Reading to bilingual preschoolers: An experimental study of two book formats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading stories to children provides opportunities for word learning. Bilingual children encounter new words in each of their languages during shared storybook reading, but the way in which they encounter them can vary. We compared learning from two types of bilingual book materials: typical single-language books (i.e., two copies of the same book, each in a different language), and bilingual books (i.e., one copy of the book, with text in both languages on each page). Five-year-old French-English bilinguals (n = 67) who were either proficient or second-language learners were randomly assigned to hear an original story from a balanced bilingual experimenter in one of the two book formats. Children’s learning of French and English labels for five novel objects embedded in the story was assessed via a pointing task. Children were successful at learning words in both languages, and performance was not affected by either book format nor by children's language proficiency. Children neither favoured nor avoided learning translation equivalents (i.e., cross-language synonyms) in either format. These results suggest that children are flexible word learners and that shared bilingual book reading — regardless of book format — is an effective way to teach bilingual children new words in two languages.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".