ArticleDevelopmental psychology2023
The influence of books' textual features and caregivers' extratextual talk on children's science learning in the context of shared book reading.
Article in Developmental psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family Science Capital Factors Affecting Early Childhood Science Learning: A Systematic Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Dynamic insights into research trends and trajectories in early reading: an analytical exploration via dynamic topic modeling.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Young children's science learning from narrative books: The role of text cohesion and caregivers' extratextual talk.Journal of cognition and development : official journal of the Cognitive Development Society · 2024Article
- Contributions of shared book reading to children's learning of new semantic facts through memory integration.Early childhood research quarterlyArticle
- Factors affecting children's direct learning and productive memory processes in the context of virtual museums.Cognitive developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During early childhood, reading books with one's caregiver (shared book reading) is a valuable means of supporting learning. Yet, there are gaps in our understanding of the influence of shared book reading on young children's science learning. The current research bridges this gap by examining the pedagogical quality of science books in preschool-aged children's environments and investigating how such books influence children's learning and caregivers' extratextual talk during shared book reading. In Study 1, we coded 60 science books that were readily available in young children's environments within the United States. The books were designed for English speakers and recommended for preschool-aged children. We coded the books for the extent to which they were Coherent (elaborated on facts presented by providing details, examples, comparisons, etc.) and included Embedded Questions. However, many books were low in Cohesion and Embedded Questions and were of low pedagogical quality. In Study 2, we tested thirty-eight 4- to 5-year-old children (55% female, 76% White) and their caregivers in the Southeastern United States. We assessed the influence of books' levels of Cohesion and Embedded Questions and of caregivers' Elaborative extratextual talk during shared book reading on children's science learning. Children learned more from books high in Cohesion, irrespective of levels of Embedded Questions and caregivers' Elaborative Talk. Additionally, children learned more from books high in Embedded Questions when caregivers used more Elaborative Talk. This research highlights the importance that books' textual features and social interactions during shared book reading have in promoting early science learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.