Personalised reading for pleasure with digital libraries: towards a pedagogy of practice and design

References

• Aliagas, C., & Margallo, A. M. (2017). Children’s responses to the interactivity of storybook apps in family shared reading events involving the iPad. Literacy, 51(1), 44–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, R., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 85–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Back, M., Cohen, J., Gold, R., Harrison, S., & Minneman, S. (2001). Listen reader. An electronically augmented paper-based book. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘01. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 23–29. doi:10.1145/365024.365031
   Google Scholar
• Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, H. (2006). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool, 647–654. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/22117
   Google Scholar
• Benevides, T., & Peterson, S. S. (2010). Literacy attitudes, habits and achievements of future teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(3), 291–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A. (1982). Effect of personalized basal stories on the reading comprehension of fourth-grade poor and average readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(4), 320–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Carnoy, M. (2015). International test score comparisons and educational policy: A review of the critiques. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/international-test-scores
   Google Scholar
• Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Charnock, J. (2015). What do book manufacturers need to do to deliver what publishers are looking for? Retrieved from https://ricoheuropebusinessdriver.com/
   Google Scholar
• Clark, C., & Phythian-Sence, C. (2008). Interesting choice: The (relative) importance of choice and interest in reader engagement. London: National Literacy Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Cliff–Hodges, G. (2016). Researching and teaching reading: Developing pedagogy through critical enquiry. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran-Smith, M. (1986). Reading to children: A model for understanding texts. The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives, 21, 35–54.
   Google Scholar
• Commeyras, M., Bisplinhoff, B. S., & Olson, J. (2003). Teachers as readers: Perspectives on the importance of reading in teachers’ classrooms and lives. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Court, J. (Ed.) (2011). Read to succeed: Strategies to engage children and young people in their reading for pleasure. London: Facet Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R., & Schaetzel, K. (2007). A preliminary study of pre-service teachers as readers in Singapore: Prolific, functional or detached. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 300–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremin, T. (2010). Poetry teachers: Teachers who read and readers who teach poetry. In M. Styles, L. Joy, & D. Whitley (Eds.), Poetry and childhood (pp. 219–226). London: Trentham.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Bearne, E., & Goodwin, P. (2008a). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4), 449–464.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., Bearne, E., Mottram, M., & Goodwin, P. (2008b). Primary teachers as readers. English in Education, 42(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as readers: Building communities of readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Powell, S., Collins, R., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Powell, S., Collins, R., & Drury, R. (2015). Researching literacy lives: Building home school communities London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, T., & Swann, J. (2016). Literature in common: Reading for pleasure in school reading groups In L. McKechnie, K. Oterholm, P. Rothbauer, & K. I. Skjerdingstad (Eds.), Plotting the reading experience: Theory/practice/politics (pp. 279–300). Waterloo, ONT: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeMoulin, D. F. (2001). The hidden value of personalization and rhyme in reading. Reading Improvement, 38(3), 116–119.
   Google Scholar
• Dreher, M. (2003). Motivating teachers to read. The Reading Teacher, 56(4), 338–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunst, C. J., Williams, A. L., Trivette, C. M., Simkus, A., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Relationships between inferential book reading strategies and young children’s language and literacy competence. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5(10), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Faulkner, D., Joiner, R., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Thompson, L. (2000). The mediating effect of task presentation on collaboration and children’s acquisition of scientific reasoning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 417–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández Cárdenas, J. M. (2004). The appropriation and mastery of cultural tools in computer supported collaborative literacy practices (Doctoral dissertation). Open University, Uk.
   Google Scholar
• Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillen, J., Accorti Gamannossi, B., & Cameron, C. A. (2005). ‘Pronto, chi parla? (Hello, who is it?)’: Telephones as artefacts and communication media in children’s discourses. In J. Marsh (Ed.), Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood (pp. 146–162). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwyn, A., Reid, L., & Durrant, C. (2014). International perspectives on teaching English in a globalised world. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hendricks, J., Applebaum, R., & Kunkel, S. (2010). A world apart? Bridging the gap between theory and applied social gerontology. The Gerontologist, 50(3), 284–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, S. (2010). The millennium generation: Teacher-researchers exploring new forms of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 314–340.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y.-M., Liang, T.-H., Su, Y.-N., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, G., & Oliver, M. (2010). Editorial: Being online: A critical view of identity and subjectivity in new virtual learning spaces. London Review of Education, 8(1), 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Hung, D. W., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, P., & Ivey, G. (2016). Discursive contexts, reading and individual differences. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 209–223). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kenner, C. (2005). Bilingual families as literacy eco-systems. Early Years, 25(3), 283–298.
   Google Scholar
• Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 20–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2013). Children interacting with books on iPads: Research chapters still to be written. Frontiers in Psychology, Developmental Psychology, 4, 1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2014a). iPads and tablets in the classroom: Personalizing children’s stories. Leicester: UKLA.
   Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2014b). Don’t chuck out the classics to personalise your child’s library. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/dont-chuck-out-the-classics-to-personalise-your-childs-library-27607
   Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2016). Personalisation: A theoretical possibility to reinvigorate children’s interest in storybook reading and facilitate greater book diversity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., & Whitelock, D. (2012). Parents reading with their toddlers: The role of personalization in book engagement. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(4), 445–470.
   Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Flewitt, R. (2013). Sharing personalized stories on iPads: A close look at one parent-child interaction. Literacy, 47(3), 115–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K., & Fernandez-Panadero, C. (2014). Children’s engagement with educational iPad apps: Insights from a Spanish classroom. Computers & Education, 71, 175–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N., Sheehy, K., & Messer, D. (2015). A Vygotskian perspective on parent-child talk during iPad story-sharing. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(4), 428–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N., Littleton, K., & Cremin, T. (2016). Young children’s reading for pleasure with digital books: Six key facets of engagement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), 67–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lunzer, E., & Gardner, K. (1979). The effective use of reading. New York, NY: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Majid, I. A. (2005). Use of school libraries by teachers in Singapore schools. Library Review, 54(2), 108–118.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, C. S., Polly, D., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., & Pugalee, D. K. (2016). Perspectives and practices of elementary teachers using an internet-based formative assessment tool: The case of assessing mathematics concepts. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows, J., & Leask, M. (2000). Why use ICT. In M. Leask & J. Meadows (Eds.), Teaching and learning with ICT in the primary school (pp. 1–9). Abingdon: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meek, M. (1988). How texts teach what readers learn. Stroud: Thimble Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meek, M. (2011). On being Literate. London: Bodley Head.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, G. (2014). Putting literacy attainment data in context: Examining the past in search of the present. Comparative Education, 50(3), 357–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottram, M., & Hall, C. (2009). Diversions and diversity: Does the personalisation agenda offer real opportunities for taking children’s home literacies seriously? English in Education, 43(2), 98–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes of inservice and prospective teachers: Results of a questionnaire survey. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 313–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. L., & Danielsen, O. (2012). Problem-oriented project studies: The role of the teacher as supervisor for the study group in its learning processes. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 257–272). New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries: Results from PISA 2002. New York, NY: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2010). Results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. III). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264083943-en
   Google Scholar
• Picton, I., & Clark, C. (2015). The impact of ebooks on the reading motivation and reading skills of children and young people: A study of schools using RM books. London: National Literacy Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., … Yager, Z. (2012). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 654–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). (2006). Retrieved from https://timss.bc.edu/pirls2006/intl_rpt.html
   Google Scholar
• Russell, I. (2014). Personalised books for children shouldn’t have a bad name. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/dec/12/personalised-books-children-name
   Google Scholar
• Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2016). A call for a more measured approach to reporting and interpreting PISA results. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 252–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• School Library Association. (2015). UK school library survey Softlink. Retrieved from https://www.sla.org.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., & Flewitt, R. (2016). Establishing a research agenda for the digital literacy practices of young children: A white paper for cost action IS1410. Retrieved from http://digilitey.eu
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, A. (2016). The use of children’s literature in teaching: A study of politics and professionalism within teacher education. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sulentic-Dowell, M., Beal, G. D., & Capraro, R. M. (2006). How do literacy experiences affect the teaching propensities of elementary pre-service teachers? Reading Psychology, 27, 235–255.
   Google Scholar
• Tobin, M. (2017). How can an online approach to children’s literature reading journals motivate and engage students completing their degree in primary-based initial teacher education. Paper shared on Academia.edu. Retrieved from https://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/MathewTobin
   Google Scholar
• Vaala, S., Ly, A., & Levine, M. H. (2015). Getting a read on the app stores: A market scan and analysis of children’s literacy apps. In The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 34–40). New York, NY: Scientific American Books.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, F. (2014). Moving beyond boundaries: Development education in initial teacher education. In S. McCloskey (Ed.), Development education in policy and practice (pp. 102–119). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK.10.1057/9781137324665
   Google Scholar
• Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar