Education, Faculty of
Non UBC
Language and Literacy Education (LLED), Department of
DSpace
Education Sciences 15 (1): 48 (2025)
Li, Guofang
Zhen, Fubiao
Mei, Ziwen
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.
Academic Editors: Qing Ma andChun LaiReceived: 29 October 2024Revised: 25 December 2024Accepted: 31 December 2024Published: 6 January 2025Citation: Li, G., Zhen, F., & Mei, Z.(2025). Digital Devices Use andChinese-Canadian First Graders’Early English Literacy Development:A Mixed-Methods Study. EducationSciences, 15(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010048Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ArticleDigital Devices Use and Chinese-Canadian First Graders’ EarlyEnglish Literacy Development: A Mixed-Methods StudyGuofang Li 1,* , Fubiao Zhen 2 and Ziwen Mei 11 Department of Language & Literacy Education, The University of British Columbia, 6200 University Blvd,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; ziwenmei@student.ubc.ca2 Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA;zhenfubiao@tamu.edu* Correspondence: guofang.li@ubc.caAbstract: This mixed-methods study investigates the impact of digital devices use at homeon early English literacy development among 121 Chinese-Canadian first graders, as wellas their parents’ perspectives on the families’ purposes and practices of digital devicesuse for English literacy, highlighting bilingual children’s experiences with multiple digitaldevices. To understand the relationships between the children’s digital practices and earlyEnglish literacy development, we collected quantitative data on children’s English literacyskills—including reading comprehension, decoding, and receptive vocabulary—alongsidefrequency data on digital devices use including those on computer use and televisionviewing. Parents of 66 children participated in interviews, providing context-specific in-sights into devices use purposes and language learning practices. Data analysis includeddescriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests to examine group differences. Hierar-chical linear regression explored associations between digital devices use and early Englishliteracy outcomes, while thematic analysis identified patterns from parental interviews.Results indicate a positive association between controlled television exposure and receptivevocabulary. However, no significant relationship was observed between television or com-puter use and decoding or reading comprehension. Findings emphasize the multifacetedbut limited role of digital devices, with parents struggling to balance educational benefitsand long-term concerns.Keywords: digital devices use; computer devices; television exposure; English languagedevelopment; bilingual language learners; mixed methods1. IntroductionDigital devices are becoming increasingly pervasive in young children’s domesticenvironments, with early and frequent engagement documented in the recent literature.Computers and televisions remain prevalent digital devices in most households, along withthe 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, Auxieret al. (2020) found that 93% of children aged 3–4 years and 91% of children aged 5–8 yearswere regularly exposed to television. Tablet exposure rose from 35% among toddlers aged0–2 years to 81% for 5–8 year olds; smartphones were used by 62% of 3–4 year olds and67% 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 notlimited to the North American context. For example, a study in Italy (Operto et al., 2020)Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010048Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 2 of 20found 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 en-tertainment, social connections, and children’s education since the COVID-19 pandemic.Sonnenschein et al. (2023) reported a notable rise in domestic study time using digitaldevices with 177 American elementary-aged children due to the school closures inducedby the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, children reportedly spent around 3.91 h onreading, 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 duringthe pandemic has sparked ongoing discussions about its impact on literacy development.While some (e.g., Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Postman, 1985) argue that over-exposureto electric media might overwhelm children with inappropriate knowledge and contentand 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 rationalunderstanding of the positive effects of digital content on literacy development as it mis-represents human agency in the digital world. As Hoikkala et al. (1987) summarized, themedia effects theory is concerned “only with how children and adolescents are exploitedby the media, not with how the media are exploited by children and adolescents” (p. 87).Considering the inevitable and sometimes even overwhelming exposure to digitalcontent children have at home, parents, especially immigrant parents, are in high need ofreliable advice or professional consultations on digital devices use (Moursad et al., 2023)to well utilize digital resources with their agencies for literacy learning, particularly inthe second language (L2). It is with these considerations, in this study, we examine therelationship between bilingual Chinese-Canadian children’s home digital devices use andtheir early L2 English literacy development as well as their parents’ perspectives of theirdigital use.2. Literature Review2.1. Digital Use and Early Literacy DevelopmentFor early literacy development, Teale and Sulzby (1987) argued that literacy is anemergent skill and behavior gradually acquired by children in their early stages by inter-acting with the environment. Therefore, early experiences in a rich literacy environmentthat incorporates both print and digital resources can enhance children’s long-term readingskills 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: languagecomprehension and decoding skills. Empirical studies of home literacy environmentsconducted in various contexts evidence that informal literacy activities at home—suchas shared reading or exposure to literacy content on digital devices—are associated withchildren’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 ofReading 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 keyfocus 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 thechild’s language environment, whether physical or digital. As Garrett (1991) puts it, lan-guage and literacy skills are so complex that learners need “an environment—in class orin 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 isEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 3 of 20whether the digital world can help foster highly interactive and linguistically rich environ-ments 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, isessential 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 whoare motivated and relaxed are more likely to have a low affective filter, making them morereceptive to language input. In home contexts, digital use can provide essential second-language exposure and input that bilingual children often receive in formal settings outsidethe home. The engaging features of digital technologies may lower children’s affectivefilter; however, the comprehensible input they receive might be incidental or unregulated.Informed by these theoretical complexities, we aim to examine whether digital use supportsor hinders children’s early L2 literacy development within the home environments, andthe conditions under which it may be beneficial or detrimental.2.2. Home Digital Use and Its Possible Impacts on Literacy DevelopmentWith the widespread of digital devices and access to internet connection amonghouseholds in this digital world, extended research studies have been conducted in thepast decades exploring the digital resources and media exposure in home literacy envi-ronment (e.g., Masur et al., 2016; Segers & Kleemans, 2020), with a particular focus onthe displacement effect (Neuman, 1991). This concept suggests that children’s exposuretime 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 involving25 mother–infant pairs. They found that increased background television reduced both thequantity and lexical diversity of maternal speech during play. Moreover, increased expo-sure to background television during play predicted infants’ lower vocabulary acquisitionat 17 months. Another large-scale study (Khan et al., 2017) using data from more than tenthousand American preschoolers identified a negative correlation between the frequency ofparent–child shared book reading and children’s television watching time. Gath et al. (2023)investigated the relationship between screen time, language development, and parent–childrelationships among 84 preschoolers in New Zealand. The findings showed that higherlevels of television viewing and digital media use were related to lower language skillsand reduced parent–child closeness. In particular, the quality of parent–child interactionsmediated the negative association between television viewing and parent–child closeness,while decreased shared reading mediated the association between television viewing andchildren’s oral language production skills and language comprehension.However, different findings were found by Dore et al. (2020b), who expanded theexamination of the displacement effect to children ranging from preschool to third grade. Byexploring the association between media use (watching television and videos and playinggames) and children’s vocabulary skills and word recognition, they revealed a thresholdeffect, where only high levels of media use (4 or more hours per day) were related tosmaller literacy gains. The authors hence argued that, while high media use may displaceimportant literacy skills, certain features of media use, such as educational content andadult co-viewing, could moderate the displacement effect or amplify the diversity of homelanguage input. This may speak to research conducted during the pandemic (Sonnenscheinet al., 2023), where a positive correlation was found between digital devices use and homeliteracy activities for both younger and older children. Therefore, the impacts of screenexposure on children’s literacy development are highly contingent on the quantity, content,Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 4 of 20and context of use. Future research is needed to explore the more nuanced context-specificpicture of digital devices surrounding young children.Another theme emerging across the studies is that the impacts of digital exposurevaried in different age groups. For infants and toddlers, research has consistently reportedpotential negative associations between smart media exposure and language development(Alamri et al., 2023). Tomopoulos et al. (2010) found a negative correlation betweenthe 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 delayat 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 vocabularysize in children aged 6–36 months. Even educational digital content has been associatedwith poorer language outcomes in children under age 2 (Zimmerman et al., 2007), asincreased 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 exposureand language development becomes mixed (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2017), with only lim-ited evidence suggesting that the effects may be more dependent on parental engagement(Neumann & Neumann, 2014). A comprehensive meta-analysis (Jing et al., 2023) examinedvarious digital devices (including television or movies, video games or applications, ande-books) for children aged 0–6 years. Contrasting with previous studies, they found asmall but significantly positive relationship between digital use and vocabulary develop-ment, moderated by factors such as research methods, child age, digital device type, andinteractivity. Notably, the positive impacts were more salient for children aged 36 monthsand older. Fitzpatrick et al. (2023) also emphasized considering the types, content, andcontext of digital use, as well as child characteristics; they noted that, while backgroundmedia exposure has been associated with poorer language development, parent co-viewingor interactive media has been found to have positive impacts. Research on the impactsof 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 thepreschool stage, leaving space for more research on its impacts on school-aged children.2.3. Digital Exposure and Early English Literacy Development for Bilingual ChildrenA 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 betweendigital exposure and English language and literacy development, which may differ fromthat 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 resultsshowed that it was the quality, rather than the quantity, of television viewing that wassignificantly associated with bilingual infants’ English vocabulary. No such associationwas found among monolingual infants. The findings suggested that the L2 literacy ofbilingual infants might be more sensitive to the quality of television content. Those infantswho watched more English educational programs and were often accompanied by parentsscored higher in their English vocabulary.Similarly, a study conducted in the U.S. (Cycyk & Anda, 2021) examined mediaexposure and language experience in 30 children from Mexican immigrant households.Using natural recordings in the home space, they found that media exposure made upabout 14% of the total auditory environment. Interestingly, the authors found that mediaexposure was negatively related to the quantity of children’s vocalization and parent–childconversational turns, but not to the quantity of adult words in the environment. ThisEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 5 of 20indicated that the impact of media exposure on language development might be mediatedby children’s opportunities to engage in conversation and practice expression. Moreover,child-directed media (more often in English rather than the home language) was positivelycorrelated with children’s vocalizations. In this way, bilingual children living in English-dominant societies might gain more from exposure to higher-quality English-languagedigital media, increasing their opportunities to learn English.Although some studies have proven that digital use can be a positive input for bilin-gual 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 ontheir English language and literacy development, especially with multiple devices presentat home nowadays. It is crucial to explore this issue for bilingual children as they have tobalance input and development in two languages, which may complicate the trade-offsamong various types of language exposure. Parents of bilingual children also face greaterchallenges 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’sliteracy skills, particularly vocabulary size and reading comprehension, which are crucialfor future academic performances (Babayig˘it et al., 2022; Bialystok et al., 2008) and havereportedly lagged behind those of monolingual peers (Bialystok et al., 2010; Papastefanouet al., 2021). Thus, understanding how digital exposure at home can challenge or supportEnglish language and literacy development is critical for early bilingual learners, especiallysince the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave rise to the extensive use of digital devices athome (Li et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023). It is against this backdrop that this study aimedto understand the impact of home digital use on children’s early literacy developmentwhile they transitioned to formal mainstream education, as well as context-specific digitalpractices related to children’s English language learning from parents’ perspectives. We setout the study with the following research questions:1. What are the patterns in the frequency of Chinese-Canadian first graders’ digitaldevices use and their early English literacy achievements?2. What is the relationship between the children’s digital devices use and their Englishliteracy skills?3. What are the contexts (e.g., purposes and practices) of the children’s digital devicesuse at home for English and what are their parents’ perceptions of its impact on thechildren’s English language development?3. MethodsThis study employed a mixed-methods approach to explore the use of multiple dig-ital devices at home and its relationship with the early English literacy development of121 Chinese-Canadian bilingual first graders, as well as the practices and context of digitaldevice usage for English literacy learning. Data for this analysis were derived from alarger longitudinal, mixed-methods project conducted from December 2020 to May 2022in a metropolitan area in British Columbia, Canada. Chinese, including Mandarin andCantonese, is the second most-spoken immigrant language in the region (Statistics Canada,2022). This study followed a convergent parallel design through which the quantitativeand qualitative data collections were conducted simultaneously and equal priority wasgiven to each of the methods. The quantitative and qualitative data analyses were con-ducted separately and then combined together for interpretation. Specifically, we analyzedquantitative data regarding children’s early English literacy skills including reading com-prehension, decoding (letter and word recognition), and oral receptive vocabulary and dataon children’s frequency of digital devices use. For qualitative analysis, we thematicallyEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 6 of 20analyzed interview transcripts of the parents who had agreed to participate for an in-depthunderstanding of digital devices use at home and how parents perceived the impact of theusage on children’s English literacy.3.1. ParticipantsParticipants were recruited using snowball sampling. We targeted children fromfamilies whose parents were Chinese immigrants, spoke either Mandarin or Cantonese athome, and the children themselves were in first grade during the 2019–2020 or 2020–2021academic year. A total of 121 first graders and their parents were included in the finalsample for this analysis. The average age of the 121 first graders was 79.50 months (around6.5 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 incomeand parents’ educational background. Among families who disclosed the information, mostparticipants (77.69%) came from non-low-SES backgrounds, while 27 were from low-SESfamilies. The majority of the participating children (78.51%) were born in Canada, with21.49% immigrating after they were born. Detailed participant information is shown inTable 1.Table 1. Demographic information of participants.N Percent Mean SDTotal 121 100Age (in months) 79.50 4.04GenderMale 58 47.93Female 63 52.07Family SESLow-SES 27 22.31Non-low-SES 94 77.69Immigration statusImmigrant 26 21.49Born in Canada 95 78.51The parent participants (3 fathers and 63 mothers) included in the interviews were theparents of 66 children (see Table 2); 38 were girls (57.58%) and 28 were boys (42.42%). Intotal, 52 children were from non-low-SES families, while 14 children came from low-SEShouseholds. 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 thesechildren was 78.24 months, roughly around 6.5 years.Table 2. Demographic information of children whose parents participated in the interviews.N Percent Mean SDTotal 66 100Age (in months) 78.24 3.65GenderMale 28 42.42Female 38 57.58Family SESLow-SES 14 21.21Non-low-SES 52 78.79Immigration statusImmigrant 11 16.67Born in Canada 55 83.33Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 7 of 203.2. Measures and Procedures3.2.1. English Receptive VocabularyThe Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test fifth edition (PPVT-5; Dunn, 2019) was used tomeasure English receptive vocabulary. The PPVT-5 was designed for individuals rangingfrom 2 years and 6 months to over 90 years of age. It has been widely applied anddemonstrates strong reliability, with an average internal consistency of 0.97, alternativeform 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 eachparticipant. Each test item presented a word with four images, and the participant wasinstructed to point to or select the number of the image that best matched the word. Theitems were arranged in order of increasing difficulty. The test had no time constraints, butit was discontinued after six consecutive incorrect answers. Each correct item earned onepoint, and the raw scores were then converted to standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) basedon age norms for final analyses.3.2.2. English Reading Comprehension and Decoding SkillsThe Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement third edition (KTEA-3; Kaufman& Kaufman, 2014) was applied to assess English reading skills, focusing on the readingcomprehension and word recognition sub-tests. The KTEA-3 is a standardized, individuallyadministered battery of tests that measures core academic abilities from pre-kindergartenthrough grade 12. Normed among North American populations, it has been proven to bea reliable instrument with the reported reliability falling between 0.87 and 0.95 across itssub-tests (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014).Since the study was conducted during the breakout of the pandemic, tests were carriedout individually via Zoom by trained bilingual researchers. The reading comprehensiontest of KTEA-3 includes 30 items designed to measure participants’ understanding ofwritten English. Each participant was first asked to read simple instructions and respondby 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 correspondingcomprehension questions. By following the administration manual (Kaufman & Kaufman,2014), the test was not timed but was discontinued if the participant gave five consecutiveincorrect answers.The letter and word recognition test includes 100 items. Each participant first identifiedletters as they were read aloud, followed by pronouncing the letters shown to them. Theythen continued to read words of increasing difficulty, from single-syllable words to morecomplex, multi-syllable words. There was no time limit, but the test was stopped after fourconsecutive incorrect responses.3.2.3. Frequency of Digital Devices UseWe measured the frequency of children’s use of digital devices for their literacy activ-ities using a Chinese version of the Alberta Environment Questionnaire (ALEQ; Paradiset al., 2010). Two questions on a 3-point Likert scale were posed to the parents: howfrequently does your child engage in English literacy activities by (1) using personal com-puters (which includes internet, games, storybooks on CD-ROMs, etc.); or by (2) watchingtelevision programs or movies in English which include video or DVD on computer ortelevision). One parent of each participating child responded to the questions, choosingfrom the following options: (0) almost never, (1) no more than five times a week, or (2) morethan five times a week. The scores for the two questions were examined separately, withhigher scores indicating a greater frequency of using personal computers or televisionprograms for literacy activities at home.Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 8 of 203.2.4. Interview ProceduresTo gain a better understanding of home digital devices use and parents’ perceptionsof 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 beinterviewed, among whom 3 were fathers and 63 were mothers. The interview protocolwas guided by questions focusing on digital activities and parents’ attitudes toward theirchildren’s digital use. We also included detailed questions about the content and contextof various digital resources for English learning. Sample questions from the interviewincluded the following: “What does your child typically use digital devices for (e.g.,language learning, games, watching cartoons, or other activities)?”, “How is their screentime divided between learning and entertainment?”, “Which applications or programs ondigital devices do you find most helpful for your child’s English language learning?”, “Whatrole do you think digital devices and technology play in your child’s English languagelearning?”, and “What rules do you have for your child’s use of digital devices?” Severalinterviews were carried out after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, so we includedadditional 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 thetranscripts were imported into NVivo 12 in their original language for analysis. Translationinto English was later completed for reporting purposes by bilingual Chinese-Englishresearch assistants and later reviewed by the principal investigator of the project who isalso a Chinese-English bilingual researcher.3.3. Data Analysis3.3.1. Quantitative Data AnalysesThe SPSS version 29.0 was used in all the quantitative analyses of this study. To beginwith, we conducted a descriptive analysis of children’s digital devices use frequency andEnglish literacy assessment results. The independent samples t-tests were also used tocompare the difference in digital devices use and English literacy assessments between thedemographic groups (i.e., gender, family SES, and immigration status).To explore the relationship between digital devices use and English literacy skills, weconducted the hierarchical linear regression by adding their English literacy assessmentresults (i.e., receptive vocabulary, letter and word recognition, reading comprehension) sep-arately as the dependent variable. The assessment raw scores were converted to standardscores based on first-grade levels suggested in the test manuals before final analyses. Thenormed 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 codedas 0 for low-SES families and 1 for non-low-SES families), and immigration status (dummycoded 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 ormovies) was added individually as the key variable. A total of six models with two for eachdependent variable were examined. The missing value was removed from our analyses soonly those with the complete data set were included in the final analyses.3.3.2. Qualitative Data AnalysisAfter transcribing all the interviews, we conducted thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,2012) to identify key patterns. We first familiarized ourselves with the complete interviewtranscripts and extracted segments that addressed digital resources, digital activities relatedEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 9 of 20to English learning, and parental attitudes toward digital devices. During the initial roundof analysis, descriptive codes were used to analyze the segments, such as “school onlinelearning”, “English television programs”, “surfing on the Internet”, “reading applications”,“frequency of digital devices use”, “family digital rules”, and “parent attitudes”. In the sec-ond phase, the descriptive codes were merged into broader thematic categories, includingthemes like “using computers for school-related activities”, “watching television as an inten-tional language input”, “the use of various digital resources to learn English”, and “parents’conflicted attitudes toward digital devices”. The identified themes were triangulated withthe findings from quantitative analyses to gain a more comprehensive explanation of homedigital use and early English literacy development for these English-Chinese bilingualfirst graders.4. Findings4.1. Patterns of Digital Devices Use and Achievements in English Literacy SkillsBased 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 ofwatching TV programs or movies in English. The results indicated that in general, thechildren engaged in multiple times of using computers or watching TV programs at homeper 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 thangirls (M = 1.14, SD = 0.74). Children from low-SES families had less frequency in usingcomputers (M = 1.19, SD = 0.83) or watching TV programs (M = 0.93, SD = 0.78) than theirpeers from non-low-SES families (M = 1.40, SD = 0.78 for computers; M = 1.27, SD = 0.72 forTV programs or movies). Additionally, the difference in TV programs and movie-watchingfrequency is statistically significant: t = −2.12, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.74. Immigrant andborn-in-Canada children were close in their computer use frequency while immigrantchildren watched TV programs (M = 1.35, SD = 0.75) more frequently.Table 3. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests of computer use and televisionviewing frequency.Laptops TV Programs or MoviesN Mean SD t Cohen’s d Mean SD t Cohen’s dTotal 121 1.36 0.79 1.19 0.75GenderMale 58 1.33 0.78 −0.37 0.80 1.25 0.76 0.73 0.75Female 63 1.38 0.81 1.14 0.74Family SESLow-SES 27 1.19 0.83 −1.27 0.79 0.93 0.78 −2.12 * 0.74Non-low-SES 94 1.40 0.78 1.27 0.72Immigration statusImmigrant 26 1.31 0.84 −0.34 0.8 1.35 0.75 1.21 0.74Born in Canada 95 1.37 0.79 1.15 0.74Note: *: p < 0.05 (two-tailed).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 theirreading 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 wordrecognition; M = 102.68, SD = 17.64 for reading comprehension) and children from low-SESfamilies (M = 86.89, SD = 17.91 for receptive vocabulary; M = 104.13, SD = 17.03 for letterEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 10 of 20and word recognition; M = 100.20, SD = 17.59 for reading comprehension) scored lowerin their average scores across assessments than girls (M = 93.54, SD = 14.13 for receptivevocabulary; M = 106.66, SD = 19.33 for letter and word recognition; M = 107.37, SD = 17.53for reading comprehension) and children from non-low-SES families (M = 92.61, SD = 12.67for 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 statisticallysignificant, nevertheless. The immigrant children and children born in Canada were closeto each other in the average score of receptive vocabulary and immigrant children scoredhigher in letter and word recognition, M = 112.91, SD = 17.07, while children born inCanada scored higher in reading comprehension: M = 105.59, SD = 16.76.Table 4. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests of English literacy assessment results.Receptive Vocabulary Letter and Word Recognition Reading ComprehensionMean SD t Cohen’sd Mean SD tCohen’sd Mean SD tCohen’sdTotal 91.33 14.12 106.22 18.93 105.26 17.61GenderMale 88.93 13.84 −1.81 13.99 105.68 18.74 −0.21 19.07 102.68 17.64 −1.10 17.58Female 93.54 14.13 106.66 19.33 107.37 17.53Family SESLow-SES 86.89 17.91 −1.87 13.98 104.13 17.03 −0.48 19.04 100.20 17.56 −1.26 17.53Non-low-SES 92.61 12.67 106.80 19.54 106.67 17.52Immigration statusImmigrant 91.85 20.960.21 14.18112.91 17.071.29 18.84103.55 22.43 −0.35 17.72Born in Canada 91.19 11.74 104.95 19.14 105.59 16.764.2. The Relationship Between Children’s Digital Devices Use and Their Achievements in EarlyEnglish Literacy SkillsIn examining the relationship between home digital devices use frequency and Englishreceptive vocabulary, we found that the TV program or movie-watching frequency had asignificant effect on English receptive vocabulary, after controlling for the demographicfactors: β = 0.18, p < 0.05. The results revealed that the more frequently they watched perweek, the higher their English receptive vocabulary scores were. Adding the TV programsor movie-watching frequency explained an extra three percent of the variation in Englishreceptive vocabulary: F = 4.11, p < 0.05. However, there was not any significant relationshipbetween the frequency of TV programs or movie-watching and the scores of letter and wordrecognition or reading comprehension (see Table 5). Further, no significant association ofcomputer use frequency was found with the scores of receptive vocabulary, letter and wordrecognition, or reading comprehension after controlling for demographic factors.Table 5. Associations based on hierarchical linear regression models.IndependentVariablesReceptive Vocabulary Letter and Word Recognition Reading ComprehensionRegression 1 Regression 2 Regression 1 Regression 2 Regression 1 Regression 2Demographic variablesGender 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.10SES 0.20 * 0.19 * 0.34 ** 0.34 ** 0.34 ** 0.34 **Immigration status −0.01 0.01 −0.19 −0.19 −0.03 −0.03Model fitR2 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13F 2.68 * 2.68 * 3.20 * 3.20 * 3.36 * 3.36 *Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 11 of 20Table 5. Cont.IndependentVariablesReceptive Vocabulary Letter and Word Recognition Reading ComprehensionRegression 1 Regression 2 Regression 1 Regression 2 Regression 1 Regression 2Key variablesComputers −0.02 −0.09 −0.04Model fit∆R2 0.00 0.01 0.01∆F 0.03 0.61 0.11TV programs 0.18 * 0.10 0.01Model fit∆R2 0.03 0.01 0.00∆F 4.11 * 0.68 0.01Note: Standardized coefficients are exhibited; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01.4.3. Purposes of Multiple Digital Devices at HomeTo better understand how multiple digital devices were used, we looked into parents’mention of computers and televisions in the interviews. Notably, the use of computerswas often related to school requirements or online schooling during the pandemic. Forinstance, when asked which device they used for online schooling, one mother said theyused “the computer” and she “had to sit with him (the child) throughout the half-hoursessions” (Family 1 or F1, boy). Another parent shared that they usually limited the child’suse of digital devices, but she “would let her use [the computer] when she needed it forstudying” (F18, girl). The mother of F69 added that “some study tasks required using thecomputer” and it was “half an hour at most for each session. . .roughly once every otherday” (F69, boy). One mother described the use of computers for school purposes duringthe pandemic:From Monday to Friday, the teacher said that from 9:30 to 10:00, there will bestory-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 of15 to 20 min. . . No (class) in the afternoon. Many of the assignments are doneonline. . . 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 [theassignments are] less, they can be completed in half an hour. If more, it may takehim an hour. (F159, boy)The requirements from schools might explain the higher frequency of computer useshown in quantitative data. However, some parents were hesitant about using comput-ers 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 touse. . .It’s conflicting. You can’t say it’s bad, nor can you say it’s good. I don’t know whatto say about it” (F44, boy). The mother of F65 also tried to minimize her son’s time usingthe computer, because she “wanted to postpone the time when he [get used to] using thephone or computer. I can foresee that he may use these digital devices all the time, so I willtry my best to postpone it” (F65, boy). It is plausible that the parents kept each session ofcomputer use to a minimum, even though the frequency was relatively high.The situation was different with television. The majority of the families reportedtelevision exposure as it was harder to avoid than other digital devices. While devices likecomputers, tablets, and smartphones are primarily used by one individual, the television isnaturally shared among members within the same space. The mother of F30 told us thatshe “didn’t allow her (the child) to use iPad or smartphone, so her digital exposure [forentertainment] was just television. . . it was hard to control. . . she had a little brother. . . IfEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 12 of 20you asked her to stop [watching], she would, but the little one wouldn’t” (F30, girl). It wasthe same for F150: the mother “allowed him (the child) to watch television for an hour afterschool. . . which program to watch was always controlled by his brother. . . they watchedtogether” (F150, boy).It is worth noticing that several families intentionally used television as a source ofEnglish input for children. One mother emphasized “I only let him watch [programs] inEnglish. For cartoons, I asked him to watch English ones. Because people told me thatif you let him watch more English stuff, his English can improve faster” (F15, boy). Themother was not certain if her son understood all the content but “it can attract him.” Themother 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 aslong as it was in English. I just let her listen to it.” She also found it quite effective forlearning 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 wasnot local [Cantonese speakers]. . . then we were only exposed to television stationsin 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 fromthose [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 herfamily’s English exposure: “In my household, we didn’t watch television, didn’t use thecomputer, and there was no screen time, so our English language environment at home wasnot that ideal. . .just for myself, my English was getting worse” (F6, girl). Interestingly, F150had followed the no-screen rule, but later brought television into the household becausethe child “had to chat with classmates. . .about television programs”, and “if there was notelevision, it might be difficult [for the child] to find topics” in school (F150, boy). Thismight suggest that watching television not only served as an additional exposure to Englishbut also provided contexts for social interaction in English outside the household.We consider it crucial to mention that many families placed restrictions on children’stelevision watching. For example, for F24, they “were gradually helping her (the child) tocontrol television exposure. . .usually three times a week, for half an hour at each time. . .Shedidn’t have the time concept yet. . .so I reminded her of the time” (F24, girl). The mother ofF49 allowed her children “to watch one episode at a time. . .when it’s playing the endingsong or the end credits, they had to turn it off” (F49, girl). For both families, it was effectivefor 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 receptivevocabulary scores, as found in quantitative analysis.4.4. Diversity in Digital Resources for English LearningIn addition to computers and televisions, parental interviews revealed a richer varietyof digital resources utilized by parents to support children’s English learning, includingreading applications (apps), audiobooks, online libraries, and gamified educational content.Online reading applications were the most popular resource, and schools played an impor-tant role in promoting reading applications at home. One parent shared that “the schoolwas using Epic, an English reading app. During that time (online schooling), it was free, sowe had been using it. Recently, I bought RazKids for her” (F106, girl). The situation wassimilar for F144, where “the teacher gave us RazKids [account]. . . they also used it to readEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 13 of 20at school. So, they gave access to us parents so that we can read it at home. . . the teachertold 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 readingactivities using applications. The mother of F127 shared that “[using the app] was assignedby the school. . .like to encourage the children [to read] . . . You can arrange for your childto read books on this application every week. The teacher also had arrangements. . .maybethey can see what books they had read [on the app]” (F127, girl). Some families weresuggested to have children reading on applications “for 15 min every day. . .or 25 minfor the elder child” (F205, girl) to cultivate a reading habit at the early stage of primaryschool. One mother would “read two short stories with him (the child)”, or “if there was nowritten homework. . .I read three short stories” (F180, boy). Furthermore, a father reportedthat his child developed interests and independence in reading, as “sometimes I was notpaying attention to him. Then I found him reading non-stop for like half an hour. . .Nowhe likes reading e-books” (F201, boy). Other parents also found that reading applicationsprovided 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 applica-tions. In the case of F202, when the child “started reading books, she couldn’t understandthe 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 alsolearned 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 whenshe read e-books, it was not just reading the books. . .some platforms read to you and thenyou 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 finishthe comprehension questions to pass the section. . .the questions were read to you, and Isaw that she got most questions correct” (F133, girl).Additionally, a few parents appreciated the leveled system embedded in some readingapplications. It served as a supportive scaffolding for the child to build up vocabularyand reading skills step by step, and it visualized children’s improvement, which enabledparents to track their progress more easily. One parent described that “there were morethan twenty levels. As you level up, you can read relevant books. So, she (the child) startedfrom text with only two or three lines and now read to where there are. . .ten lines on onepage. 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. Onemother mentioned using an online library, on which they “didn’t need to go to the libraryto borrow books.” The children were reading “both fiction and non-fiction books” inEnglish, 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 wereEnglish books like Harry Potter and other fiction and non-fiction books. . .it was helpful forincreasing their (the children’s) English input” (F212, boy).A few parents considered the gamification design of certain educational resources tobe helpful to grab children’s attention and stir up their learning interests. The mother ofF108 found her child “really attached” to a popular educational platform which designedanimal 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 andall sorts. She (the child) really liked these things.” The practices on the platform weredesigned interactively, for instance, “they have puzzle pieces. . .you put numbers in frontof the camera [of your digital device] and they will send it to the game on the screen.” TheEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 14 of 20child “often spent her allowed screen time” to learn on this platform when the mother “didnot allow her to watch YouTube” (F108, girl). Other parents also found “phonics games onsome applications” (F194, boy) to help children learn English. It merits attention that manyof the digital resources allowed children to learn independently, or with less assistance fromthe parents as compared to conventional literacy activities, which might be an affordanceparticularly helpful for families whose first language is not English.4.5. Parental Attitudes Toward the Role of Digital DevicesAlthough parents were gradually embracing various digital resources for children’sEnglish literacy development, we found that most parents still showed concerns about thelong-term effects of extensive digital exposure. The most common worry shared amongparents 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. . .shemight have watched too much on the iPad. After her eye examination, we seldom let heruse the iPad or smartphone anymore.” The only digital exposure was controlled to thelimited 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 languagelearning, they struggled to balance between additional English exposure and early digitalexposure, with the latter possibly risking health aspects.Some other parents noticed the potential challenge of children being over-relianton digital assistance for learning. When asked about the view on digital resources, onemother commented, “When they (children) read books using a tablet now, if they don’tknow 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 afraidthat, 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, “whenshe encountered words she didn’t know, she asked the tablet, ‘how do you spell [theword]?’ I told [her] that you didn’t need to ask [the tablet], just spell it out by yourself. Itdoesn’t matter if you make a mistake.” But when the mother was not around her, “she’dstill ask. It has become a habit” (F145, girl). These digital functions, while providingconvenient shortcuts, may bear the risk of encumbering children to explore and try out tolearn by themselves.5. DiscussionThis study revealed nuanced relationships between Chinese-Canadian first graders’digital use and early English literacy development. Quantitative results suggest that thefirst graders in our study engaged with both computers and television, with computeruse being slightly more frequent. However, only television viewing showed a positiverelationship with children’s English receptive vocabulary, whereas the use of digital devices(TV viewing and computers) was not significantly associated with decoding or readingcomprehension skills. While our findings differed from studies finding negative impacts ofmedia 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) onvocabulary acquisition and multiple digital devices use among children aged 0–6 years.Our findings expand upon the existing literature by distinguishing the relationshipsbetween computer use and television and different literacy competencies. In particular, ourEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 15 of 20study highlights the significant association between television viewing in English frequencyand English receptive vocabulary, which suggests the possible impact of informal literacyactivities on children’s language comprehension (Evans et al., 2000; Sénéchal & LeFevre,2014; Skwarchuk et al., 2014). Exposure to television programs with comprehensiblecontent in English could support “incidental vocabulary learning” (Peters & Webb, 2018,p. 551) among bilingual children when they recalled and recognized the meaning of thecontent. Furthermore, the significant association should be interpreted in the context ofbilingual homes, where bilingual children’s second language (L2) has been found to beparticularly sensitive to television exposure in that language (Cycyk & Anda, 2021; Hudonet al., 2013). In this study, since our participants predominantly spoke and were exposed toChinese at home, English content on TV (and computers) could serve as a source of Englishlanguage acquisition within the home environment. However, it is important to note thatthe effectiveness of this exposure largely depends on the quality of the content and thelevel of parental engagement.Our qualitative findings provide context-specific insights into families’ digital practicesin relation to English language and literacy learning. Computer use was primarily limitedto school-related activities, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting a morestructured and purposeful engagement. Meanwhile, much of the television exposureoccurred incidentally as part of family viewing, while some parents intentionally used it as asource of English language input for their children. Notably, many parents reported settingtime limits on television viewing for their first graders, which echoes previous researchby Dore et al. (2020a), who found that moderate media use was positively associatedwith language gains for children from kindergarten to first grade. The positive associationwe found with controlled television exposure may suggest that limited exposure to child-oriented television programs can be beneficial for children’s vocabulary development at theearly school stage. For non-English speaking households, controlled television watchingprovided a moderate amount of English language input and incidental exposure thatallowed 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 fosteringindependent reading habits and increasing literacy exposure. Parents particularly valuedthe audio functions of these apps for bridging the gap between oral language and literacyskills for children transitioning to mainstream education; the leveled systems within readingapplications provided visual progress tracking for parents and children. Previous studieshave suggested that reading apps offer many of the same benefits as print books, althoughchildren’s language gains from print books are still found to be larger (Reich et al., 2019). Onreading apps, children may benefit from motivational features and automatic animationsor illustrations assisting their reading comprehension, evidencing the Affective FilterHypothesis (Krashen, 1982). However, caution needs to be taken for features that maydistract children’s attention from reading itself (Korat & Falk, 2019). Other digital resources,including audiobooks and online libraries, expanded children’s opportunities to listento and read English at home. The gamification elements incorporated in some digitalplatforms appeared to heighten children’s interest in learning, broadly proved in bothquantitative (Sailer & Homner, 2020) and qualitative studies (Saleem et al., 2022) focusingon diverse groups of learners.Nevertheless, parental attitudes toward digital resources were cautiously positive.While recognizing the benefits and gradually accepting these digital resources into theirchildren’s home literacy environments, parents expressed ongoing concerns about poten-tial long-term health effects and the risk of over-reliance on digital media. Our findingis similar to Kucirkova and Flewitt’s (2022) study on parents’ conflicting beliefs aboutEduc. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 16 of 20children’s digital book reading, where the researchers observed that parents oscillatedbetween opposing views, neither fully acknowledging its educational benefits nor entirelycondemning 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 crucialyet frequently ambiguous and conflicted aspect of parenting in the current world. Ourfindings further contribute to the understanding of multiple digital devices use and earlyEnglish literacy development of bilingual learners, highlighting the need to support parentsin decision-making regarding their children’s media exposure.6. Conclusions and ImplicationsIn conclusion, this study suggests that the relationships between digital devices andbilingual children’s early L2 English literacy skills are multifaceted. While televisionviewing, when controlled, was found to positively influence receptive vocabulary, nosignificant association was observed between decoding or reading comprehension and theuse of computer devices or watching television or movies. The families used computersmore frequently every week, with the main purpose of school-related tasks. Televisionwas a common exposure for these first graders, and some parents intentionally usedit as an additional English input at home. Parents reported using a variety of digitalresources, including reading apps, audiobooks, online libraries, and gamified educationalplatforms, for English literacy. Although these digital devices and resources were celebratedfor stimulating children’s learning interests and cultivating reading habits, parents stillexpressed concerns about the long-term negative effects of digital exposure on children’seye health and learning independence. These findings contribute to the growing body ofresearch on digital media in early language and literacy education, filling the gap in theinfluences of multiple digital devices use on bilingual learners’ early literacy developmentof 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 collectedduring the later part of the pandemic may reveal a more diverse use of digital devices andresources. Future research in the post-pandemic era could benefit from including a widerrange 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 likereading comprehension might have been too small to be observed; a longitudinal designwould be valuable to trace the children’s development of diverse literacy skills in relationto their digital exposure. In addition, while this study examined bilingual children’s earlyliteracy development in the societal language, future studies could explore the use of digitalresources in both societal and home languages to comprehensively understand the richnessand 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 andfamilies regarding the use of digital devices, particularly those already used at school. Wefound that many parents were uncertain about the necessity and benefits of these digitaldevices, especially for children in early grades. By explaining the pedagogical rationalebehind digital integration at school and offering evidence-based suggestions for homeuse, schools can help alleviate parental concerns and promote more effective digital use inlearning at both home and school.Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 17 of 20Secondly, given the strong influence that schools demonstrated on parental decisionsabout educational resources, such as reading apps, schools and institutions could leveragethis impact to promote better digital practices at home. As Moursad et al. (2023) sug-gested, many parents need advice and conversations from trustworthy sources, wherethey could ask for reliable, current, and empirical information related to children’s digitaluse. Schools could provide workshops or training for parents about high-quality digitalliteracy resources and beneficial digital activities for children’s use at home. Based on ourfindings, while reading apps are helpful in cultivating children’s reading habits, the useof these digital devices at home may have no significant impact on children’s decoding orreading comprehension skills. This may suggest that other literacy activities should still beincluded in home assignments to support bilingual children, rather than relying on digitalresources to work wonders.Finally, regarding television exposure, our findings suggest that a balanced approachis necessary for early bilingual learners. Considering the positive impacts of controlled ex-posure on children’s receptive vocabulary, parents could intentionally select child-directedprograms that are designed to be age-appropriate and educational. Also, it is crucial toemphasize the importance of limiting overall screen time, as excessive exposure may negatepotential 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. andF.Z.; writing—review and editing, G.L.; visualization, G.L., Z.M. and F.Z; supervision, G.L.; projectadministration, G.L.; funding acquisition, G.L. All authors have read and agreed to the publishedversion of the manuscript.Funding: This research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada(SSHRC) grant number [432-2018-0070].Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the BehavioralResearch 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 forthis study.Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in thearticle. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.ReferencesAlamri, M., Alrehaili, M., Albariqi, W., Alshehri, M., Alotaibi, K., & Algethami, A. (2023). Relationship between speech delay andsmart media in children: A systematic review. Cureus, 15(9), e45396. [CrossRef]Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. [CrossRef]Auxier, B., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., & Turner, E. (2020, July 28). Parenting children in the age of screens. Pew Research Center.Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/ (accessed on 1June 2024).Babayig˘it, S., Hitch, G. J., Kandru-Pothineni, S., Clarke, A., & Warmington, M. (2022). Vocabulary limitations undermine bilingualchildren’s reading comprehension despite bilingual cognitive strengths. Reading and Writing, 35(7), 1651–1673. [CrossRef]Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal ofNeurolinguistics, 21(6), 522–538. [CrossRef]Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525–531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 18 of 20Blankson, A. N., O’Brien, M., Leerkes, E. M., Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2015). Do hours spent viewing television at ages 3 and 4predict vocabulary and executive functioning at age 5? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(2), 264–289. [CrossRef]Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.),APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological(pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. [CrossRef]Buckingham, D. (2003). Media literacies. In Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture (pp. 39–45). Polity.Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. TheModern Language Journal, 93, 741–753. [CrossRef]Cycyk, L. M., & Anda, S. D. (2021). Media exposure and language experience: Examining associations from home observations inMexican immigrant families in the US. Infant Behavior and Development, 63, 101554. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Quiroz, B. G., & Shin, J.-Y. (2012). Home and community factors influencing bilingual children’s ethnic languagevocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 541–565. [CrossRef]Dore, R. A., Logan, J., Lin, T.-J., Purtell, K. M., & Justice, L. (2020a). Characteristics of children’s media use and gains in language andliteracy skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2224. [CrossRef]Dore, R. A., Logan, J., Lin, T.-J., Purtell, K. M., & Justice, L. M. (2020b). Associations between children’s media use and language andliteracy skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1734. [CrossRef]Dunn, L. M. (2019). Peabody picture vocabulary test (5th ed.). Pearson.Elias, N., & Abdulaev, N. (2022). Immigrant children and media. In The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents, and media(2nd ed., pp. 363–370). Routledge.Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their influence on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 54(2), 65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Fitzpatrick, C., Binet, M.-A., Cristini, E., Almeida, M. L., Bégin, M., & Frizzo, G. B. (2023). Reducing harm and promoting positivemedia 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, 36(1), 19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74–101. [CrossRef]Gath, M., McNeill, B., & Gillon, G. (2023). Preschoolers’ screen time and reduced opportunities for quality interaction: Associationswith language development and parent-child closeness. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 5, 100140. [CrossRef]Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. [CrossRef]Hoikkala, T., Rahkonen, O., Tigerstedt, C., & Tuormaa, J. (1987). Wait a minute, Mr Postman!-Some critical remarks on Neil Postman’schildhood theory. Acta Sociologica, 30(1), 87–99. [CrossRef]Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. [CrossRef]Hudon, T. M., Fennell, C. T., & Hoftyzer, M. (2013). Quality not quantity of television viewing is associated with bilingual toddlers’vocabulary scores. Infant Behavior & Development, 36(2), 245–254. [CrossRef]Jing, M., Ye, T., Kirkorian, H. L., & Mares, M. (2023). Screen media exposure and young children’s vocabulary learning and development:A meta-analysis. Child Development, 94(5), 1398–1418. [CrossRef]Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and useof mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014). Kaufman test of educational achievement (3rd ed.). Pearson.Khan, K. S., Purtell, K. M., Logan, J., Ansari, A., & Justice, L. M. (2017). Association between television viewing and parent-childreading in the early home environment. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 38(7), 521–527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Korat, O., & Falk, Y. (2019). Ten years after: Revisiting the question of e-book quality as early language and literacy support. Journal ofEarly Childhood Literacy, 19(2), 206–223. [CrossRef]Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., & Simpson, A. (2017). The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognitionand behaviour: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 44, 19–58. [CrossRef]Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.Kucirkova, N., & Flewitt, R. (2022). Understanding parents’ conflicting beliefs about children’s digital book reading. Journal of EarlyChildhood Literacy, 22(2), 157–181. [CrossRef]Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young children’s screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 11–17. [CrossRef]Li, G., Mei, Z., & Zhen, F. (2024). Friend or foe? A mixed-methods study on the impact of digital device use on Chinese–Canadianchildren’s heritage language learning. Digital Studies in Language and Literature, 1(1–2), 55–84. [CrossRef]Li, G., Sun, Z., Zhen, F., Ji, X. R., & Gunderson, L. (2022). Home literacy environment and Chinese-Canadian first graders’ bilingualvocabulary profiles: A mixed methods analysis. Sustainability, 14(23), 15788. [CrossRef]Li, G., Zhen, F., Lin, Z., & Gunderson, L. (2023). Bilingual home literacy experiences and early biliteracy development amongChinese–Canadian first graders. Education Sciences, 13(8), 808. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 19 of 20Lin, L. Y., Cherng, R. J., Chen, Y. J., Chen, Y. J., & Yang, H. M. (2015). Effects of television exposure on developmental skills amongyoung children. Infant Behavior & Development, 38, 20–26. [CrossRef]Masur, E. F., Flynn, V., & Olson, J. (2016). Infants’ background television exposure during play: Negative relations to the quantity andquality of mothers’ speech and infants’ vocabulary acquisition. First Language, 36(2), 109–123. [CrossRef]Moursad, F., Utriainen, S., Lamminpää, R., & Katri, V.-J. (2023). Parents’ expectations regarding media use among children up to 6years of age. Women and Children Nursing, 1(1), 2–8. [CrossRef]Neuman, S. B. (1991). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. Greenwood Publishing Group.Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 231–239.[CrossRef]Okwir, S., & Nuur, C. (2022). 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, 12(2), 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. (2020). Digital devices use and language skills in children between 8 and 36 month. Brain Sciences, 10(9), 656. [CrossRef][PubMed]Papastefanou, T., Marinis, T., & Powell, D. (2021). Development of reading comprehension in bilingual and monolingual children—Effects of language exposure. Languages, 6(4), 166. [CrossRef]Paradis, J., Emmerzael, K., & Duncan, T. S. (2010). Assessment of English language learners: Using parent report on first languagedevelopment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 474–497. [CrossRef]Peters, E., & Webb, S. (2018). incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing l2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 40(3), 551–577. [CrossRef]Postman, N. (1985). Chapter X: Media and Technology as Educators. Teachers College Record, 86(5), 183–200. [CrossRef]Reich, S. M., Yau, J. C., Xu, Y., Muskat, T., Uvalle, J., & Cannata, D. (2019). Digital or print? A comparison of preschoolers’comprehension, vocabulary, and engagement from a print book and an e-book. AERA Open, 5(3), 2332858419878389. [CrossRef]Rose, E., Lehrl, S., Ebert, S., & Weinert, S. (2018). Long-term relations between children’s language, the home literacy environment, andsocioemotional development from ages 3 to 8. Early Education and Development, 29(3), 342–356. [CrossRef]Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112. [CrossRef]Saleem, A. N., Noori, N. M., & Ozdamli, F. (2022). Gamification applications in e-learning: A literature review. Technology, Knowledgeand Learning, 27(1), 139–159. [CrossRef]Segers, E., & Kleemans, T. (2020). The impact of the digital home environment on kindergartners’ language and early literacy. Frontiersin Psychology, 11, 538584. [CrossRef]Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabularyand reading. Child Development, 85(4), 1552–1568. [CrossRef]Skwarchuk, S. L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Formal and informal home learning activities in relation to children’s earlynumeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 63–84.[CrossRef] [PubMed]Sonnenschein, S., Stites, M. L., Gursoy, H., & Khorsandian, J. (2023). Elementary-school students’ use of digital devices at home tosupport learning pre- and post-COVID-19. Education Sciences, 13(2), 117. [CrossRef]Statistics Canada. (2022, August 17). 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. 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. (2023). COVID-19 and bilingual children’s home language environment: Digital media, socioeconomicstatus, and language status. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1115108. [CrossRef]Sun, H., & Yin, B. (2020). Multimedia input and bilingual children’s language learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2023. [CrossRef]Taylor, G., Monaghan, P., & Westermann, G. (2018). Investigating the association between children’s screen media exposure andvocabulary size in the UK. Journal of Children and Media, 12(1), 51–65. [CrossRef]Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook reading. Thefuture of literacy in a changing world, 1987, 111–130.Teng, (Mark) Feng. (2022). Vocabulary learning through videos: Captions, advance-organizer strategy, and their combination. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 35(3), 518–550. [CrossRef]Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Tomopoulos, S., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S., Fierman, A. H., Brockmeyer, C., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2010). Infant media exposure andtoddler development. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(12), 1105–1111.Wong, K. M., Flynn, R. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2021). L2 vocabulary learning from educational media: The influence of screen-basedscaffolds on the incidental–intentional continuum. TESOL Journal, 12(4), e641. [CrossRef]Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 48 20 of 20Zhao, S., & Flewitt, R. (2020). Young Chinese immigrant children’s language and literacy practices on social media: A translanguagingperspective. Language and Education, 34(3), 267–285. [CrossRef]Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Associations between media viewing and language development inchildren under age 2 years. The Journal of Pediatrics, 15, 364–368. [CrossRef]Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
digital devices use
computer devices
television exposure
English language development
bilingual language learners
mixed methods
Digital Devices Use and Chinese-Canadian First Graders’ Early English Literacy Development: A Mixed-Methods Study
Text