L2 English literacy skills are multifaceted. While television viewing, when controlled, was found to positively influence receptive vocabulary, no significant association was observed between decoding or reading comprehension and the use of computer devices or watching television or movies. The families used computers more frequently every week, with the main purpose of school-related tasks. Television was a common exposure for these first graders, and some parents intentionally used it as an additional English input at home. Parents reported using a variety of digital resources, including reading apps, audiobooks, online libraries, and gamified educational platforms, for English literacy. Although these digital devices and resources were celebrated for stimulating children’s learning interests and cultivating reading habits, parents still expressed concerns about the long-term negative effects of digital exposure on children’s eye health and learning independence. These findings contribute to the growing body of research on digital media in early language and literacy education, filling the gap in the influences of multiple digital devices use on bilingual learners’ early literacy development of the societal language.

Building on the discussion above, we acknowledge several limitations of this study. One is that we only measured the quantitative frequency of use for two major digital devices, which did not capture the full range of digital interactions that participants engaged with. Much of our data collection was conducted at the beginning of the pandemic; data collected during the later part of the pandemic may reveal a more diverse use of digital devices and resources. Future research in the post-pandemic era could benefit from including a wider range of digital resources and further evaluate the generalizability of the study findings. Also, we focused on first graders, where the progress in more advanced literacy skills like reading comprehension might have been too small to be observed; a longitudinal design would be valuable to trace the children’s development of diverse literacy skills in relation to their digital exposure. In addition, while this study examined bilingual children’s early literacy development in the societal language, future studies could explore the use of digital resources in both societal and home languages to comprehensively understand the richness and conflicts in the digital use of these transnational and multilingual families.

Despite these limitations, our findings have several implications for schools, educators, and parents. Firstly, there is a need for enhanced communication between schools and families regarding the use of digital devices, particularly those already used at school. We found that many parents were uncertain about the necessity and benefits of these digital devices, especially for children in early grades. By explaining the pedagogical rationale behind digital integration at school and offering evidence-based suggestions for home use, schools can help alleviate parental concerns and promote more effective digital use in learning at both home and school.

Secondly, given the strong influence that schools demonstrated on parental decisions about educational resources, such as reading apps, schools and institutions could leverage this impact to promote better digital practices at home. As Moursad et al. (2023) suggested, many parents need advice and conversations from trustworthy sources, where they could ask for reliable, current, and empirical information related to children’s digital use. Schools could provide workshops or training for parents about high-quality digital literacy resources and beneficial digital activities for children’s use at home. Based on our findings, while reading apps are helpful in cultivating children’s reading habits, the use of these digital devices at home may have no significant impact on children’s decoding or reading comprehension skills. This may suggest that other literacy activities should still be included in home assignments to support bilingual children, rather than relying on digital resources to work wonders.

Finally, regarding television exposure, our findings suggest that a balanced approach is necessary for early bilingual learners. Considering the positive impacts of controlled exposure on children’s receptive vocabulary, parents could intentionally select child-directed programs that are designed to be age-appropriate and educational. Also, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of limiting overall screen time, as excessive exposure may negate potential benefits or displace other important literacy activities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L.; methodology, G.L., F.Z. and Z.M.; software, Z.M. and F.Z.; validation, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z.; formal analysis, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z.; investigation, G.L.; resources, G.L.; data curation, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z.; writing—review and editing, G.L.; visualization, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z; supervision, G.L.; project administration, G.L.; funding acquisition, G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB) of the University of British Columbia (protocol code H18-01392, approved 29 April 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants for this study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Demographic information of participants.

	N	Percent	Mean	SD
Total	121	100
Age (in months)			79.50	4.04
Gender
Male	58	47.93
Female	63	52.07
Family SES
Low-SES	27	22.31
Non-low-SES	94	77.69
Immigration status
Immigrant	26	21.49
Born in Canada	95	78.51

Table 2

Demographic information of children whose parents participated in the interviews.

	N	Percent	Mean	SD
Total	66	100
Age (in months)			78.24	3.65
Gender
Male	28	42.42
Female	38	57.58
Family SES
Low-SES	14	21.21
Non-low-SES	52	78.79
Immigration status
Immigrant	11	16.67
Born in Canada	55	83.33

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests of computer use and television viewing frequency.

		Laptops				TV Programs or Movies
	N	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d
Total	121	1.36	0.79			1.19	0.75
Gender
Male	58	1.33	0.78	−0.37	0.80	1.25	0.76	0.73	0.75
Female	63	1.38	0.81			1.14	0.74
Family SES
Low-SES	27	1.19	0.83	−1.27	0.79	0.93	0.78	−2.12 *	0.74
Non-low-SES	94	1.40	0.78			1.27	0.72
Immigration status
Immigrant	26	1.31	0.84	−0.34	0.8	1.35	0.75	1.21	0.74
Born in Canada	95	1.37	0.79			1.15	0.74

Note: *: p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Table 4

Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests of English literacy assessment results.

	Receptive Vocabulary				Letter and Word Recognition				Reading Comprehension
	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d	Mean	SD	t	Cohen’s d
Total	91.33	14.12			106.22	18.93			105.26	17.61
Gender
Male	88.93	13.84	−1.81	13.99	105.68	18.74	−0.21	19.07	102.68	17.64	−1.10	17.58
Female	93.54	14.13			106.66	19.33			107.37	17.53
Family SES
Low-SES	86.89	17.91	−1.87	13.98	104.13	17.03	−0.48	19.04	100.20	17.56	−1.26	17.53
Non-low-SES	92.61	12.67			106.80	19.54			106.67	17.52
Immigration status
Immigrant	91.85	20.96	0.21	14.18	112.91	17.07	1.29	18.84	103.55	22.43	−0.35	17.72
Born in Canada	91.19	11.74			104.95	19.14			105.59	16.76

Table 5

Associations based on hierarchical linear regression models.

Independent Variables	Receptive Vocabulary		Letter and Word Recognition		Reading Comprehension
	Regression 1	Regression 2	Regression 1	Regression 2	Regression 1	Regression 2
Demographic variables
Gender	0.12	0.13	0.05	0.04	0.10	0.10
SES	0.20 *	0.19 *	0.34 **	0.34 **	0.34 **	0.34 **
Immigration status	−0.01	0.01	−0.19	−0.19	−0.03	−0.03
Model fit
$R^2$	0.06	0.06	0.13	0.13	0.13	0.13
F	2.68 *	2.68 *	3.20 *	3.20 *	3.36 *	3.36 *
Key variables
Computers	−0.02		−0.09		−0.04
Model fit
∆$R^2$	0.00		0.01		0.01
∆F	0.03		0.61		0.11
TV programs		0.18 *		0.10		0.01
Model fit
∆$R^2$		0.03		0.01		0.00
∆F		4.11 *		0.68		0.01

Note: Standardized coefficients are exhibited; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01.

References

Alamri, M.; Alrehaili, M.; Albariqi, W.; Alshehri, M.; Alotaibi, K.; Algethami, A. Relationship between speech delay and smart media in children: A systematic review. Cureus; 2023; 15, 9 e45396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45396]

Anderson, D. R.; Pempek, T. A. Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist; 2005; 48, 5 pp. 505-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506]

Auxier, B.; Anderson, M.; Perrin, A.; Turner, E. Parenting children in the age of screens; Pew Research Center: 28 July 2020; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).

Babayiğit, S.; Hitch, G. J.; Kandru-Pothineni, S.; Clarke, A.; Warmington, M. Vocabulary limitations undermine bilingual children’s reading comprehension despite bilingual cognitive strengths. Reading and Writing; 2022; 35, 7 pp. 1651-1673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10240-8]

Bialystok, E.; Craik, F. I. M.; Luk, G. Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics; 2008; 21, 6 pp. 522-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.07.001]

Bialystok, E.; Luk, G.; Peets, K. F.; Yang, S. Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition; 2010; 13, 4 pp. 525-531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990423] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25750580]

Blankson, A. N.; O’Brien, M.; Leerkes, E. M.; Calkins, S. D.; Marcovitch, S. Do hours spent viewing television at ages 3 and 4 predict vocabulary and executive functioning at age 5?. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly; 2015; 61, 2 pp. 264-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.2.0264]

Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Cooper, H.; Camic, P. M.; Long, D. L.; Panter, A. T.; Rindskopf, D.; Sher, K. J. Thematic analysis. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological; American Psychological Association: 2012; pp. 57-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13620-004]

Buckingham, D. Media literacies. Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture; Polity: 2003; pp. 39-45.

Chapelle, C. A. The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal; 2009; 93, pp. 741-753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x]

Cycyk, L. M.; Anda, S. D. Media exposure and language experience: Examining associations from home observations in Mexican immigrant families in the US. Infant Behavior and Development; 2021; 63, 101554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101554] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812166]

Dixon, L. Q.; Zhao, J.; Quiroz, B. G.; Shin, J.-Y. Home and community factors influencing bilingual children’s ethnic language vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism; 2012; 16, 4 pp. 541-565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006911429527]

Dore, R. A.; Logan, J.; Lin, T.-J.; Purtell, K. M.; Justice, L. Characteristics of children’s media use and gains in language and literacy skills. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020a; 11, 2224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02224]

Dore, R. A.; Logan, J.; Lin, T.-J.; Purtell, K. M.; Justice, L. M. Associations between children’s media use and language and literacy skills. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020b; 11, 1734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01734]

Dunn, L. M. Peabody picture vocabulary test; 5th ed. Pearson: 2019.

Elias, N.; Abdulaev, N. Immigrant children and media. The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents, and media; 2nd ed. Routledge: 2022; pp. 363-370.

Evans, M. A.; Shaw, D.; Bell, M. Home literacy activities and their influence on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology; 2000; 54, 2 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087330] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10881391]

Fitzpatrick, C.; Binet, M.-A.; Cristini, E.; Almeida, M. L.; Bégin, M.; Frizzo, G. B. Reducing harm and promoting positive media use strategies: New perspectives in understanding the impact of preschooler media use on health and development. Psicologia, Reflexao e Critica: Revista Semestral Do Departamento de Psicologia Da UFRGS; 2023; 36, 1 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41155-023-00262-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37553485]

Garrett, N. Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal; 1991; 75, pp. 74-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01085.x]

Gath, M.; McNeill, B.; Gillon, G. Preschoolers’ screen time and reduced opportunities for quality interaction: Associations with language development and parent-child closeness. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences; 2023; 5, 100140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2023.100140]

Gough, P. B.; Tunmer, W. E. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education; 1986; 7, 1 pp. 6-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104]

Hoikkala, T.; Rahkonen, O.; Tigerstedt, C.; Tuormaa, J. Wait a minute, Mr Postman!-Some critical remarks on Neil Postman’s childhood theory. Acta Sociologica; 1987; 30, 1 pp. 87-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000169938703000105]

Hoover, W. A.; Gough, P. B. The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing; 1990; 2, pp. 127-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799]

Hudon, T. M.; Fennell, C. T.; Hoftyzer, M. Quality not quantity of television viewing is associated with bilingual toddlers’ vocabulary scores. Infant Behavior & Development; 2013; 36, 2 pp. 245-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.01.010]

Jing, M.; Ye, T.; Kirkorian, H. L.; Mares, M. Screen media exposure and young children’s vocabulary learning and development: A meta-analysis. Child Development; 2023; 94, 5 pp. 1398-1418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13927]

Kabali, H. K.; Irigoyen, M. M.; Nunez-Davis, R.; Budacki, J. G.; Mohanty, S. H.; Leister, K. P.; Bonner, R. L. Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics; 2015; 136, 6 pp. 1044-1050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2151] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26527548]

Kaufman, A. S.; Kaufman, N. L. Kaufman test of educational achievement; 3rd ed. Pearson: 2014.

Khan, K. S.; Purtell, K. M.; Logan, J.; Ansari, A.; Justice, L. M. Association between television viewing and parent-child reading in the early home environment. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics; 2017; 38, 7 pp. 521-527. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000465] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28723823]

Korat, O.; Falk, Y. Ten years after: Revisiting the question of e-book quality as early language and literacy support. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy; 2019; 19, 2 pp. 206-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468798417712105]

Kostyrka-Allchorne, K.; Cooper, N. R.; Simpson, A. The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review. Developmental Review; 2017; 44, pp. 19-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.12.002]

Krashen, S. Principles and practice in second language acquisition; Pergamon: 1982.

Kucirkova, N.; Flewitt, R. Understanding parents’ conflicting beliefs about children’s digital book reading. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy; 2022; 22, 2 pp. 157-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468798420930361]

Lauricella, A. R.; Wartella, E.; Rideout, V. J. Young children’s screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology; 2015; 36, pp. 11-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001]

Li, G.; Mei, Z.; Zhen, F. Friend or foe? A mixed-methods study on the impact of digital device use on Chinese–Canadian children’s heritage language learning. Digital Studies in Language and Literature; 2024; 1, 1–2 pp. 55-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/dsll-2024-0022]

Li, G.; Sun, Z.; Zhen, F.; Ji, X. R.; Gunderson, L. Home literacy environment and Chinese-Canadian first graders’ bilingual vocabulary profiles: A mixed methods analysis. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 23 15788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142315788]

Li, G.; Zhen, F.; Lin, Z.; Gunderson, L. Bilingual home literacy experiences and early biliteracy development among Chinese–Canadian first graders. Education Sciences; 2023; 13, 8 808. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080808]

Lin, L. Y.; Cherng, R. J.; Chen, Y. J.; Chen, Y. J.; Yang, H. M. Effects of television exposure on developmental skills among young children. Infant Behavior & Development; 2015; 38, pp. 20-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.12.005]

Masur, E. F.; Flynn, V.; Olson, J. Infants’ background television exposure during play: Negative relations to the quantity and quality of mothers’ speech and infants’ vocabulary acquisition. First Language; 2016; 36, 2 pp. 109-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142723716639499]

Moursad, F.; Utriainen, S.; Lamminpää, R.; Katri, V.-J. Parents’ expectations regarding media use among children up to 6 years of age. Women and Children Nursing; 2023; 1, 1 pp. 2-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wcn.2023.03.001]

Neuman, S. B. Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect; Greenwood Publishing Group: 1991.

Neumann, M. M.; Neumann, D. L. Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2014; 42, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0608-3]

Okwir, S.; Nuur, C. Reflections on Neil Postman’s “Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business” (1985) in the context of today’s digital social media platforms. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research; 2022; 12, 2 pp. 71-79.

Operto, F. F.; Pastorino, G. M. G.; Marciano, J.; De Simone, V.; Volini, A. P.; Olivieri, M.; Buonaiuto, R.; Vetri, L.; Viggiano, A.; Coppola, G. Digital devices use and language skills in children between 8 and 36 month. Brain Sciences; 2020; 10, 9 656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090656] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32967331]

Papastefanou, T.; Marinis, T.; Powell, D. Development of reading comprehension in bilingual and monolingual children—Effects of language exposure. Languages; 2021; 6, 4 166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/languages6040166]

Paradis, J.; Emmerzael, K.; Duncan, T. S. Assessment of English language learners: Using parent report on first language development. Journal of Communication Disorders; 2010; 43, 6 pp. 474-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.01.002]

Peters, E.; Webb, S. incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing l2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition; 2018; 40, 3 pp. 551-577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000407]

Postman, N. Chapter X: Media and Technology as Educators. Teachers College Record; 1985; 86, 5 pp. 183-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016146818508600511]

Reich, S. M.; Yau, J. C.; Xu, Y.; Muskat, T.; Uvalle, J.; Cannata, D. Digital or print? A comparison of preschoolers’ comprehension, vocabulary, and engagement from a print book and an e-book. AERA Open; 2019; 5, 3 2332858419878389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2332858419878389]

Rose, E.; Lehrl, S.; Ebert, S.; Weinert, S. Long-term relations between children’s language, the home literacy environment, and socioemotional development from ages 3 to 8. Early Education and Development; 2018; 29, 3 pp. 342-356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1409096]

Sailer, M.; Homner, L. The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review; 2020; 32, 1 pp. 77-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w]

Saleem, A. N.; Noori, N. M.; Ozdamli, F. Gamification applications in e-learning: A literature review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning; 2022; 27, 1 pp. 139-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09487-x]

Segers, E.; Kleemans, T. The impact of the digital home environment on kindergartners’ language and early literacy. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020; 11, 538584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.538584]

Sénéchal, M.; LeFevre, J. A. Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development; 2014; 85, 4 pp. 1552-1568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12222]

Skwarchuk, S. L.; Sowinski, C.; LeFevre, J. A. Formal and informal home learning activities in relation to children’s early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 2014; 121, pp. 63-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.006] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24462995]

Sonnenschein, S.; Stites, M. L.; Gursoy, H.; Khorsandian, J. Elementary-school students’ use of digital devices at home to support learning pre- and post-COVID-19. Education Sciences; 2023; 13, 2 117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020117]

Statistics Canada. Mandarin is the main non-official language spoken predominantly at home in Toronto and Vancouver, while in Montréal, it is Spanish and Arabic; Statistics Canada: 17 August 2022; Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220817/g-a007-eng.htm (accessed on 2 January 2023).

Sun, H.; Tan, J.; Chen, W. COVID-19 and bilingual children’s home language environment: Digital media, socioeconomic status, and language status. Frontiers in Psychology; 2023; 14, 1115108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1115108]

Sun, H.; Yin, B. Multimedia input and bilingual children’s language learning. Frontiers in Psychology; 2020; 11, 2023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02023]

Taylor, G.; Monaghan, P.; Westermann, G. Investigating the association between children’s screen media exposure and vocabulary size in the UK. Journal of Children and Media; 2018; 12, 1 pp. 51-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1365737]

Teale, W. H.; Sulzby, E. Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook reading. The future of literacy in a changing world; 1987; 1987, pp. 111-130.

Teng, (Mark) Feng. Vocabulary learning through videos: Captions, advance-organizer strategy, and their combination. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2022; 35, 3 pp. 518-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1720253]

Tomasello, M. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition; Harvard University Press: 2005.

Tomopoulos, S.; Dreyer, B. P.; Berkule, S.; Fierman, A. H.; Brockmeyer, C.; Mendelsohn, A. L. Infant media exposure and toddler development. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; 2010; 164, 12 pp. 1105-1111.

Wong, K. M.; Flynn, R. M.; Neuman, S. B. L2 vocabulary learning from educational media: The influence of screen-based scaffolds on the incidental–intentional continuum. TESOL Journal; 2021; 12, 4 e641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesj.641]

Zhao, S.; Flewitt, R. Young Chinese immigrant children’s language and literacy practices on social media: A translanguaging perspective. Language and Education; 2020; 34, 3 pp. 267-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1656738]

Zimmerman, F. J.; Christakis, D. A.; Meltzoff, A. N. Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years. The Journal of Pediatrics; 2007; 15, pp. 364-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071]