Subsequently, Larson and Marsh (2005) propose that the developments in technology and the recent changes in literacy practices have somewhat challenged understanding of literacy in general, which seems to practitioners’ be the case for these practitioners. There is no evidence from the data that even digital technology in the form of enhancement or as an addition to traditional literacy practices, described by Lanksheer and Knobel (2003), has been considered as an early reading activity for under-threes, which is in itself insightful. It could be suggested that this is also reflective of the lack of change in young books, despite the children’s obvious rise of electronic literacy in everyday lives as computers, technology and mobile devices rarely feature in literature (Marsh, 2010; Arizpe children’s and Smith, 2016; Warnecke, 2016). In reality, this may also indicate that the participants did not engage with technology in early years settings in general (Marsh 2008; Yelland 2006), but this is speculative and beyond the scope of this research. Another notable absence from the data is the use of library visits as an accessible early reading environment. One of the Zines featured an occasional library visit. Moreover, two survey participants did note visiting the library as an activity with three to five year olds. Visited the library today, spent time choosing books with the children. I realise that the librarians have story telling didn’t sessions here. It is lovely and I will bring the children again – they absolutely loved taking the books home. (Zine 3) Elkin (2014) suggests that importance of books for babies has been “the understood by innovative professionals working in libraries for and decades” has been actively through baby and toddler story times in “demonstrated leading libraries for many (p. 52). This indicates that many library years” facilities are excellent environments to promote early reading, yet this data suggests that practitioners may not consider taking under-threes to the library. Certainly in this sample, the fact that visits to the library were only mentioned
Subsequently, Larson and Marsh (2005) propose that the developments in technology and the recent changes in literacy practices have somewhat challenged practitioners’ understanding of literacy in general, which seems to be the case for these practitioners. There is no evidence from the data that even digital technology in the form of enhancement or as an addition to traditional literacy practices, described by Lanksheer and Knobel (2003), has been considered as an early reading activity for under-threes, which is in itself insightful. It could be suggested that this is also reflective of the lack of change in young children’s books, despite the obvious rise of electronic literacy in everyday lives as computers, technology and mobile devices rarely feature in children’s literature (Marsh, 2010; Arizpe and Smith, 2016; Warnecke, 2016). In reality, this may also indicate that the participants did not engage with technology in early years settings in general (Marsh 2008; Yelland 2006), but this is speculative and beyond the scope of this research. Another notable absence from the data is the use of library visits as an accessible early reading environment. One of the Zines featured an occasional library visit. Moreover, two survey participants did note visiting the library as an activity with three to five year olds. Visited the library today, spent time choosing books with the children. I didn’t realise that the librarians have story telling sessions here. It is lovely and I will bring the children again – they absolutely loved taking the books home. (Zine 3) Elkin (2014) suggests that “the importance of books for babies has been understood by innovative professionals working in libraries for decades” and has been actively “demonstrated through baby and toddler story times in leading libraries for many years” (p. 52). This indicates that many library facilities are excellent environments to promote early reading, yet this data suggests that practitioners may not consider taking under-threes to the library. Certainly in this sample, the fact that visits to the library were only mentioned