Storybook Reading for Second Language Learning at Preschool: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storybook reading has been recognized -Meibauer, 2011; Roberts, 2008; Stoltz et al., 2012; Van Horn & Fong, 2016; Walsh et al., 2014). The connections between reading and the linguistic gains in very young children may be the most widely studied area in first language (L1) development (Isbell et al., 2004); however, storybook reading for dual language learners has not aroused the interest of many researchers. This review aims to describe the current state of the art in the use of storybook for learning a second or foreign language during preschool years in Pan- American countries (Canada, United States, Central America, and Latin America). This revision looks at the reading methodologies, pedagogical interventions and the impact of implementing storybook reading on language learning. The study followed the steps of a systematic literature review, which include condense, synthesize, analyze and discover patterns among the insights provided by secondary data. In the first searching stage, 172 articles were collected from 4 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and EBSCOhost. From the 172 articles collected about storybook reading for second or foreign language learning, only 17 met the criteria (11%). This literature review followed a mixed methods approach to data analysis, combining a qualitative review with statistics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".