Do e-books mediate the construction of children as meaning-makers? Early childhood teachers’ views
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although e-books have been widely studied, empirical evidence on their role as mediating tools that support children’s meaning-making remains limited. This study explores early childhood teachers’ perceptions of e-books as mediators of meaning-making among children aged 5–6 years. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with ten early childhood teachers who provided informed consent for the use and publication of their responses. Data were thematically analyzed through four stages: preparing analytic templates, managing data, handling transcriptions, and ensuring ethical treatment of data. Findings The findings indicate that well-designed e-books can stimulate children’s meaning-making abilities. Teachers emphasized that e-books function not merely as content delivery tools but as effective mediators that foster meaning through interaction, personal experience, and feedback. Originality/value This study contributes to early childhood literacy research by highlighting teachers’ perspectives on e-books as mediational tools in children’s meaning-making processes, offering pedagogical insights for integrating digital texts into early learning contexts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it