Running head: DBBMMs 1

Digitized Big Books with Manipulated text and Multimodal inputs (DBBMMs).

A Technology Learning Module for Extracurricular Book Clubs in EFL Elementary

Contexts

Alex Hawkins

University of Calgary

Werklund School of Education

Author Note

Alex Hawkins, Graduate Student, Werklund School of Education, University of

Calgary.

This paper was written as a requirement for Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton’s EDER

669.73 Language Teaching and Technology class.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alex

Hawkins, Republic of Korea, Gyeonggi-do, Hanam-si, Deokpung 1-dong,

Sinjang-ro 151, Daedong Firenze Apartments #317. Contact:

hawkina@ucalgary.ca

DBBMMs 2

Specific Teaching Context

The DBBMM technology learning module was designed for use in a specific teaching

context but it is designed to be generalized or adapted to other comparable teaching

contexts as well. The specific teaching context is with the Extracurricular English Book

Club (EEBC), which is hosted at Duckpung Elementary School. Duckpung Elementary is

a public school located in a middle class suburb of Seoul, Korea. The student body is

approximately 400 students, while the EEBC usually has between 15 and 20 students at

any one time. The EEBC was formed in 2013 and is jointly operated by the Duckpung

English Department and the Duckpung School Library. EEBC meetings take place after

school, which means that the students who are members of the club do not also attend

private extracurricular language academies (since the times conflict). Many of the club

members are from low-income families who cannot afford expensive private tuition and

take advantage of the opportunity that the EEBC presents as free extracurricular

programming. At present, the club meets for five hours per week with the EEBC

instructor usually designing each week’s lessons as a self-contained five hour learning

project since club members come and go from week to week depending on their other

schedules.

The EEBC has space at two physical locations within Duckpung Elementary.

English books are stored in the general school library while the club has a separate

classroom/meeting room/reading room on another floor. The library stores

approximately 150 English books designed for native speaking English elementary

students. While not necessarily bad books, many of them are level-inappropriate (usually

DBBMMs 3

much too difficult since they are designed for native English speakers), old (the students

do not relate to them), or single input (just text on page) and thus are not very interesting

for students who have already been at school all day by the time book club starts.

Additionally, there is only one copy of each book so it is hard to read together as a class.

The EEBC classroom itself has desks, comfortable beanbag reading chairs, a Wi-

Fi hotspot connected to the general Korean internet, classroom computers (one for every

2 or 3 students), and a classroom monitor. Even though many students are from low-

income families, nearly every student has their own Android smartphone (usually it is

handed down from a parent and is a few years old). The classroom also has three Android

tablet devices that can basically duplicate all functions of a smartphone except for calling.

Although the DBBMM technology learning module was designed for a specific

teaching context, it could be generalized or adapted to work in other contexts provided

that (nearly) every student has their own smartphone and that there is a low student to

classroom computer ratio (1:1 is ideal but 3:1 at most). It is the hope of the author that

other language instructors working in appropriate teaching contexts find DBBMMs to be

an effective way of combining pedagogy, content, and technology and thus this

technology module becomes a transformative addition to their classrooms.

Overall Framework: Constructionism Informed by the TPACK and SAMR

Models

Knowledge is the result of a collaborative process of the mind that makes meaning based

on background knowledge and inputs from the outside world (Piaget, 1977). The

DBBMM technology learning module was prepared within a constructionist educational

framework of language learning as defined by classical theorists. These theorists argued

DBBMMs 4

for ideas such as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZoPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) and the

Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1981; 2008). For these theorists, language acquisition occurs

when learners are given input that is in a zone just beyond what they already know (input

+ 1) but which has meaning that can be negotiated with the aid of various scaffolding

forms. In the context of DBBMMs, constructionist scaffolding takes the form of shared

reading sessions, multimodal inputs, and text manipulated in principled ways to make key

features salient. This scaffolding helps language learners with the process of “negotiating

meaning and active engagement in purposeful language use” (Roessingh, 2004, p. 47).

The introduction of Information Age technology into the classroom, however, was

not a specific feature of language teaching that was addressed by original constructionist

educational theorists. Fortunately new models such as TPACK (Technological,

Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge) as described by Mishra and Koehler (2009) have

helped instructors by providing well-grounded rationales for the integration of new

technologies into language learning. Under the TPACK model, a teacher who has

mastered TPACK has access to “a specialized kind of knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler,

2009, p. 17) which combines pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and

technological knowledge in “deep, pragmatic, and nuanced” (p. 17) ways that are

perfectly appropriate to the educational context in which they operate. A teacher with

masterful TPACK will know how technology, pedagogy, and content influence each

other and will be able to make informed adjustments to each component as the

surrounding context changes. The TPACK model has lots to offer the DBBMM module.

TPACK provides a principled framework for the integration and repurposing of

technologies that “have not been designed for educational purposes” (Mishra & Koehler,

DBBMMs 5

2009, p. 16) such as PowerPoint and phone cameras. It also serves as a constant reminder

that educators must remain “fluid” (p. 18) in their use of technology and remain

accountable for designing “their own educational technology environments as needed”

(Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009, p. 51).

Figure 1. The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model

(Mishra & Koehler, 2009, p. 17).

SAMR Model

DBBMMs 6

The SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) Model as

developed by Puentedura (2014) and elaborated by Romrell, Kidder, and Wood (2014) is

another useful tool for planning the principled integration of technology into language

education. According to Puentedura (2014), the use of new technology in education can

be classified into two broad divisions. The first are those that enhance learning (by

directly Substituting an existing tool or Augmenting it with an improvement) and the

second are those technologies that transform learning (by Modifying existing task design

or by Redefining the task in totally new ways). Romrell et al. (2014) argue that since

there is an opportunity cost involved with integrating new technology (making changes to

pedagogy, content, and other technology) using technologies in ways that merely

Substitute or Augment existing tools may not always be justifiable. Under SAMR model,

technologies that can be used in ways that allow educators to make significant

Modifications to task design (with improvements) or completely Redefine learning tasks

in ways that were “previously inconceivable” (Puentedura, 2014, p. 2) should be sought

out. The SAMR framework is vital to the DBBMM module because it serves as a source

of accountability and a reminder that educators should search for ways to do more with

the technology that they already have by keeping a focus on achieving transformative

uses of technology for language education rather than what is simply “new”. If an

educator wants to use a new technology that only substitutes or augments the

functionality of what is already in use, the educator should be prepared to justify that

choice in light of the opportunity costs. Transformative modification and redefinition are

DBBMMs 7

more likely to be achieved when the educator has a masterful understanding of TPACK

since content and pedagogy are crucial to deciding how to use technology.

Figure 2. The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) Model

(Puentedura, 2014, p. 2).

Specific Rationale and Supporting Evidence

Three rationales guide the use of DBBMM learning technology module at the

EEBC. These rationales are a response to economic inequality/local budgetary

constraints, the language learning needs of the book club members, and the

pursuit of an inclusive pedagogy.

DBBMMs 8

Students from low-income families deserve a high quality extracurricular activity

to help bridge the opportunity gap with their peers who can afford private schools.

“In South Korea, high-stakes assessments play a crucial gatekeeper role to

adolescents’ future educational and economic opportunities. Therefore, hundreds

of thousands of South Korean youth have used various forms of shadow

education, including cram schools (hagwon), to prepare for a series of the high-

stakes exams.” (Byun & Kim, p. 165)

“Language teachers are in a key position to address educational inequality”

(Hawkins & Norton, 2009, p. 3)

“Investing in our libraries is critical to equitable achievement in reading.”

(Krashen, 1997, p. 19).

A more humanizing pedagogy will be the result of personalized and situated

student contributions (DBBMMs) being treated not only as valuable but essential

to the classroom.

“I propose a method in which teachers and adult and adolescent students, even at

the earliest levels of linguistic proficiency, begin to find and elaborate their own

generative themes and to connect their existential experience to the world of those

whose language they are learning. This approach to learning a second language,

DBBMMs 9

which at early stages of linguistic development involves the negotiation and

successive approximation of meaning, helps students not only to build critically

their own ideas and views about vital issues, but also to build their own words in

the new language and to act upon them” (Graman, 1988, p. 444).

“When teachers initiate open-ended activities in response to multimodal texts,

they create a space in which to honor the linguistic and cultural differences among

– and between – the students in their classroom” (Hassett & Curwood, 2009, pp.

280-281).

“Personalized, situated, and connected” (Romrell, Kidder and Wood, 2014, p. 12).

The current selection of texts in the EEBC library is not suitable for a variety of

reasons and there is no additional money to rectify this. Already available

technologies can be used to transform these unsuitable materials into appropriate

texts while at the same time facilitating the development of transformative

learning tasks that were “previously inconceivable” (Puentedura, 2014, p. 2)

The present status of the EEBC library is that all texts in it can be described by

one or more of the following terms: level-inappropriate (too hard since they were

written for native English speakers), single mode/bimodal (not engaging), or too

small (only one person can read at a time). As a result, when asked to engage with

DBBMMs 10

these texts many students quickly reach the “frustration-level” (Dougherty Stahl,

2012, p. 47) and their motivation to read suffers. Other books lack multimodal

inputs, which in addition to providing insufficient scaffolding also are not very

interesting especially during an extracurricular class when students have already

been at their desks all day. Even with the few books that are of an appropriate

level and provide multimodal inputs, there is just one copy of that book and as

such it difficult for the student to share the book or really personalize it in any

way. DBBMMs are an attempt to solve these problems using already available

technology. A rich body of research supports each individual element that makes

up a DBBMM from Digitized Big Books to Multimodal inputs to Manipulated

text.

Features of Digitized Big Books (adapted from Hughes & Wilkins, 2002; Colville-Hall and O’Connor, 2006, p. 493; Linse, 2007; Claire, 2009)Short stories that immediately engage interest

Contain a rhyme or pattern that is salient

Use of pictures to aid the construction of meaning

Repetitive phrases and controlled vocabulary

Simple but interesting story/humour

Reduced crowding to lower visual stress

Presented on a large format eReader or monitor, suitable for whole class shared reading.

Can provide empty spaces for the prediction of future text (What word goes here? What comes next?)

Numerous theorists support the use of Big Books for language acquisition. Britsch

(2009) argues that visual literacy is actually “primal” (p. 710), and that “the visual

lies at the center of language learning, not at its periphery” (p. 711). Big Books

promote “a holistic approach to language instruction through meaningful

engagement with real stories” (Colville-Hall & O’Connor, 2008, p. 492). In

addition, engaging with Big Books “involves the students physically and

DBBMMs 11

emotionally, and offers opportunities for challenge, success, discovery and

creativity” (p. 492). Big Books also offer an effective form of scaffolding for

beginner readers since they can “access the text and explore meanings through

‘reading the pictures’” (Claire, 2009, p. 124). Since they enable whole class

shared reading sessions, this peer support allows Big Books to help “bridge the

difference” (Dougherty Stahl, 2012, p. 47) between a text that is complex (within

the ZoPD) and a text that is frustratingly difficult. Martin (2007) describes the

benefits of Digitized Big Books that allow for the use of tools such as “highlighter

pens, speech and thought bubbles, and a writing board that acts like a word

processor” (p. 27) which all facilitate interaction between readers and the text.

Hughes and Wilkins (2002), note that small sized print and pages with few open

spaces can adversely affect young readers – pitfalls that Big Books intentionally

avoid. Overall, it is clear that Big Books (and recently, Digitized Big Books) have

a lot to offer young learners learning to read in a second language such as the

students in the EEBC.

“The pictures explained the story a little more. Like in the biking picture it didn’t mention in the book that they were going so fast but in the illustration it did. And I looked at the words too. Sometimes I didn’t know what something was in the illustrations, and it explained it in the words.” (P. Martens, R. Martens, Doyle, Loomis, & Aghalarov, 2013, p. 285).

Multimodality is the normal state of human communication (Kress, 2010).

Multimodal Inputs comprise more than two of the following elements in various combinations. All modes are “valid for sharing meaning” (P. Martens et al., 2013, p. 286)Plain printed text PicturesEnhanced text/Input elaboration VideosAudio Photographs

DBBMMs 12

Infographics AnimationsRealistic drawings Cartoon drawingsGraphical organizers HypertextPredictive text Textured booksMovement Gestures

There is a large and growing body of research on using multimodal inputs to

promote language acquisition. For Hassett and Curwood (2009), the “transition

from print-based education to multimodal education indicates a profound shift in

the notion of reading as a whole” (p. 270). Multimodal texts “weave together

meanings represented in different modes that support the whole” (Kress, as cited

in P. Martens et al., 2013, p. 286). In a sense, the ability of a language learner to

make meaning from a text that is within their ZoPD is heavily influenced by the

scaffolding provided by the text’s input modes. Morgan (2013) argues that

multimodal inputs are a critical form of scaffolding for students who are learning

to read especially when combined with computer based text tools such as

hyperlinks to dictionary entries or pronunciation samples. This helps instructors

“stretch” (Doughterty Stahl, 2012, p. 48) the ZoPD of learners. Dalton (2013)

reminds educators that the core story must still be interesting if students are to be

engaged by the text, regardless of how stimulating the input modes are. Dalton

also discusses bringing students into the process of creating multimodal texts

through “multimodal commentaries” and “remixes” (p. 645). These tasks

described by Dalton are very similar to the main learning task in the DBBMM

learning technology module. It is the hope of the author that the DBBMM

learning technology module will be a useful and practical addition to the growing

discourse around the use of multimodal inputs for language acquisition.

DBBMMs 13

What is Manipulated text? (adapted from Roessingh & Johnson, 2004; Roessingh, 2005; Kim, 2006; Ellis & Collins, 2009)Manipulated text is authentic text that has been changed by the instructor in principled ways to make it into appropriate content for language acquisition. Manipulating in principled ways means making use of reading difficulty scales (Crossley, Greenfield, & McNamara, 2008), analytical lexical software such as LexTutor (Cobb, n.d.), or intentionally making key features of language more salient through frequency or textual enhancement (which has some intersections with multimodal inputs).

Original Text Go Away Big Green Monster

Instructor Manipulated Text

Go away scraggly purple hair.Go away two little squiggly ears.Go away sharp white teeth.Go away long bluish-greenish nose.

Go away purple wavy hair!Go away 2 green square ears!Go away white diamond teeth!Go away blue circle nose!

Figure 3. LexTutor Kids 250 Output for Authentic Go Away Big Green Monster

text sample.

DBBMMs 14

Figure 4. LexTutor Kids 250 Output for Instructor Manipulated Text sample. The

“Kids 250 – 10” word is “diamond” and the “Off-list known” word is “wavy”. In

the context of L1 Korean students, both of these words are loanwords from

English or “Konglish”. Thus, “diamond” and “wavy” do not need to be taught as a

new vocabulary words, leaving the instructor to focus on the Level 3, 4, and 5

words.

Authentic materials have a number of benefits in the language classroom.

These benefits include “meaningfulness, relevance, motivational value” as well as

being “engaging” and “natural” (Roessingh & Johnson, 2004, p. 47).

Unfortunately, they also have weaknesses for language learning such as being

culturally inappropriate or too difficult since they are written for native speakers

of the same age. Whereas a native English speaking child in the first grade might

know ~2500 words, an L2 English speaker of the same age will know less than

1000 (Roessingh & Johnson, 2004, p. 48). In an EFL context that number may be

even lower. Manipulated text is an attempt to bring the benefits of authentic

DBBMMs 15

materials into the language class while addressing the weaknesses of authentic

text as input. Roessingh (2005) recommends that instructors always ask

themselves “how linguistically accessible/considerate is this text?” (p. 125). Ellis

and Collins (2009) argue that salience and frequency are crucial aspects of

language acquisition. The manipulation of authentic text can make it more salient

and make important forms have a higher frequency. Educators have access to

powerful technology for manipulating text in a principled way such as the

LexTutor VocabProfile (Cobb, n.d.) as well as the built-in reading difficulty

scales in Microsoft Word. LexTutor also makes frequency very clear. However,

as seen in Figure 4, a degree of cultural awareness of loanwords and fusion-

Englishes is required when manipulating text since software will flag some words

as difficult even if they are English loanwords in the learners’ L1.

Evaluating Effectiveness

The development of the DBBMM learning technology module is an open

ended Action Research project of sorts. It began with the intention of addressing

three problems; how to give a high quality extracurricular language opportunity to

students from low-income families, how to promote a humanizing pedagogy in

the English classroom, and how to engage students in the repurposing of

unsuitable library materials using pre-existing technologies that students are

already trained to use? This technology learning module can be judged as a

success if it is able to make positive movement towards addressing all three of

those problems while at the same time perfectly balancing the intersections of

technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to enable transformative

DBBMMs 16

learning tasks. It will take several weeklong cycles of using the DBBMM

technology learning module before any judgments can be made as to whether or

not this is the case. Armed with the TPACK model, it will be possible to reflect in

a productive way as to what can elements can be improved and how these

improvements might affect other elements. One anticipatory concern is that

PowerPoint might not be a “fun” platform for creating DBBMMs. There are

several other free alternatives such as blog platforms or Prezis that might be better

at inspiring students to create. It may turn out that the opportunity cost of training

students is justified if they provide a substantially better platform than

PowerPoint.

As for the individual assessment of learners, the present club membership

of the EEBC is transient with students coming and going every week (this

informed the design of the module as a week long learning task). This makes

longer-term formal assessments such as pre and post vocabulary tests challenging

since a week is not necessarily enough time to be exposed to new vocabulary with

enough frequency to acquire it. Instead, the Children’s Orientation To Book

Reading Scale (Kaderavek, Guo, & Justice, 2014) may prove valuable for

evaluating the success of the DBBMM module. If students are interested and

engaged with the creation and reading of DBBMMs then (in light of basic

constructionist theories about knowledge as the result of negotiation of meaning)

that engagement alone may be enough to justify the use of the module.

A student created DBBMM should have the following qualities to be

considered excellent.

DBBMMs 17

A coherent theme from beginning to end (if not necessarily a narrative).

One main idea per page.

Large text that makes use of colours, bolding, italics, fonts.

Colourful imagery.

Hypertext links to videos, sounds, or images.

Predictive text that allows the reader to wonder “What comes next?”

Personal Reflection

The DBBMM technology learning module represents the summation of

everything I have learned in the M.Ed TEAL program at the University of

Calgary. It has been incredibly rewarding to draw together so many different

strands of language education theory that I have learned in other courses and

synthesize them anew under the models of TPACK and SAMR. It is my sincere

belief that the core pedagogical and content ideas of the DBBMM module are

well-grounded and robust and will be suitable for use with new technologies over

the long term. Although I designed it for a very specific teaching context, it is my

belief that language educators could find success using the core ideas of this

module in many other teaching contexts and with students beyond just beginner

levels.

References

Alberta Education (n.d.). Alberta ESL Proficiency Benchmarks. Retrieved from

http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/eslapb/index.html

DBBMMs 18

Bland, J. (2013). Children's Literature in Second Language Education. London:

Bloomsbury Academic.

Britsch, S. (2009). ESOL educators the experience of visual literacy. TESOL Quarterly,

43(4), 710-721. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27785055

Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening

socioeconomic gap in student achievement. Research in Sociology of Education,

17, 155-182. doi:10.1108/S1479-3539(2010)0000017008

Claire, J. (2009). Reading lessons: Teacher–pupil interactions with text during three KS1

shared reading sessions. Literacy, 43(3), 123-133. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

4369.2009.00537.x

Cobb, T. (n.d.). Compleat lexical tutor: VocabProfile Home. Retrieved from

http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/

Colville-Hall, S., & O’Connor, B. (2006). Using big books. A standards-based

instructional approach for foreign language teacher candidates in a PreK-12

program. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 487-506. doi:10.1111/j.1944-

9720.2006.tb02901.x.

Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability

using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 475-493.

doi:10.2307/40264479

Dalton, B. (2013). Engaging children in close reading: Multimodal commentaries and

illustration remix. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 642-649. doi:10.1001/TRTR.1172

de Jong, M., & Bus, A. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An

experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of

DBBMMs 19

Educational Psychology, 94(1), 145-155. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.145

Dougherty Stahl, K. A. (2012). Complex text or frustration-level text: Using shared

reading to bridge the difference. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 47-51.

doi:10.1001/TRTR.01102

Duff, P., Rossiter, M., Derwing, T., & Jones, V. (2008). Is a picture worth a thousand

words? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 325-329. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-

7249.2008.tb00127.x

Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of

frequency, form, and function. Introduction to the special issue. The Modern

Language Journal, 93(3), 329-336. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264090

Graman, T. (1988). Education for humanization: Applying Paulo Freire’s pedagogy to

learning a second language. Harvard Educational Review, 58(4), 433-448.

Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her-home/home

Hassett, D. D., & Curwood, J. S. (2009). Theories and practices of multimodal education:

The instructional dynamics of picture books and primary classrooms. The Reading

Teacher, 63(4), 270-282. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30249377

Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. Retrieved from

http://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/norton/Hawkins%20and%20Norton%202009.pdf

Hughes, L. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (2002). Reading at a distance: Implications for the design

of text in children's big books.. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2),

213-227. doi: 10.1348/000709902158856

DBBMMs 20

Kaderavek, J. N., Guo, Y., Justice, L. M. (2014) Validity of the children’s orientation to

book reading rating scale. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 159-178.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01528.x

Kim, Y. K. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through

reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly,

40(2), 341-374. doi:10.2307/402645526

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New

York: Prentice-Hall.

Krashen, S. (1997). Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 18-22.

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87146&site=ehost-live

Krashen, S. D. (2008). The Comprehension Hypothesis Extended. Input Matters in SLA

(pp. 81-94). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from

http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/comprehension_hypothesis_extended.

pdf

Kress, G, (2010), Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary

communication. London: Routledge.

Larson, L. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. The

Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15–22. doi:10.159/RT.64.1.2

Linse, C. (2007). Predictable books in the children’s EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 61(1),

46-54. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl044

DBBMMs 21

Louie, B., & Sierschynski, J. (2015). Enhancing English learners’ language development

using wordless picture books. The Reading Teacher. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1002/trtr.1376

Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M. H., Loomis, J., & Aghalarov, S. (2012). Learning

from picturebooks: Reading and writing multimodally in first grade. The Reading

Teacher, 66(4), 285-294. doi:10.1002/TRTR01099

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK

framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning &

Leading With Technology, 36(7), 14-18. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ839143.pdf

Moody, A.K., Justice, L.M. & Cabell, S.C. (2010). Electronic versus traditional

storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and

communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10, 294–313. doi:

10.1177/1468798410372162.

Morgan, H. (2013). Multimodal children’s e-books help young learners in reading. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 477-483. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0575-8

Piaget, J. (1977). The essential Piaget (H. Gruber, Ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Puentedura, R. R. (2014, August 22). SAMR, in practice [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/08/22/SAMRInPractice.pdf

Roessingh, H. & Johnson, C. (2004). Teacher prepared materials: A principled approach.

TESL Canada Journal. 22(1), 44-63. Retrieved from

http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/165

Roessingh, H. (2005). The intentional teacher. Journal of Educational Thought, 39(2),

DBBMMs 22

111-134.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a framework for

evaluating mLearning. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning

Consortium, 18(2), 1-15, Retrieved from

http://olg.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/435/105

Serafini, F., & Youngs, S. (2013). Reading workshop 2.0: Children’s literature in the

digital age. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 401-404. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1141

Snyder, S. (2003). Foundations of Predictability in L2 Literacy Learning. TESOL

Journal, 12(3), 24-28. doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.2003.tb00139.x

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes and future

directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.

doi:10.1017/S0267190511000079

Vygotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wang, S., & Smith, S. (2013). Reading and grammar learning through mobile phones.

Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 117-134. Retrieved from

http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/wangsmith.pdf

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Park, Y. (2013). New ways of connecting reading and

writing. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 825-830. doi:10.1002/tesq.131