Examining the Quality of Storybook Reading Sessions Between Parents and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The home environment is an important contributor to children’s literacy experiences. One activity that is frequently investigated is parent-child storybook reading. However, despite the extant research, the quality of these book-reading interactions has often been overlooked. Therefore, the present study examined the quality of book-reading sessions between 60 parent-child dyads recruited from local schools in Montréal, Canada. Storybook reading sessions were recorded and behaviours were coded for types of talk (immediate, non-immediate, illustration production, and print referencing) and engagement (behaviours showing enjoyment in the reading session). The results of hierarchical multiple regressions demonstrated that parents’ non-immediate talk and engagement accounted for unique variance in children’s non-immediate talk and engagement, above and beyond children’s own behaviours. Parallel regressions demonstrated that children’s non-immediate talk and engagement accounted for unique variance in parents’ non-immediate talk and engagement, above and beyond parents’ own behaviours. These results emphasize the reciprocal role that both parents and children play during storybook reading activities. Implications for parents’ practises are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".