ABCs by Design: The Role of Alphabet Book Design and Children’s Alphabetic Behaviours in Emergent Literacy Skill Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current studies examined children’s preferences for ABC book formats and relations between alphabet books and early literacy learning and behaviours. Study 1: Using a pictorial scale, page ratings of 51 junior kindergarten students (4-5 years old) revealed no preference for the amount of text nor picture complexity in alphabet books. Study 2: 94 junior kindergarten students (3-4 years old) participated in a 16 sessions reading program whereby they were read and interacted with alphabet books with research-based features, alphabet books with conventional features, or storybooks in small groups. Children across all three conditions made gains in their letter-name knowledge, letter-sound knowledge, and phonological awareness over the course of the study; however, no significant differences were seen between groups.Observations of children’s behaviours while reading independently revealed that alphabet books elicited more alphabetic behaviours than storybooks, despite children in the three conditions spending the same proportion of time oriented to their books. Children’s pre-test knowledge was the greatest predictor of post-test knowledge across all literacy measures, and book behaviour was positively associated with gains in letter sounds and phonological awareness. No effect of behaviour was seen for uppercase letter names; however, behaviour moderated the relation with pre-test letter-name knowledge for lowercase letter names when standard alphabet books were presented. Findings highlight the utility of using alphabet books, in a variety of formats, as part of a child’s greater literacy experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".