












































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2025, Vol. 47(1), pp. 4–23 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.174 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

Research Article    

 
 

 

CONTACT Emily Cobb, Doctoral Student, Literacy, Language and Culture Program, Clemson University, Clemson, 
SC; email eccob@g.cleemson.edu. 
 

Very Mindful, Very Multimodal: Digital Texts 
Affordances for Emergent Readers 
 
Emily C. Cobb 
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

 
ABSTRACT 

The increasing presence of digital texts in early literacy education demands a deeper 
understanding of how they shape reading comprehension and vocabulary 
acquisition. This scoping review explores the most current research on digital 
literacy, emphasizing how early readers engage with digital texts and what this 
means for curriculum development. With the rise of one-to-one digital devices in 
classrooms, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, students are reading and 
interacting with texts in new ways, yet research on early literacy has often lagged 
behind these technological shifts. Digital texts are more than digitized print; they 
introduce multimodal features that require different cognitive processes and 
instructional approaches. Findings suggest that high-quality, narrative-driven digital 
texts with interactive affordances can enhance meaning-making, comprehension, 
and vocabulary learning, especially when paired with thoughtful instructional 
scaffolds. However, gaps remain in understanding how students transfer literacy 
skills between print and digital formats and how educators can best integrate digital 
literacy instruction into early reading curricula. This review underscores the need for 
continued research into the evolving role of digital texts in literacy development, 
ensuring that instructional practices keep pace with the realities of 21st-century 
reading environments.  

KEYWORDS 

digital literacy; 
digital texts; early 
literacy; reading 
comprehension; 
vocabulary 
acquisition  

 
hile there is pivotal research in the areas of digital literacies, digital texts and 
storytelling, with adolescent literacy (Boffone & Jerasa, 2021; Curwood, 2011; Green, 
2021; Jerasa & Boffone, 2021; McBride, 2023; McDaniel, 2024; Thomas & 

Stornaiuolo, 2016, 2019), there is a need for more understanding and research on these topics that 
can lead to pedagogical implications for early literacy. Specifically, how the rise of digital devices 
and digital texts, or their potential uses in early reading instruction, could shift reading instruction 
for emergent readers beyond print-dominant traditions. If contextualized by the COVID-19 
pandemic that widely caused instructional shifts to e-learning with digital devices, tools, and texts 
(Yan et al., 2021), digital texts in the classroom since the pandemic shift may vary from simply 
once- printed or traditional texts that have been digitized, to an entirely new and developing 
category of text in its own right (Paran & Stadler-Heer, 2022). When looking at the current 
research, what defines digital texts, how the components of those texts influence early reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition, it is necessary to understand what these studies offer 
as far as implications or recommendations for practice. Further analysis of research to practice is 
crucial when considering the magnitude these digital elements hold in modern life regarding 
reading and consuming information.  

From infancy, children are much more likely to be in front of screens interacting with 
digital material than they were ten to twenty years ago (Konca, 2021; Mannell et al., 2024), which 

W 

mailto:eccob@g.cleemson.edu


Cobb  5 
 

   
 

would show a critical need to include digital literacy components that respond to the growing need 
for understanding and engagement with digital texts and screen reading (Coulanges et al., 2024). 
We must also consider the “digital native” fallacy that may posit young children as such but does 
not consider the layers of context that define a child’s familiarity with digital devices or tools 
(Bittman et al., 2011; Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). This paper argues that while some students 
may be comfortable, familiar, and adept with digital technology, this may not translate to reading 
and learning with digital texts, as these texts require specific skills to help students monitor and be 
strategic with the content they are engaging with.  Exploring the most current research regarding 
digital texts and literacy components in early literacy, the goals here are to glean what affordances 
digital texts may have for early readers and what this means for early reading instruction.   
 
Digital Literacy and Digital Texts in Literacy Theories 
To frame these goals, digital literacy will refer to the skills and ways of thinking needed to read, 
write, and communicate with digital components, tools, and texts and in digital spaces (Gilster, 
1997; Secker, 2018; Spires et al., 2019), and this definition is constantly developing as technology 
does and can encompass other literacy subsets (Nichols & Stornaiuolo, 2019). Here, digital literacy 
is both how young children engage with and use the technology, but also how to make meaning 
with the content with technology. Spires et al. (2019) view digital literacy through three buckets 
of locating and digesting content, creating content, and sharing content. These practices go beyond 
just skill-based learning with digital texts, but call for young readers to make complex, 
individualized decisions with texts that go beyond what may occur with print-based texts or in-
school literacies (Marsh, 2016; Marsh et al., 2018; Neumann et al., 2017). With the continued rise 
and evolution of technology, the need for pedagogical decisions that support digital literacy 
components is momentous to address the growing number of ways that children interact with 
information on screens and online. With the ever-changing nature of what is digital, young readers 
need additional support to engage with technology, how to engage with it for different purposes, 
and how to make use of the tools that digital texts afford.    

Digital literacy falls into the new mediums and new approaches called for by multiliteracies 
and new literacies (New London Group, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; 2009; Gee, 2002). 
Multiliteracies asks educators to consider what the digital world will demand of students as they 
read, write, and communicate through multiple modes (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kress, 2000b; 
Curiel, 2023) and across multimedia technologies that push traditional notions or definitions of 
literacy (Swift, 2023). New literacies build upon the multiliteracies by arguing that literacy is not 
just encapsulated by in-school practices as students are making meaning, sharing language, and 
communicating for many purposes (Alvermann & Moore, 2011; McCarthey et al., 2020); the name 
itself implies literacies are multiple and renewing (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Leu, 2017). As a 
facet of these theories, digital literacy calls for literacy education in the age of globalization, 
multimedia, and technology to equip students with literacy tools and skills to engage in digital 
spaces critically and pragmatically (Alvermann, 2002; Gainer, 2012; Flewitt et al., 2015; Harrison, 
2017). Digital literacy also requires explicit instruction and pedagogical decisions that frame 
digital learning that does not equate prevalence of the technology with equal access or 
understanding as digital devices and tools are not equally accessible to all students (Ng, 2012; 
Rowsell et al., 2017; Hadad et al., 2023). In digital environments, where students would be 
engaging with texts, students will interact with an amazing amount of content. Content that is 
inherently multimodal and requires alternative approaches for reading, writing, and 
communicating (Kress & Jewitt, 2003; Yellend, 2016).  Students have to be equipped to know 



6 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

how to engage pragmatically and effectively for their own goals and to make meaning in those 
spaces. Beyond those technicalities of engaging with digital content, digital literacy encompasses 
students engaging with content and tools that allows them to take more ownership of their learning 
(Li, 2017), and the sociocultural aspects of digital literacy includes this authenticity and ownership 
versus what is afforded by printed or offline texts or ways of creating (New London Group, 1996; 
Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Gee, 2012; Neumann et al., 2017; Meoded Karabanov & Aram, 2024). 
With these theoretical framings in mind, it is important to define digital texts in their current 
reiterations to better understand their potentialities in early literacy instruction.   
 
What are Digital Texts Now 

Digital literacy can encompass all the means of action with digital tools, devices, components, etc., 
but when considering the research of digital literacy and digital texts, early literacy may lack the 
depth of scholarship found with the lens of adolescent literacy. Also, what a digital text is continues 
to evolve. From CD-ROMs to educational media on television, then the dawn of accessible internet 
in schools, which brought ebooks, websites, video sites, and apps, digital texts shifted alongside 
their technology. Digital texts may also include texts that were once print and are static screen 
reading. The evolution of these texts is perpetual, and the following review of literature aims to 
look at what scholarship says about what digital texts are right now while also considering reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. 
 
Digital Texts are Different 
Digital literacy engages students in spaces that are inherently multimodal. This inherent nature of 
multimodal reading can be an opportunity for educators to reconfigure early reading instruction, 
one that acknowledges the growing presence of multimodal texts students engage with in the 21st 
century and also maintaining a strong focus on foundational print-based skills (Crane-Deklerk, 
2020; McKee & Heydon, 2015; Yellend, 2016). While the teaching of reading with print texts is 
not behind us, there is still a great need for instruction of digital reading skills to interact with and 
make meaning of digital texts For early readers, digital skills depend on the medium; just because 
young readers may be considered “digital natives” this does not mean that they automatically 
possess the digital skills necessary to comprehend digital texts (Bittman et al., 2011; Florit et al., 
2022; Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). Many more texts are now available to children with the 
availability of tablets and phones, where there is text on websites, apps, videos, streaming services, 
and social media. Therefore, the need for early literacy to encompass the teaching of digital texts 
is pertinent. One perspective is that multimodal, digital texts in early literacy could be approached 
from a storytelling lens (Kim & Hachey, 2021) where young children can both engage with and 
create stories simultaneously as they read and retell stories (Kelly, 2017, 2018; Kim, 2019). 
Similarly to the approach educators may take with print-text, such as picturebooks or other 
literature, this perspective extends to include the multimodality that pulls young readers into the 
storytelling to include more opportunities for students to make meaning.    

Digital texts, such as videos, storybook apps, and others pull in communication as an 
element of digital literacy. Multimodality in digital texts has the potential to deemphasize print 
text and language features for other modes of communication (Wang et al., 2019) which would 
expand opportunities for students to engage in storytelling that is important for emergent readers 
(Early et al., 2015). For example, while print picturebooks obviously are an integral part of early 
reading instruction, the affordances of multimodal texts, digital texts can extend imagery to video 
and even be malleable to the user so that young readers can make their own images to demonstrate 



Cobb  7 
 

   
 

meaning (Marsh et al., 2018; Oakley et al., 2020; Undheim, 2023). Considering the digital 
affordances of digital texts such as automatic animations of illustration, hotspots, navigation 
options, animation hotspots, further research is needed to connect these affordances to literacy 
outcomes for emergent readers (Wang et al., 2019). The affordances of digital texts, even just 
through the lens of storytelling, give educators options to consider how digital texts can be included 
in early literacy instruction and for what purposes.   

 
Focusing In on Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Acquisition   
Digital texts include visual, auditory, and action modes and have multiple pathways for reading, 
which means more decision making while reading (Wang et al., 2019). Possibly complicating 
instruction use of digital texts is an ongoing battle of what underpins reading comprehension, how 
best to teach reading, and with what tools or texts. In the Simple View of Reading (SVR), Gough 
and Tunmer (1986), as cited by Kim (2023), suggest “reading comprehension is the product of 
decoding and language comprehension, in which both skills are necessary and not alone sufficient 
for readers to understand what they read” (p. 196). When engaging with digital texts, educators 
may consider how the multimodality of those texts may require instruction that engages young 
readers beyond phonics and decoding, like that of print-based texts, therefore placing different 
purposes on these texts. With the Active View of Reading (AVR), Duke and Cartwright (2021) 
expand SVR and incorporate more evidence on the development of reading comprehension. The 
AVR approach emphasizes decoding and language comprehension, but gives more context with 
the difficulties relating to comprehension. AVR acknowledges that difficulties with reading 
comprehension can extend beyond the inability to decode, as content knowledge plays a key role 
in comprehension alongside vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, the AVR suggests that decoding 
and comprehension skills cannot be completely siloed; they often overlap. With this framing, the 
multimodal nature of digital texts may necessitate additional or specialized instruction as digital 
texts include multimedia components, intertextuality, and hypertextuality, which means students 
are reading beyond just what is on the page, top to bottom. To avoid a limiting perspective on how 
digital texts can be used in early reading instruction, it is worth exploring how digital texts may 
aid in the complexities facing educators as they guide students through language learning and 
reading comprehension.   

With this in mind, because of the variance and complexity of digital texts, a perspective to 
approach reading comprehension with digital texts may align with Moje (2018): “[R]eading is a 
complex, multidimensional cognitive process in and mediated by social and cultural practices” (p. 
2). Also, Compton-Lily et al. (2020) argue that reading comprehension is complex and, therefore, 
requires complex solutions. Scarborough (2001) suggests that the skills that underlie word 
recognition and language comprehension are a braided rope that tightens as young readers develop. 
Zooming in on each of those strands and elevating pedagogical decisions around texts that elevate 
meaning conversation and engagement with texts (Cabell & Zucker, 2024), opens the possibility 
that digital texts could aid in instructional decisions that help strengthen those strands for students 
as there can be more individualized instruction, text selection, and digital tools as aids.   
 Reading comprehension requires dynamic thinking and critical, active engagement in the 
text (Shanahan, 2005), which digital texts may afford with their multimodal features that can be 
leveraged for early readers. While reading difficulties for young readers goes beyond word 
recognition and comprehension, reading comprehension, being able to understand, retell, and make 
critical meaning of what is being read, is paramount as students progress through reading 
development with more and more complex texts. New Literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011) 



8 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

gives further perspective on the affordances of digital texts as digital tools allow for meaning-
making pathways through interactivity, more choice with the text, and ways to transact between 
texts. All alluding to the hope that digital texts and reading comprehension can actually be a 
hopeful piece to the digital age, considering the breadth of choices, tools, and availability to 
students.  
 
A Note About Vocabulary Acquisition  

The more vocabulary students know and can recognize, the more complicated texts they can 
read and understand. Educators know, as research has found, explicit and implicit vocabulary 
instruction is important and that students need in-depth and repeated interactions with word 
lists or crucial words in order to cement them into meaning as vocabulary instruction should 
also be focused on engaging students with analytic thinking about word meaning and teaching 
an emphasis on the relationship between word means (Shanahan, 2005). In early literacy, as 
children are cognitively gathering and soaking up as many words as they are surrounded with, 
and building off the focus on comprehension, building sight vocabulary is an essential skill 
for recalling words and text-reading (Ehri, 2013). As students are engaged with, even playing 
with, digital texts or apps, they may be naturally exposed to more vocabulary (Masters et al., 
2023), whereas many digital texts have vocabulary tools embedded in them.    

However, vocabulary is not just learned by hearing it but also by reading it in print. 
With digital texts with additional tools for young readers, there needs to be a broader 
understanding if these tools aid in vocabulary acquisition. One consideration is the 
availability of digital texts or storybook apps that include narration, since read-alouds are 
important for vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation (Ehri, 2013). From an instructional 
perspective, vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension should not be in isolation as 
teaching the meaning of words in text supports comprehension, but the most important thing 
is teaching students how to approach a word they do not know on their own. This could be an 
area where digital texts are superior to print text considering the tools that those texts may 
have to aid with students working to discover word meanings. With digital texts, students may 
be engaged in more active processing of vocabulary (Orcutt et al., 2023), and digital texts 
may have more affordability to aid students in working with unknown words. Considering 
that vocabulary acquisition and fluency are the bridge makers between word recognition and 
comprehension (Cartwright, 2021), there are exciting pedagogical possibilities regarding how 
digital texts could shift students’ scope and breadth of textual availability.   
 
Locating Current Research on Digital Texts, Early Literacy, and Practice 
To locate the most relevant research and identify gaps in research regarding digital texts in early 
literacy, this paper draws on a synthesis of research collected through a scoping review. The 
purpose of the scoping review is to locate the most recent research on a topic, the key themes from 
a synthesis of that research, and what gaps in research remain on the topic (Peters et al., 2020). To 
guide the search, the following question grounded this review: How are emergent readers’ 
engagement with digital texts shaping or changing what we know about practice regarding 
reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition?  
 
Scoping Review Searches and Results 
To begin the search, an inclusion/exclusion criterion was determined to generate and narrow the 
most relevant research, and search terms were generated to conduct a thorough search of at least 



Cobb  9 
 

   
 

one database (Peters et al., 2020) (see Tables 1 and 2). These results were then narrowed through 
screenings to ensure that each article met the review’s requirements and goals before a thematic 
analysis was conducted to extract data using inductive coding (Peters et al., 2020; Saldana, 2016) 
(see Figure 1).  
 
Table 1: Inclusion Criterion for Scoping Review  

Date of publication January 2019 – May 2024 

Language English 

Publication type Peer-reviewed journal articles, empirical research articles, and practitioner articles 

Location context U.S. public schools 

Grade level context Early literacy education, preschool, elementary education 

Digital literacy Must contain research/data regarding digital texts in regards to reading comprehension 
and/or vocabulary acquisition 

Quality Must be a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal and provide 
recommendations for practice or curriculum implications 

 
The inclusion criteria above helped guide the search during the review as these limited the 

selected studies to only include the most recent, relevant research regarding the topic. Articles 
were only selected if they fell within the outlined “date of publication” period above. This was 
important to the review as part of the purpose hinges on looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic 
digital shift may have influenced or been influenced by the increased use of digital devices, tools, 
and texts. Another important criteria was the selection of U.S.-only studies that further narrows 
possible instructional implications for educators.  The results using these aforementioned criteria 
are outlined below.   

 
Table 2: Search Terms and Results from Scoping Review 

Searches Total Results 
By Search Term 96 

 Digital texts + comprehension + early literacy 57 
 Digital texts + vocabulary + early literacy 39 

Screening Results  
Abstract Screening 45 
Full Screening  11 

 
The search terms above initially yielded 96 results. After further screening, utilizing the 

inclusion criteria, eleven studies were selected that gave insight on digital texts, reading 
comprehension, vocabulary acquisition in an early literacy context with curriculum implications. 
Most studies were excluded because of the publication date criteria and location context being set 
to only U.S. public, K–12 schools, outlined in Table 1.    

 



10 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

Scoping Review Findings 

From the literature reviewed, several themes emerged. These themes all strongly correlated 
to the importance of multimodality and transferring modalities across texts with digital texts 
in the early grades. As research studies were only included in this review if explicit 
recommendations or implications for practice grounded their work, outlined below are the 
major themes from the research and approaches for educators to consider with digital texts in 
the classroom (see Figure 1). These themes are expanded upon in the following section.   

 
Figure 1: Results from Scoping Review 
 

Research Question 
How are emergent readers’ engagement with digital texts shaping or changing what we know about practice 

regarding reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition? 
Themes Across Studies  Connections to RQ 

Digital Texts and Storytelling 

(Brown et al., 2022; Cloonan et al., 2020; 
Florit et al., 2022; Gleason & Martinez, 2024; 

Neuman et al., 2019; Reich et al., 2019) 

 

Digital Texts 
 More tools and modes for meaning making 

for beginning readers 
 More student choice and agency with texts 
 More availability for higher-quality texts 
 Ways to strengthen engagement for early 

readers 
 Amount of reading content and genre 

alongside intertextuality increased versus 
print texts 

Digital Texts & Reading Comprehension 
 More engagement with digital texts 
 Increase self-regulation with reading digital 

texts 
 More rereading, retelling, and language 

options available 

Digital Texts & Vocabulary Acquisition  
 More exposure to vocabulary and 

vocabulary with visual aids 
 In the moment definitions with digital tools 
 More layered or available context while 

reading  

Visual Representations 

(Brown et al., 2022; Christ et al., 2019; 
Gleason & Martinez, 2024; Kontovourki & 

Siegel, 2022; Neuman et al., 2019; Neuman et 
al., 2019; Serafini et al., 2020) 

 

Multimodal Affordances 

(Brown et al., 2022; Bruner & Hutchinson, 
2023; Christ et al., 2019; Hoch et al., 2019; 

Reich et al., 2019) 

 

 
Digital Texts and the Affordances for Emergent Readers 

To return to the purpose of this paper, below the studies are examined to see what their 
research indicates about how current forms of digital texts may shape or transform early 
literacy components such as reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. Provided 
below is that research, extracted from the scoping review, paired with some instructional 
approaches for educators to consider when incorporating digital texts into their classroom.   
 
Storytelling Goes Digital 
What was clear across the results was the connection between narrative structures, narratives, 
or storytelling aspects on digital apps. This paired with collaboration between peers either in 
buddy reading or creating their own retellings of a text using digital tools helped students 
make meaning through connections with others and by students becoming creative 
communicators (Gleason & Martinez, 2024). When using digital texts or tools to read or create 



Cobb  11 
 

   
 

stories in the classroom, storytelling may take visual forms, through images created with 
digital tools, that is an important early literacy skill for emergent readers as they make 
meaning and examine context (Gleason & Martinez, 2024). This is also clear in Brown et al.’s 
(2022) work where they found students took up different digital tools, manipulating them, to 
show their understanding of the stories in deep contextual ways such as making connections 
to real-world experiences alongside emotion, language, and culture. Digital texts, because of 
their intertextuality and hypertextuality, may give students more opportunities to explore 
stories through more perspectives or build upon perspective through their own retellings. The 
tools present in digital texts can be used as scaffolds for meaning making, and this is 
especially important for emergent multilingual students who may need more support beyond 
print-text (Gleason & Martinex, 2024).   

Narrative structure appears to be important for early literacy and digital texts. 
Narrative structure capitalizes aids in comprehension (Brown et al., 2019; Neuman et al., 
2019) and as young readers recreate or retell stories as a means of storytelling, students may 
expand beyond the “traditional repertoires of print-based text to include visual media and 
popular digital images” (Gleason & Martinez, 2024, p. 58). These studies showed that with 
digital texts, when selected from options that are narrative in style and give students multiple 
ways to respond to the text, students are both reading and writing through retelling. As 
retelling is a seminal assessment of reading comprehension, it is important to consider how 
digital texts or tools can be used for students to retell what they read using different 
modalities, and as Brown et al. (2022) found, it could have positive benefits for students such 
as multilingual students. As educators are considering how to use digital texts around 
storytelling, narrative retelling with imagery could be a strategy that piques interest with 
young readers, gives them agency, and supports their reading comprehension through deeper 
contextual narration where young readers can infuse responses to text with their own identity 
and pull from various aspects of their language repertoire.   

The types or genres of digital texts seem to differ regarding students’ engagement with 
the text and this affects comprehension (Florit et al., 2022). As described here, narrative 
stories had the most positive correlation between reading the digital story and improved 
reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. Children may prefer reading narrative or 
descriptive texts on screen (visual; Florit et al., 2022). This may not be surprising considering 
how much digital content is consumed by young and old alike in our current digital age. But, 
it is important to remember that it is not just the visual as narration plays a vital role (Reich 
et al., 2019). Narration is a key component of digital texts and could be an important 
pedagogical tool in the classroom when considering how it may be used beyond the typical 
teacher-whole group read-aloud. Digital texts that are narrative in genre, and include narration 
options, could provide teachers with increased opportunities for small-group or individualized 
read-aloud time that is more tailored to students’ needs. To approach small group instruction 
around a text, a renewed approach to literature circles could help educators approach literature 
with multimodal texts and multimodal responses to text (Cloonan et al., 2019). Combined 
with the multimodal features of quality digital texts, and the extended ways young readers 
can making meaning or show understanding, literature circles where students can discuss 
texts, collaborate to explore the text, and take on roles within their groups to create digital 
representations of their reading could further support students’ comprehension and 
vocabulary acquisition with digital texts rather than just focusing on individual reading with 
the text.   
 



12 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

The Importance of Visual Aids 
Digital texts’ affordances regarding visual aids and representations may help emergent 
readers’ reading comprehension (Foritt et al., 2022; Neuman et al., 2019). As early readers 
are engaging with text, with listening, visual aids as part of the storytelling or options for 
visuals could lead to increased understanding of a text. It is important to note, however, that 
early readers may process digital texts superficially without teacher scaffolding or mediation 
and digital reading may require a higher cognitive load (Florit et al., 2022). Digital texts may 
also aid in listening comprehension and vocabulary learning: “when stories were accompanied 
by visual or other nonverbal information, the vocabulary words were retained better than if 
conveyed alone” (Neuman et al., 2019, p. 33)  Neuman et al. (2019) refers to the process of 
dual coding as early readers process information in tandem but on different channels, one 
verbal and one nonverbal (such as images). Digital texts and media like in videos would be 
an example of this process and is important as more and more text is tied to video imagery. 
While picturebooks include visuals, Gleason and Martinez (2024) argue that digital texts can 
go beyond the static print-based text and visual text. Cloonan et al. (2020) suggest a step 
further for educators to have students also engage in responding to texts multimodally using 
the digital tools that may accompany the texts to pull in various modes of communication to 
represent meaning like language tools, digital imagery, and collaborative retellings.   

As referenced, the amount of time that children are in front of screens has increased 
significantly (because of mobile devices and other digital devices), meaning that children are 
engaging with digital content and texts outside of school, and educators could lean into this 
new reality (Neuman et al., 2019). Looking at educational media on streaming services, 
Neuman et al. (2019) found that quality educational media could be important to promote oral 
vocabulary knowledge in the early stages of language growth, and a large majority of that 
education media includes vocabulary scenes to support students in-the-moment vocabulary 
work. The visual component of this educational media is part of the appeal and may be part 
of the way forward when thinking about how young children may gain vocabulary skills 
alongside other literacy skills. Connecting back to school settings, Neuman et al. (2019) found 
that in order for the educational media to be the most effective, it had to be engaging enough 
to hold the child’s attention, which may inform educators in their selection of digital texts for 
the classroom. The higher quality of images or visuals paired with the more engaging story, 
could lead to higher reading comprehension results.   

Also, considering how students may use digital tools, such as images and visuals, to 
make meaning and build vocabulary, Brown et al. (2022)’s work with visual-text composition 
relates to Bruner and Hutchinson’s (2023) work with teaching the actual navigation of digital 
texts and tools alongside the comprehension of those texts. They echo the importance of 
engagement with digital texts and books. Eutsler and Trotter (2020) found that children who 
read the digital books were more likely to want to read another book and children showed 
slightly more attention while reading the digital text (more engaged and read for longer; 
Eutsler & Trotter, 2020) which may be attributed to the visual nature of digital text.   

Digital texts include visual modes and auditory and action modes, and have multiple 
pathways for reading, which means more decision making while reading (Christ et al., 2019) 
which research from above indicates more engagement with the text. So, when considering 
how to select digital texts and digital books, high interactivity, affordances that transform 
children’s meaning making as compared to paper books, intuitive developmental 
appropriateness, and good narrative/illustrative quality are all elements to consider (Christ et 



Cobb  13 
 

   
 

al., 2019). Also, alongside the narrative/illustrative qualities, the digital tools or elements of 
digital texts or books can also aid in comprehension when pre-taught as word hotspots led to 
better inference/critical thinking outcomes which could lead to higher vocabulary acquisition 
(Christ et al., 2019).   

Educators also need ways to assess early readers’ use of the multimodal resources 
available with digital texts. While the research indicates that visual aids are an important 
aspect of digital texts in aiding with reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition, 
understanding how individual students respond to those resources is important as students 
will be engaging with texts that go beyond language-dominant texts. In their work studying 
young learners’ multimodal sign-making, Kontovourki and Siegel (2022) found that print-
dominant, fixed concepts of understanding texts, and who or what guides that understanding, 
is complicated by the multimodal responses students can make around and with digital texts. 
As good, quality digital texts may go beyond the capacities of print-based texts, it is important 
to consider that emergent readers meaning making of those texts may not fit into text-centered 
or print-based meaning making (Kontovourki & Siegel, 2022), and that opens the door for 
more opportunities for young readers to express their understanding of a digital text through 
simultaneously engaging with and making texts.   

Also, just as digital texts may be used and approached in different ways than print-
texts, neither abandoned for the other, students’ engagement with these texts deserves a 
different type of assessment. Serafini et al. (2020) provide such a protocol for assessment to 
assist educators in analyzing students’ reading decisions with multimodal texts. This protocol 
includes specific categories of assessment that are specific to multimodal texts, such as digital 
texts, like whether students are focusing on written text, visual images, or design features 
(Serafini et al., 2020, p. 290). As previous studies have indicated the need for educators to 
shift their monitoring of students engaged with digital texts, this may give them a protocol to 
help guide students as they make decisions with digital tools embedded in digital texts.  

  
Multimodality is Key 
Multimodality really is the heartbeat of quality digital texts, and the multimodal affordances 
of digital texts must be harnessed for different purposes than how educators may approach 
instruction print texts. Reich et al. (2019) looked at how electronic reading compares to print 
reading and found that it depends on the text and with the students’ understanding of using 
the digital device or app. As previously discussed, the multimodality of interactive digital 
texts may support emergent readers’ comprehension outcomes (Christ et al., 2019). Finding 
that students had a layered use of modalities, each child had a different approach to which 
multimodal features they used or did not use (Reich et al., 2019). While print-text features 
may be pre-taught, this further suggests that educators should scaffold the learning of an app 
or a digital text with its modalities as without these scaffolds students’ reading comprehension 
may actually be hindered (Christ et al., 2019). With so many more texts now available to 
children, text on websites, videos, and other apps, how to navigate those multimodal texts has 
to be part of the pedagogical approach with digital texts. Digital devices with storybook apps 
allow for books that can be read without a mediator, but that does not erase the need for a 
teacher mediator or scaffolding, and while the “Read-to-Me” feature or similar is important, 
and a great aspect of digital text, Reich et al. (2019) found that there needs to be a greater 
discussion about why teacher mediator is still key even for digital texts that include teaching 
elements. With such features, students can engage with apps or digital texts that may not be 



14 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

relevant to the story without proper scaffolding with how to engage with the text and utilize 
its multimodal tools pragmatically (Reich et al., 2019). While digital texts may include more 
ways for early readers to engage with a text, with many great tools available, there is still the 
need for educators to scaffold the text and help students navigate it while they read. This may 
give educators an opportunity to consider when digital texts may be more appropriate or not 
for instruction. Educators can consider the need for individualized reading opportunities, and 
the affordances digital texts can have for students in this capacity, versus times of whole-
group, direct instruction with print-texts.   

Brown et al.’s (2022) work with emergent multilingual students and digital texts and 
tools shows, again, how digital texts can be used as part of good-accommodation practice in 
the classroom. As the U.S. has a growing multilingual population, Brown et al.’s (2022) 
suggest that educators consider how translanguaging as a multimodal practice could be 
relevant with digital texts. Multilingual students’ reading comprehension is often assessed in 
ways that does not account for their full linguistic repertoire whereas digital texts and tools 
can allow for a wider breadth of multimodal reading and composition. Considering reading 
comprehension affordances of digital tools, multimodal interactions promoted stronger 
meaning-making experiences, and digital tools help with independent decision making. Tools 
such as text editor functions, speech bubbles, and even emojis as a semiotic resource all 
supported emergent bilingual students in the study (Brown et al., 2022). Again, educators can 
lean into what multimodality offers students through the use of digital texts and tools.   

Being able to navigate a digital text, which may require a higher cognitive load, 
requires specific reading strategies (Florit et al., 2022). Shimizu (2024) looked beyond 
narrative texts at static reading passages like those used in standardized testing where static 
digital texts are presented digitally but do not include any or the quality of interactive or 
multimodal elements as discussed so far. While this type of text goes against what the other 
studies have found regarding what types of digital texts result in higher reading 
comprehension outcomes, Shimizu’s (2024) findings are important for educators to consider 
as these are also the types/genres of digital texts students encounter, especially considering 
the reality of standardized testing in U.S. schools.  

Digital reading is multifaceted, with greater need to be strategic and critical, needing 
the ability to synthesize over many multimodal sources, being an active reader is heightened 
with digital texts (Bruner & Hutchinson, 2023; Shimizu, 2024). With paper to screen reading, 
as many of the texts that were previously read on paper, such as those used in standardized 
testing, are now digital. When educators consider how to scaffold students with digital 
reading, reading on screens may factor into that even if that means students are engaged with 
high quality, multimodal texts (Florit et al., 2022).  Navigating digital texts is as much a part 
of digital learning as knowing how to interact and create digitally (Bruner & Hutchinson, 
2023). This is key because digital texts require different skills of engagement than print-based 
texts. According to Bruner and Hutchinson (2023), digital texts are “intertextual, multimodal, 
immediate, abbreviated, informal, multi-authored, creative, interactive, hyperlinked and 
involve a diverse array of participants and languages” (p. 748). Because of their 
multimodality, Bruner and Hutchinson (2023) see approaching digital texts through a 
disciplinary lens using specific disciplinary literacy practices common across academic 
disciplines and acknowledge how features of digital texts are different from printed texts. 
This would indicate that each digital text would need to be approached with a specific purpose 



Cobb  15 
 

   
 

as each text has a different set of multimodal affordances and can be utilized for different 
learning goals (Hoch et al., 2019).   

Another consideration for educators when using digital texts in the classroom, like the 
storybook apps or high-quality digital texts, is the link between paired or small group reading 
and higher comprehension outcomes with digital texts. Christ et al. (2019) compared 
individual and buddy reading of app books, looking for comprehension outcomes 
(unprompted retelling, prompted retelling, inference/critical thinking responses, vocabulary-
meaning generation). They found app book affordances (or tools) linked directly to individual 
reading outcomes, appbooks with more hotspots on each page retelling outcomes were better, 
word hotspots led to higher inference/critical thinking scores. Using these tools connects back 
to what was suggested earlier about the multimodality of these texts and how that might 
influence reading comprehension or vocabulary acquisition (Brown et al., 2022). During 
buddy reading, emergent readers may have more tools to monitor their comprehension leading 
to better inference/critical thinking scores and showed promise for students’ subsequent 
individual reading because of more possibilities in modeling and scaffolding from the texts 
themselves, peers, and teachers (Christ et al., 2019). All substantiating the importance of 
collaboration and mediation, whether by a teacher or peer, when using digital texts in the 
classroom (Florit et al., 2022). Another approach for student collaboration around 
multimodal, digital texts is through inquiry projects that are based on teacher-guided, and 
student-generated, multimodal text sets (Hoch et al., 2019). A text set would allow for planned 
different uses of texts, beyond whole group instruction, different levels of texts, and different 
genres of multimodal texts.   

 
The Continued Reshaping of Digital Literacy and Digital Texts 
These studies help show that digital texts, through digital storytelling, their capacity of visual 
aids, and multimodal resources, have the potential to shape reading comprehension and 
vocabulary acquisition for emergent readers due to their affordances. The multimodal 
affordances of digital texts gives early readers even more support while reading as students 
can use tools in the moment to help with understanding both the text and the context. This is 
especially important for individual reading time, small group or “buddy” reading, and 
supporting multilingual students (Christ et al., 2019; Gleason & Martinez, 2024). As 
technology continues to shape how people read, and how young people are learning to read, 
literacy education will have to continue to adjust what digital literacy looks like considering 
that the digital skills needed to interact with digital texts are constantly evolving alongside 
those texts (Florit et al., 2022). The prevalence of digital devices, and as young people are 
engaged on them even before schooling, will require continued research to understand how 
literacy education will have to respond to this reality. One reality made clear through this 
review is that early literacy instruction will have to adjust to engage young children in reading 
skills that equip them to approach multiple modes of information while engaging with digital 
texts (Cloonan et al., 2020; Serafini et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019). Conversely, this points 
out a gap in the research as there are few current studies on the variety of digital books and 
what needs to be invested in classrooms as this may be a factor of the fast-paced nature of 
digital technology and tools. Research may not also account for the vast variability in school 
resources across the U.S. and the availability of such technology to teachers and classrooms. 
While it has been established here that digital book features may help comprehension like the 
digital tools that are available with the books, further research is needed to understand which 



16 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

digital tools and what are the best quality digital texts to pull from (Eutsler & Trotter, 2020). 
Christ et al. (2019) questions how much research or classroom practice has looked at the 
difference between the use of older style digital texts and newer app books further arguing 
that research is behind the technology. Most studies regarding digital texts have been done 
with secondary or college students which does not reflect the reality that digital texts can be 
in every classroom at every grade level.   
 
Digital Texts and the Changing of Early Reading 
As the research reviewed for this paper is limited, the changing of early reading instruction 
because of increased use or availability of digital texts is still in need for further research but 
there are clear points of consideration for pedagogy. As a baseline, it is important for 
educators to remember that students will come into the classroom with varying levels of 
experience with technology (Brown et al., 2022) and with the breadth of digital text, content, 
and educational media that is available now, children may require more individualized 
instruction or support when engaging with digital texts (Christ et al., 2019; Neuman et al., 
2019) and that engagement may require different pedagogical approaches than print-texts 
(Kontovourki & Siegel, 2022). Also, educators may need to monitor students’ engagement 
with the actual devices for the digital texts as this novelty effect, where students are more 
engaged with the device than the text, could lead to an initial peak of engagement that wanes. 
However, Reich et al. (2019) maintain that sustained engagement with high-quality digital 
texts, just as with printed texts, is what will have the highest benefit for reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition.   

Comprehension monitoring and teacher mediation are important parts of potential 
success with digital texts (Christ et al., 2019). Even though digital texts, like storybook apps, 
have many tools that can engage students directly, the research reviewed shows that there is 
a need for simultaneous acquisition of basic digital skills with child-adult interactions together 
with digital texts. This need for adult guidance, adult mediation, helps level the playing field 
for digital text comprehension across mediums (Florit et al., 2022). As previously noted, 
educators will need to consider when to engage with moving from whole-class instruction to 
individual, group, or buddy reading of digital texts and that research suggests that teacher 
monitoring should continue from whole-group direct instruction with print texts to 
individualized or buddy reading with digital texts even if that means monitoring students 
across text choices and/or platforms (Christ et al., 2019; Cloonan et al., 2020). This 
monitoring can look like aiding in text selection, device usage, monitoring the use or non-use 
of multimodal tools, and engaging in talk about the text.   

When educators are selecting digital texts for instruction, research suggests that 
narrative or story book digital texts are the best types of digital texts to work with reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition (Eustler & Trotter, 2020; Reich et al., 2019). 
Having a dynamic app book selection with appropriately leveled texts, high-quality narrative 
and illustration options, and digital affordances that uplift interactivity with the text is the 
best way to consider what type of digital texts are best for reading instruction (Christ et al., 
2019). Also, Reich et al. (2019) suggest that in considering the educational affordances of 
ebooks, it is possible that these verbal outputs during reading, even about the device, could 
benefit language development. Regarding digital texts, or static digital texts, like those used 
in standardized testing, Shimizu (2024) also supports monitoring young students’ engagement 
with screen reading and for educators to consider that there are many paths to comprehension 



Cobb  17 
 

   
 

success with digital texts. With static digital texts, linear reading and linear rereading, like 
with print texts, is most supportive for reading comprehension (Shimizu, 2024), and this is a 
sharp contrast to other digital texts that are multimodal where linear reading may not be 
beneficial or appropriate for the text. Again, this indicates that even in early reading 
instruction, educators need to balance print-reading instruction skills with digital reading 
skills with strategies that more align with digital literacy components.   

The question of digital texts and early literacy will be ongoing and evolving. There is 
also the question of what young students prefer and how they are engaging with digital texts 
before schooling (Eutsler & Trotter, 2022). For educators, more research is needed to 
understand what specific reading strategies best support students while reading digital texts 
and how educators can work with parents to understand what students are interacting with at 
home digitally and what types of media may actually be beneficial to students regarding 
digital literacy outside of the classroom (Eutsler & Trotter, 2022). Also, there needs to be 
further research into how to balance print and digital texts in the classroom and what the best 
practices are for early literacy educators when scaffolding the reading of digital texts across 
the classroom.   

As this review, with recommendations for practice, has looked broadly at digital texts 
and specific reading components reading comprehension and vocabulary of emergent readers 
to locate the most current research, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations 
to this review and needs for future research that includes early childhood educators and their 
perspectives on incorporating digital texts in the classroom. While research may suggest ways 
for early childhood educators to approach digital texts, and how to select digital texts for 
instruction, teachers may be more limited in their ability to make such pedagogical decisions. 
Therefore, further perspective from educators, specifically early literacy educators, is 
imperative to research digital literacies.   

What was found in this review is that digital texts require specific digital literacy skills 
to be pre-taught, scaffolded, and monitored simultaneously for students just as they would be 
with print-texts but differ from those print-based skills. With digital texts, students are 
engaging through a different medium, they have more choices, and they have more agency in 
their decision making with the text. As far as the best digital texts to use with early readers, 
high-quality, narrative digital texts with effective visuals may lead to the best reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition outcomes.   

What was found in this review is that digital texts require specific digital literacy skills 
to be pre-taught, scaffolded, and monitored simultaneously for students just as they would be 
with print-texts but are different from those print-based skills. With digital texts, students are 
engaging through a different medium, they have more choices, and they have more agency in 
their decision-making with the text. As far as the best digital texts to use with early readers, 
high-quality, narrative digital texts with effective visuals may lead to the best reading 
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition outcomes.   

Digital literacy, and digital texts, will only continue to change, therefore, the research 
and pedagogical decisions made around them must also evolve and strive to keep up with the 
fast-paced nature of technology. What is exciting, however, is that there is clear evidence that 
digital texts, and however they evolve, may give more students engaged, individualized 
experiences with reading that may more closely mirror the reading choices they will make out 
of school. Educators looking to harness these reading opportunities for their emergent readers 
can look to digital texts to see what the future of reading may encompass.   
 



18 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

References 
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. P. Lang.  
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (2011). Questioning the separation of in-school from out-of-

school contexts for literacy learning: An interview with Donna E. Alvermann. Journal of 
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 156–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00019 

Bittman, M., Rutherford, L., Brown, J., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Digital natives? New and old 
media and children’s outcomes. The Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 161–175. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500206 

Boffone, T., & Jerasa, S. (2021). Toward a (queer) reading community: BookTok, teen readers, 
and the rise of TikTok literacies. Talking Points, 33(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.58680/
tp202131537 

Brown, S., Hao, L., & Zhang, R. (2022). “The dinosaurs are so loud; they can’t sleep. Zzzz”: 
Supporting emergent bilingual children’s reading comprehension through digital literacies. 
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 25(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798
4221118982 

Bruner, L., & Hutchinson, A. (2023). Rethinking text features in the digital age: Teaching 
elementary students to navigate digital stories, websites and videos. The Reading Teacher, 
76(6), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2197 

Cabell, S. Q., & Zucker, T. A. (2024). Using Strive‐for‐Five Conversations to strengthen language 
comprehension in preschool through grade one. The Reading Teacher, 77(4), 522–532. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2266 

Cartwright, K .B., & Duke, N. K. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating 
advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 25–44. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411 

Christ, T., Wang, X. C., Chiu, M. M., & Cho, H. (2019). Kindergarteners’ meaning making with 
multimodal app books: The relations amongst reader characteristics, app book 
characteristics, and comprehension outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 
357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.003 

Cloonan, A., Paatsch, L., & Hutchison, K. (2020). Renewing literature circles: Pedagogies for 
curated multimodal responses. The Reading Teacher, 73(5), 647–656. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1875 

Compton-Lilly, C. F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L. K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: 
Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. 
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(51), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348 

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 
4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044 

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of 
social futures. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00019
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500206
https://doi.org/10.58680/tp202131537
https://doi.org/10.58680/tp202131537
https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221118982
https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221118982
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2197
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2266
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.003
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1875
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348
https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044


Cobb  19 
 

   
 

Coulanges, L., Bachman, H. J., Libertus, M., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2024). Examining profiles of 
U.S. children’s screen time and associations with academic skills. Journal of Children and 
Media, 18(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2327021 

Crane-Deklerk, K. (2020). Multimodality in early childhood education. International Journal of 
Literacy, Culture, and Language Education, 1, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v1i0.
29481 

Curiel, L. C. (2023). A multiliteracies classroom ecology for elementary bilingual language 
learners. The Reading Teacher, 77(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2218 

Curwood, J. S., & Cowell, L. L. H. (2011). iPoetry: Creating space for new literacies in the English 
curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/
10.1002/JAAL.00014 

Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English 
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.246 

Ehri, L. C. (2013). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling 
memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356  

Eutsler, L., & Trotter, J. (2020). Print or iPad? Young children’s text type shared reading 
preference and behaviors in comparison to parent predictions and at-home practices. 
Literacy Research and Instruction, 59(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.
2020.1777229 

Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N. (2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: 
The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468798414533560 

Florit, E., De Carli, P., Roda, A., Domenicale, S., & Mason, L. (2022). Precursors of reading text 
comprehension from paper and screen in first graders: A longitudinal study. Reading and 
Writing, 36, 1821–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10327-w 

Gainer, J. (2012). Critical thinking: Foundational for digital literacies and democracy. Journal of 
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00096 

Gee, J. P. (2002). New times and new literacies: Themes for a changing world. In M. Kalantzis, 
G. Varnava-Skoura, & B. Cope (Eds.), Learning for the future. Common Ground. 

Gee, J. P. (2012). The old and the new in the new digital literacies. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 
420–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.708622 

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley. 
Gleason, B., & Martinez, R. (2024). The story behind an image: Threads of collective storytelling 

and digital content. Literacy Today, 41(3), 58–59. https://publuu.com/flip-
book/24429/811271/page/60 

Green, K. L. (2021). High school matters: Counterstorytelling this historical moment. English 
Journal, 111(1), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202131384 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2327021
https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v1i0.%E2%80%8C29481
https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v1i0.%E2%80%8C29481
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2218
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1002/JAAL.00014
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1002/JAAL.00014
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.246
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.%E2%80%8C2020.1777229
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.%E2%80%8C2020.1777229
https://doi.org/10.1177/%E2%80%8C1468798414533560
https://doi.org/10.1177/%E2%80%8C1468798414533560
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10327-w
https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00096
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.708622
https://publuu.com/flip-book/24429/811271/page/60
https://publuu.com/flip-book/24429/811271/page/60
https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202131384


20 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

Hadad, S., Watted, A., & Blau, I. (2023). Cultural background in digital literacy of elementary and 
middle school students: Self‐appraisal versus actual performance. Journal of Computer 
Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1591–1606. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12820 

Harrison, C. (2017). Critical internet literacy: What is it, and how should we teach it? Journal of 
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(4), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.713 

Hoch, M. L., McCarty, R., Gurvitz, D., & Sitkoski, I. (2019). Five key principles: Guided inquiry 
with multimodal text sets. The Reading Teacher, 72(6), 701–710. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1781 

Jerasa, S., & Boffone, T. (2021). BookTok 101: TikTok, digital literacies, and out‐of‐school 
reading practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 65(3), 219–226. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jaal.1199 

Karabanov, G. M, & Aram, D. (2024). ‘Let’s write a shopping list on the phone together’: Parents’ 
digital literacy activities with their preschoolers and the children’s early literacy skills. 
Journal of Research in Reading, 47(3), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12469 

Kelly, L. B. (2017). Welcoming counter story in the primary literacy classroom. Journal of Critical 
Thought and Praxis, 6(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp-180810-68 

Kelly, L. B., & Moses, L. (2018). Children’s literature that sparks inferential discussion. The 
Reading Teacher, 72(1), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1675 

Kim, S. J. (2019). Counter-storytelling: Preschool children as creative authors. Kappa Delta Pi 
Record, 55(2), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2019.1580985 

Kim, S. J., & Hachey, A. C. (2021). Engaging preschoolers with critical literacy through counter-
storytelling: A qualitative case study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(4), 633–646. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01089-7 

Kim, Y. S. G. (2023). Simplicity meets complexity: Expanding the Simple View of Reading with 
the direct and indirect effects model of reading. In S. Q. Cabell, S. B. Neuman, & N. P. 
Terry (Eds.), Handbook on the science of early literacy (pp. 1–14). The Guilford Press. 

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. 
Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001 

Konca, A. S. (2022). Digital technology usage of young children: Screen time and families. Early 
Childhood Education Journal, 50(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-
01245-7 

Kontovourki, S., & Siegel, M. (2022). “B is for bunny”: Contested sign‐making and the 
possibilities for performing school literacy differently. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 
111–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.376 

Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy 
learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182–202). Macmillan. 

Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacies. Peter Lang. 
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd 

ed.). Open University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12820
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.713
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1781
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1199
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1199
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12469
https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp-180810-68
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1675
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2019.1580985
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01089-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01245-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01245-7
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.376


Cobb  21 
 

   
 

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level 
theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of 
Education, 197(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741719700202   

Li, G. (2017). From absence to affordances: Integrating old and new Literacies in school-based 
instruction for English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(3), 241–246. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.662   

 Mannell, K., Bloul, S., Sefton-Green, J., & Willcox, M. (2024). Digital media and technology use 
by families with infants, toddlers, and young children: A scoping review and call for 
forward momentum. Journal of Children and Media, 18(4), 605–628. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17482798.2024.2394939 

Marsh, J. (2016). The digital literacy skills and competences of children of pre-school age. Media 
Education: Studies and Research, 7(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.14605/MED721603 

Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., Lahmar, J., & Scott, F. (2018). Play and 
creativity in young children’s use of apps. British Journal of Educational Technology, 
49(5), 870–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12622 

Masters, A. S., Scott, M. E., Wright, C. A., Toub, T. S., Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & 
Pasek-Hirsh, K. (2023). Playing with words: Using playful learning experiences in the 
early childhood classroom to build vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 76(6), 775–783. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2201 

McBride, C., Scott, H., & Clark, M. (2023). Designing from youth media: Digital stories as 
telescopes toward justice. English Journal, 112(3), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.58680/
ej202332228 

McCarthey, S., Duke, N. K., & Alvermann, D. (2020). How can we study children’s/youth’s out 
of school experiences to inform classroom practices? Literacy Research: Theory, Method, 
and Practice, 69(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336920937261 

McDaniel, D. S. (2024). Toward culturally digitized pedagogy: Informing theory, research, and 
practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.534 

McKee, L. L., & Heydon, R. M. (2015). Orchestrating literacies: Print literacy learning 
opportunities within multimodal intergenerational ensembles. Journal of Early Childhood 
Literacy, 15(2), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414533562 

Moje, E. (2018). Conversation about the reading wars, sparked by a new documentary about 
literacy instruction: Q&A with Elizabeth Moje, Dean of the University of Michigan School 
of Education. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fyi-
reading-wars 

Neuman, S. B., Wong, K. M., Flynn, R., & Kaefer, T. (2019). Learning vocabulary from 
educational media: The role of pedagogical supports for low-income preschoolers. Journal 
of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000278 

Neumann, M. M., Finger, G., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). A conceptual framework for emergent 
digital literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 471–479. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z 

https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741719700202
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.662
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2394939
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2394939
https://doi.org/10.14605/MED721603
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12622
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2201
https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202332228
https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202332228
https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336920937261
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.534
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414533562
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fyi-reading-wars
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fyi-reading-wars
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000278
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z


22 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(1)  
 

   
 

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard 
Educational Review, 66, 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u 

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–
1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016 

Nichols, T. P., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Assembling “digital literacies”: Contingent pasts, 
possible futures. Media and Communication, 7(2), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.17645/
mac.v7i2.1946 

Oakley, G., Wildy, H., & Berman, Y. (2020). Multimodal digital text creation using tablets and 
open-ended creative apps to improve the literacy learning of children in early childhood 
classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(4), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468798418779171 

Orcutt, E., Johnson, V., & Kendeou, P. (2023). Comprehension: From language to reading. In S. 
Q. Cabell, S. B. Neuman, & N. P. Terry (Eds.), Handbook of the science of early literacy 
(pp. 196–207). Guilford Press.  

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). 
Chapter 10: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI 
manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 

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), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419878389 

Rowsell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). Confronting the digital divide: Debunking 
brave new world discourses. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/
10.1002/trtr.1603 

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.  
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: 

Evidence, theory and practice. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of 
early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). Guilford Press. 

Seckler, J. (2018). The trouble with terminology: Rehabilitating and rethinking ‘digital literacy.’ 
In K. Reedy & J. Parker (Eds.), Digital literacy unpacked (pp. 3–16). Facet. 

Serafini, F., Moses, L., Kachorsky, D., & Rylak, D. (2020). Incorporating multimodal literacies 
into classroom‐based reading assessment. The Reading Teacher, 74(3), 285–296. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1948 

Shanahan, T. (2005). The national reading panel report: Practical advice for teachers. Learning 
Point Associates. 

Shimizu, A. Y., Havazelet, M., & Goodwin, A. P. (2024). More than one way: Fifth-graders’ varied 
digital reading behaviors and comprehension outcomes. AERA Open, 10(1), 1–25. https://
doi.org/10.1177/23328584241226633 

Spires, H. A., Paul, C. M., & Kerkhoff, S. N. (2019). Digital literacy for the 21st century. In M. 
Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Advanced methodologies and technologies in library science, 
information management, and scholarly inquiry (pp. 12–21). IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1946
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1946
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418779171
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418779171
https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419878389
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1603
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1603
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1948
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241226633
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241226633


Cobb  23 
 

   
 

Stadler-Heer, S., & Paran, A. (Eds.). (2022). Taking literature and language learning online : new 
perspectives on teaching, research and technology. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/
10.5040/9781350268555 

Swift, C. (2023). Literacy in the plural: Multiliteracies enlivened during the pandemic. The 
Reading Teacher, 77(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2208 

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard 
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u 

Thomas, E. E., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Restorying the self: Bending toward textual justice. 
Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-
86.3.313 

Undheim, M., & Hoel, T. (2023). An animated story created by a group of young children. Journal 
of Early Childhood Literacy, 23(3), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420988756 

Wang, X. C., Christ, T., Chiu, M. M., & Strekalova-Hughes, E. (2019). Exploring the relationship 
between kindergarteners’ buddy reading and individual comprehension of interactive app 
books. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419869343 

Yan, L., Whitelock‐Wainwright, A., Guan, Q., Wen, G., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2021). Students’ 
experience of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A province-wide survey 
study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 2038–2057. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13102 

Yelland, N. J. (2016). iPlay, iLearn, iGrow: Tablet technologies and multimodal learning in the 
early years. In S. Garvis, & N. Lemon (Eds.), Understanding digital technologies and 
young children (pp. 122–138). Routledge. 

 
 
Received: October 2, 2024 | Accepted: March 10, 2025 | Published: May 20, 2025 

https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.5040/9781350268555
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.5040/9781350268555
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2208
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.313
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.313
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420988756
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419869343
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13102

	Digital Literacy and Digital Texts in Literacy Theories
	What are Digital Texts Now
	Locating Current Research on Digital Texts, Early Literacy, and Practice
	Table 1: Inclusion Criterion for Scoping Review
	Table 2: Search Terms and Results from Scoping Review


	References

