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.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1983) Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In: HutsonB. (ed.) Advances in reading/language research, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 231–256.
2.
AndersonR. C.WilsonP. T.FieldingL. G. (1988) Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly23: 285–303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2.
3.
Bakermans-KranenburgM. J.van IJzendoornM. H. (2011) Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology23: 39–52. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000635.
4.
BakerS.GerstenR.KeatingT. (2000) When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly35(4): 494–519. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.4.3.
5.
BaylorA. L. (2011) The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development59: 291–300. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3.
6.
BaylorA. L.KimY. (2005) Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education15: 95–115.
7.
BeckerM.McElvanyN.KortenbruckM. (2010) Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology102(4): 773–785. doi:10.1037/a0020084.
8.
BelskyJ.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J.van IJzendoornM. H. (2007) For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science16(6): 300–304.
9.
BoorK.RonaiZ.NemodaZ.GasznerP.Sasvari-SzekelyM.GuttmanA.KalaszH. (2002) Noninvasive genotyping of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) using nanograms of DNA from substance-dependent patients. Current Medicinal Chemistry9(8): 793–797. doi:https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867024606821.
10.
BoorstinD. J. (1984) Books in our future, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
BusA. G.TakacsZ. K.KegelC. A. T. (2015) Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Review35: 79–97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004.
12.
ChallJ. S. (1983) Stages of reading development, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
13.
CunninghamA. (2005) Vocabulary growth through independent reading and reading aloud to children. In: KamilM.HiebertE. (eds) Teaching and learning new vocabulary: Bringing research to practice, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 45–68.
14.
DanielD. B.WoodyW. D. (2013) E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education62: 18–23. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.
15.
EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy (2012) EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy: Final report, September 2012, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
16.
GottfriedA. W.SchlackmanJ.GottfriedA. E.Boutin-MartinezA. S. (2015) Parental provision of early literacy environment as related to reading and educational outcomes across the academic lifespan. Parenting15(1): 24–38. doi:10.1080/15295192.2015.992736.
17.
HeidigS.ClareboutG. (2011) Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?Educational Research Review6(1): 27–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004.
18.
JohnsonW. L.RickelJ. W.LesterJ. C. (2000) Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education11: 47–78.
19.
KegelC. A. T.BusA. G.van IJzendoornM. H. (2011) Differential susceptibility in early literacy instruction through computer games: The role of the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). Mind, Brain and Education5: 71–78. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01112.x.
20.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods42: 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627.
21.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM.NewB. (2010) SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods42: 643–650. doi:10.3758/brm.42.3.643.
22.
KimY.BaylorA. L. (2016) Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education26: 160–169. doi:10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y.
23.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist41(2): 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
24.
LuskM. M.AtkinsonR. K. (2007) Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples?Applied Cognitive Psychology21(6): 747–764.
25.
MangenA.WalgermoB. R.BrønnickK. (2013) Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research58: 61–68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
26.
MeyerB. J. F.WijekumarK.MiddlemissW.HigleyK.LeiP.-W.MeierC.SpielvogelJ. (2010) Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly45(1): 62–92. doi:10.1598/rrq.45.1.4.
27.
MichO.PiantaE.ManaN. (2013) Interactive stories and exercises with dynamic feedback for improving reading comprehension skills in deaf children. Computers & Education65(0): 34–44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.016.
28.
MirandaT.Williams-RossiD.JohnsonK. A.McKenzieN. (2011) Reluctant readers in middle school: Successful engagement with text using the e-reader. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology1: 81–91.
29.
MochidaA.HarringtonM. (2006) The Yes/No test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing23(1): 73–98.
30.
MolS. E.BusA. G. (2011) To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin137(2): 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890.
31.
MorganP. L.FuchsD. (2007) Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation?Exceptional Children73(2): 165–183.
32.
NielenT. M. J.BusA. G. (2013) Ontwikkeling van de leesattitude op de basisschool en de rol van sekse, leesniveau, de leescultuur thuis en kenmerken van de schoolbibliotheek [Development of reading attitude in primary school and the role of gender, reading skill, home literacy environment and school library characteristics]. In: SchramD. (ed.) De aarzelende lezer over de streep [Winning reluctant readers over], Delft, Nederland: Eburon, pp. 207–226.
33.
NielenT. M. J.BusA. G. (2015) Enriched school libraries: A boost to academic achievement. AERA Open1(4): 1–11. doi:10.1177/2332858415619417.
34.
NielenT. M. J.MolS. E.Sikkema-de JongM. T.BusA. G. (2016) Attentional bias toward reading in reluctant readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology46: 263–271.
35.
NottenN. (2011) Parents and the media. Causes and consequences of parental media socialization (Doctoral Dissertation), Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
36.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852630.pdf. doi:10.1787/9789264083943-en.
37.
PappaI.Mileva-SeitzV. R.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J.TiemeierH.van IJzendoornM. H. (2015) The magnificent seven: A quantitative review of dopamine receptor d4 and its association with child behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews57: 175–186.
38.
PlakR. D.KegelC. A. T.BusA. G. (2015) Genetic differential susceptibility in literacy-delayed children: A randomized controlled trial on emergent literacy in kindergarten. Development and Psychopathology27(Special Issue 01): 69–79. doi:M63-10.1017/S0954579414001308.
39.
PressleyM. (2006) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
40.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.KaganJ.ByersH. (1998) The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among “at risk” first grade children. Reading Research and Instruction38(2): 143–152. doi:10.1080/19388079909558284.
41.
SchroederN. L.AdesopeO. O.GilbertR. B. (2013) How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytical review. Journal of Educational Computing Research49(1): 1–39. doi:10.2190/EC.49.1.a.
42.
ShareD. L. (2008) Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. In: KailR. V. (ed.) Advances in child development and behaviorVol. 36, Waltham, MA: Academic Press, pp. 31–82.
43.
SmithG. G.LiM.DrobiszJ.ParkH.KimD.SmithS. D. (2013) Play games or study? Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers & Education69: 274–286. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.015.
SungY.-T.ChangK.-E.HuangJ.-S. (2008) Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior24(4): 1552–1571. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009.
46.
SwanbornM. S. L.de GlopperK. (1999) Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research69(3): 261–285. doi:10.3102/00346543069003261.
47.
SwellerJ.AyresP.KalyugaS. (2011) Cognitive load theory, New York, NY: Springer.
48.
TaylorA. K. (2011) Students learn equally well from digital as from paperbound texts. Teaching of Psychology38(4): 278–281. doi:10.1177/0098628311421330.
49.
TaylorM. (2013) Reading for pleasure in Britain: Trends, patterns, and associations, Oxford, England: University of Oxford.
50.
TealeW. H.LyonsK.GambrellL.ZoltN.OlienR.LeuD. J. (2013) An online learning community as support for at-risk students’ literacy growth: Findings, implications, and challenges. In: ShamirA.KoratO. (eds) Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 141–156.
51.
TveitA. K.MangenA. (2014) A joker in the class: Teenage readers’ attitudes and preferences to reading on different devices. Library & Information Science Research36(3–4): 179–184. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2014.08.001.
52.
van IJzendoornM. H.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J. (2015) Genetic differential susceptibility on trial: Meta-analytic support from randomized controlled experiments. Development and Psychopathology27(Special Issue 01): 151–162. doi:10.1017/S0954579414001369.
53.
Vasilyeva, E. (2007). Towards personalized feedback in educational computer games for children. Paper presented at the Sixth IASTED International Conference, Chamonix, France.
54.
WeekersA.GroenenI.KleintjesF.FeenstraH. (2011) Wetenschappelijke verantwoording papieren toetsen Begrijpend Lezen voor groep 7 en 8. [Scientific justification paper tests Reading Comprehension for 5th and 6th grade], Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
Witte, E., & van Nood, B. (2014). Rapportage boekenbranche meting 30: 2e thema meting van 2014, naar digitaal lezen [Report book branche measure 30: 2nd theme measure of 2014, toward digital reading]. Retrieved from http://www.kvb.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/consumentenonderzoek/nov-2014.
