View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Nonfiction Picturebook Reading in Early and Elementary Education: A PRISMA-P Systematic Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Nonfiction Picturebook Reading in Early and Elementary Education: A PRISMA-P Systematic Review
Language: English
Authors: Diana Muela-Bermejo (ORCID 0000-0001-6162-6603), Rosa Tabernero-Sala
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Descriptors: Nonfiction, Picture Books, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Design, Reading Strategies, Intervention, Literacy Education, Creativity, Student Diversity
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70081
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: This systematic review, conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P), provides the first comprehensive synthesis of empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading in early childhood and primary education between 2000 and 2024. Drawing on 34 peer-reviewed studies, it traces the evolution of a genre that has gained increasing curricular and editorial prominence but remains underexplored in educational practice. The review highlights the transformative potential of nonfiction picturebooks as multimodal, aesthetic, and affective texts that foster reading comprehension, visual and informational literacy, and the development of active, critical, and socially engaged readers. Methodologically, the review followed the PRISMA-P protocol for qualitative and mixed-methods research, guided by the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research Type (SPIDER) framework. Studies were identified through a multi-database search strategy--using the Web of Science (WOS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and Dialnet--and selected according to explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel and NVivo through a two-phase coding process that combined quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Findings reveal a predominance of qualitative designs, dialogic and adult-mediated reading strategies, and interventions conducted primarily in formal educational settings, with a strong concentration in the United States. Despite consistent evidence supporting the pedagogical value of nonfiction picturebooks, substantial gaps persist--particularly regarding autonomous reading, emotional and aesthetic responses, and research in non-Anglophone or informal contexts such as families and libraries. By identifying the theoretical assumptions, reading strategies, and outcomes of existing research, this review positions the nonfiction picturebook not merely as an instructional tool but as a multimodal and affective medium for reimagining literacy education, nurturing curiosity, creativity, and agency in young readers across diverse educational landscapes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1494623
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGp4MNWQTpCqLlEmNUnyLxfAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFN29aJNLsSnK0nZxAIBEICBm3FpEHC_0-oOUe2qo_JbpVTACIRmw7-Z_CjHMITDGakxkoAzaKMdFVz891yENk-Fg4_DBqbxh47kIxfpMzQ_1g0xmJfSNom3QdOG-RlDmErlbNdznT4Ucb4NXJ-mWyFFWylBVjmel9Hv2b3USR9cRgv-kxWwBgv_Cf0dLunCZ9Kf9bnSskImzNaze4YeP2aQfeeeuVOpIid9iyM9
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191105821;[nrnu]01jan.26;2026Jan28.02:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191105821-1">Nonfiction Picturebook Reading in Early and Elementary Education: A PRISMA‐P Systematic Review </title> <p>This systematic review, conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Protocols (PRISMA‐P), provides the first comprehensive synthesis of empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading in early childhood and primary education between 2000 and 2024. Drawing on 34 peer‐reviewed studies, it traces the evolution of a genre that has gained increasing curricular and editorial prominence but remains underexplored in educational practice. The review highlights the transformative potential of nonfiction picturebooks as multimodal, aesthetic, and affective texts that foster reading comprehension, visual and informational literacy, and the development of active, critical, and socially engaged readers. Methodologically, the review followed the PRISMA‐P protocol for qualitative and mixed‐methods research, guided by the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research Type (SPIDER) framework. Studies were identified through a multi‐database search strategy—using the Web of Science (WOS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and Dialnet—and selected according to explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel and NVivo through a two‐phase coding process that combined quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Findings reveal a predominance of qualitative designs, dialogic and adult‐mediated reading strategies, and interventions conducted primarily in formal educational settings, with a strong concentration in the United States. Despite consistent evidence supporting the pedagogical value of nonfiction picturebooks, substantial gaps persist—particularly regarding autonomous reading, emotional and aesthetic responses, and research in non‐Anglophone or informal contexts such as families and libraries. By identifying the theoretical assumptions, reading strategies, and outcomes of existing research, this review positions the nonfiction picturebook not merely as an instructional tool but as a multimodal and affective medium for reimagining literacy education, nurturing curiosity, creativity, and agency in young readers across diverse educational landscapes.</p> <p>Keywords: elementary education; literacy; nonfiction; picturebooks; preschool; reading</p> <p>Visual summary of a PRISMA‐P systematic review examining nonfiction picturebook reading in early and elementary education. The graphic integrates the genre's historical foundations and a bibliometric representationx of the empirical studies identified between 2000 and 2024.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-3">Introduction</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-4">Rationale</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-5">The Nonfiction Picturebook in the Contemporary Reading Ecosystem</hd> <p>The current reading ecosystem reveals a remarkable flourishing of the nonfiction picturebook, whose growth and vitality call for focused scholarly analysis (Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref1">52</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]). Although literary criticism has tended to privilege fiction over nonfiction picturebooks in the education of children and young readers (Mackey [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; McGeown et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]; Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref5">52</reflink>]), the publishing market has begun to challenge this preference. Over the past several decades, a wide and diverse range of nonfiction picturebooks has emerged (Moss and Hendershot [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]; Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref7">52</reflink>]; Tabernero Sala [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]), replacing the traditional informational books in which text predominated over visual discourse (Littau [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref10">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Traditionally, informational books for children were characterized by an encyclopedic approach aimed at conveying facts (Moss and Hendershot [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]), in contrast to fiction, which was linked to the realm of emotion. The new nonfiction picturebooks break away from this conventional dichotomy by offering a more subjective and authorial interpretation of the world, departing from the factual tone typical of traditional informational books and school textbooks. Nevertheless, as Kuzmičová and Supa ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]) observe, the fact–emotion dichotomy still persists even in reading assessment frameworks such as PIRLS ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]), which continue to distinguish between affective reading "for pleasure" and factual reading "to discover things I want to learn." In this context, redefining the balance between fact and feeling in children's reading represents a crucial starting point for examining the educational significance of the nonfiction picturebook today.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-6">The Nonfiction Picturebook in Contemporary Education</hd> <p>The educational benefits of reading nonfiction picturebooks have been widely recognized by numerous researchers (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; Hervouët and Vidal‐Naquet [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]; Shimek [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref16">40</reflink>]). First, these books foster the development of information management skills and the ability to comprehend complex informational texts—competencies that are not cultivated to the same extent through the reading of fiction (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]). Second, they contribute to the development of structured thinking by helping readers organize knowledge and by enhancing the role that material design plays in the growth of visual literacy (Hervouët and Vidal‐Naquet [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this sense, nonfiction picturebooks effectively address the priorities identified in policy documents such as the European Union Cultural Plan 2015–2018 (European Agenda for Culture [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]), which underscores the need to cultivate readers capable of selecting, filtering, and organizing information in order to transform it into knowledge—that is, readers with strong informational literacy skills. They also align with the Sustainable Development Goals defined by UNESCO in Agenda 2030 and articulated in the report <emph>Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education</emph> (International Commission on the Futures of Education [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]). This report envisions lifelong education as a public commitment to building a sustainable future—grounded in respect for human rights, democratic participation, and care for the planet—through educational innovation, critical inquiry, and the creation of interdisciplinary knowledge. As noted by Todaro and Mascia ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref21">45</reflink>]) and Mascia ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]), these frameworks have influenced the evolution of the nonfiction picturebook, contributing to a broader diversity of themes and a stronger emphasis on inclusion and social awareness.</p> <p>Nevertheless, despite the policy directions outlined in these reports, the benefits identified in the academic literature, and the current context of an expanding publishing market (Mascia [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]), the presence of nonfiction picturebooks in early childhood and primary education classrooms remains limited, as several authors have noted (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref25">7</reflink>]; Shimek [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]; Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>To counter this limited presence, recent curricular frameworks in the United States have advocated for their integration into both the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Science Standards (Cain [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]; Job and Coleman [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]; Brugar [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>]), as well as in the Position Statement on the Role of Nonfiction Literature (K‐12), published in 2023 by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). These documents reflect a paradigm shift in the teaching of informational texts and argue that 21st‐century nonfiction picturebooks constitute an essential genre for the education of critical readers and writers, deserving a central place in school curricula. Among the main recommendations set out in this document are the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>) fostering the reading of nonfiction books from early childhood, granting them specific time and space in the classroom, and recognizing them as affective and meaningful reading experiences; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>) incorporating nonfiction books into reading instruction—not only as "reading to learn" but also as "learning while reading"—thereby promoting vocabulary development, background knowledge, and a critical understanding of the author's perspective; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>) using nonfiction in writing instruction through diverse topics and by integrating visual elements into textual composition; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>) strengthening informational literacy and research processes by illustrating how authors work with primary sources, observation, and interdisciplinary collaboration; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>) reinforcing visual literacy through the analysis of images, graphics, and design as carriers of meaning; and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>) diversifying the curriculum and promoting critical literacy through the comparison and evaluation of multiple sources of information.</p> <p>In keeping with these initiatives, the United Kingdom has also advanced the integration of nonfiction picturebooks into the educational sphere, particularly through the STE(A)M model, which brings together the STEM fields and the arts (University of Cambridge [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref38">48</reflink>])—an approach already anticipated by Kuzmičová and Supa ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, after discussing the educational relevance and pedagogical benefits of the nonfiction picturebook, as well as the limitations of its implementation in classrooms, it becomes essential to define this genre conceptually in order to better understand its distinctiveness, its evolution, and its formative potential.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-7">The Concept of the Nonfiction Picturebook</hd> <p>Once the framework establishing the educational relevance of the nonfiction picturebook has been set out, academic scholarship has focused on defining the concept and examining the ways in which this genre has evolved over recent decades. Within this historical trajectory, Comenius's <emph>Orbis Sensualium Pictus</emph> (1658) is often considered the first illustrated knowledge book intended for children (Tabernero Sala [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref40">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Firstly, research on nonfiction picturebooks has centered on the very definition of "nonfiction." Traditionally, the term has been understood as referring to a heterogeneous body of works aimed at the transmission of knowledge, as noted in the first part of the introduction. In this regard, Duke's studies (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]) emphasized the formal diversity of these texts—descriptive, argumentative, narrative, or expository—and the strategies they employ to present information and facilitate its transformation into knowledge. Building on this foundation, subsequent scholarship has progressively outlined a shared conceptual framework grounded in several key values—the exploration of reality as opposed to fiction, the cultivation of curiosity, the promotion of awareness, and the encouragement of critical reading—which together define the essential principles of nonfiction books for children.</p> <p>Secondly, following the earliest definitions of the concept of nonfiction, the publishing boom of the nonfiction picturebook prompted a sustained theoretical reflection aimed at more precisely defining this genre. A key contribution to this process can be found in Sanders ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref43">38</reflink>]), who conceives of the nonfiction picturebook as a work that presents knowledge mediated through the voice and perspective of specific authors—voices that are perceptible even in the selection and organization of the content. Sanders focuses particularly on the aesthetic and graphic strategies that invite the reader to take an active role in constructing meaning, fostering a dialogic and reflective reading experience.</p> <p>From this perspective, the primary purpose of the nonfiction picturebook is not merely to convey information but to awaken curiosity and a sense of wonder, encouraging readers to inquire into and question what is presented to them. This type of book thus envisions a critical reader—one who interrogates the text, adopts a stance toward its discourse, recognizes its gaps, and challenges its authority. As Sanders ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref44">38</reflink>]) points out, contemporary nonfiction picturebooks depart from the traditional notion of authority associated with "factual literature," positioning the reader within an active interpretive space. In his study, Sanders analyzes such elements as voice, character, and peritexts to identify the narrative and visual strategies that construct this critical reader, a defining feature of the renewed nonfiction picturebook.</p> <p>Moreover, the exploration of the boundaries of the nonfiction picturebook by various scholars has led to an increasingly prominent line of publication: what has been termed "hybrid nonfiction" (Von‐Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]) or "narrative nonfiction" (Narančić Kovač [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]; Muela‐Bermejo and Laborda‐Casamián [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]). These works blend expository and narrative modes—nonfiction and fiction—within a single text to promote more complex and multimodal reading experiences, while countering the prevailing bias in favor of fiction (Von‐Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref48">53</reflink>]). In this way, curiosity and wonder toward knowledge are intertwined with the emotional engagement elicited by fictional elements.</p> <p>In this line of conceptual development, the collective volume edited by Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]) has made a decisive contribution to defining the nonfiction picturebook by emphasizing its aesthetic and visual dimensions. The various studies gathered in this work reveal the evolution of the nonfiction picturebook from its origins in art, knowledge dissemination, and education, within a context in which the traditional encyclopedic format—textual and enumerative—has lost relevance. Contemporary society, by contrast, presents new challenges for the cultivation of readers, focusing on the strengthening of deep reading, informational literacy, and visual literacy—all of which tend to be undermined by the immediacy and fragmentation of digital reading (Baron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]; Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>From this aesthetic and visual perspective, closely interwoven with textual and factual dimensions, both earlier studies—such as those by Pappas ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]) and Von‐Merveldt ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>])—and more recent ones—such as Smith and Robertson ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>]), Graff and Shimek ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]), and especially Goga et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>])—have underscored the hybrid and multimodal nature of the contemporary nonfiction picturebook. These studies highlight the convergence of art and knowledge, as well as the integration of visual, verbal, and narrative resources that give shape to its discourse. This hybrid paradigm fosters the development of a critical and creative reader, guided by curiosity and wonder, and promotes a dual literacy—textual and visual—rooted in the materiality of the book. Unlike the linear reading typical of fiction, the nonfiction picturebook encourages a fragmented and exploratory mode of reading (Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>]) that actively engages readers in the construction of meaning.</p> <p>In this convergence of the rational and the aesthetic, reading a nonfiction picturebook activates both the cognitive and emotional processes involved in comprehension. As Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]) observes, both hemispheres of the brain—the right, associated with sensory and emotional experience, and the left, linked to logical reasoning—interact complementarily in the construction of knowledge. Genuine learning occurs when intellectual understanding is combined with the aesthetic dimension that appeals to the reader's sensitivity. In this way, efferent and aesthetic reading (Rosenblatt [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]) merge into a continuum that, as Alexander and Jarman ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]) argue, is difficult to separate and reinforces a relationship between the reader and the nonfiction picturebook that is not only cognitive, but also affective and emotional.</p> <p>This affective dimension of reading aligns with the principles of the so‐called "affective turn" (Massumi [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]; Clough [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]; Véliz and García‐González [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref63">51</reflink>]), which calls for a shift from the predominance of language and text—characteristic of the linguistic turn—toward recognizing the role of emotions, affects, and the body as forces capable of shaping and transforming social and cultural reality. Within this theoretical framework, the nonfiction picturebook can be understood as a space in which knowledge and emotion converge to produce reading experiences that move the reader, prompting both reflection and action. The synergy between factual transmission and aesthetic experience thus functions as a cultural and educational catalyst, contributing to the formation of a contemporary "affective society" in which emotions play a central role in meaning‐making. However, this line of theorization remains relatively underexplored within nonfiction picturebook studies (Sanjuán‐Álvarez and Cristóbal‐Hornillos [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref64">39</reflink>]), offering a promising framework for future research into the affective and embodied dimensions of reading in this genre.</p> <p>Building on this path opened by the affective turn, it is equally pertinent to incorporate the notion of "agency" (Flynn [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]; Gubar [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]), understood as a capacity of childhood—shared with adults, though mediated to varying degrees by dependence and guidance—to interpret, respond to, and act within society and the construction of meaning. Adult culture provides the frameworks through which children participate and transform, allowing nonfiction picturebooks to be conceived as spaces of co‐construction of meaning, where the child reader functions as an active interpreter in dialogue with the adult voice. The intersection between the affective turn and agency opens a still‐emerging area of inquiry that invites exploration of how aesthetic emotion and curiosity may become drivers of action, critical awareness, and social participation and transformation.</p> <p>It remains to be determined, however, to what extent the reading of nonfiction picturebooks can serve as a key context for examining the relationship between childhood, knowledge, emotion, and action, in line with the proposals of a "literature of actions" (Rybak [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref68">36</reflink>]) or Gubar's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]) "toothless pedagogy," both of which reclaim the emancipatory potential of the didactic impulse inherent in these works, as also articulated by Moriarty ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref70">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-8">Empirical Studies on the Reading of Nonfiction Picturebooks in Childhood</hd> <p>Although a solid theoretical foundation has been established in recent decades around the nonfiction picturebook—encompassing its informational, factual, aesthetic, affective, and transformative dimensions—empirical research on its reading in educational contexts remains limited (Kuzmičová and Supa [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]; Muela‐Bermejo and Pérez‐Martínez [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref72">29</reflink>]). This gap is particularly significant given that key features of the nonfiction picturebook—such as the questioning of information, the cultivation of curiosity, multimodality, materiality, fragmentation, and the emotional engagement with knowledge—are essential to the development of reading comprehension and critical thinking.</p> <p>In recent years, however, a growing body of empirical research on nonfiction picturebooks has begun to emerge (Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref73">50</reflink>]; Sung and Son [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>]; Kuzmičová and Supa [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref75">18</reflink>]), particularly relevant in the field of reader formation. These studies seek to examine the educational potential of the genre across diverse socio‐educational contexts and to design mediation strategies that foster the development of critical and reflective citizens capable of linking reading with the active interpretation of reality.</p> <p>Within this framework, pioneering research such as that of Varelas and Pappas ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref76">49</reflink>])—conducted with first‐, second‐, and third‐grade primary school students—has focused on readers' attitudes and responses to nonfiction picturebooks as vehicles for knowledge, highlighting the connection between scientific reasoning and personal identity formation. From a methodological standpoint, studies exploring how nonfiction picturebooks are read remain scarce but are beginning to produce significant insights. Sanjuán‐Álvarez and Cristóbal‐Hornillos ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref77">39</reflink>]) examine the emotional dimension that arises from reading these texts in a case study; Shimek ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]) focuses on dialogic interaction between teachers and students to explore the multimodal nature of nonfiction picturebooks; and Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>]) compare three reading modalities—silent reading, small‐group exploratory reading, and adult‐mediated reading—to analyze the distinct cognitive, emotional, and dialogic responses each elicits in the classroom.</p> <p>Despite these advances, the conceptual characterization of the genre remains far more developed than its empirical investigation. There is still a need to systematize the body of existing research, including the methodologies employed, the findings obtained, and the extent to which these can be translated into educational practice in early childhood and primary education settings.</p> <p>It is therefore necessary to contrast the discursive characterization of the genre within the contemporary reading ecosystem with current empirical studies, assessing their scope, representativeness, and replicability. Moreover, it is crucial to identify the theoretical and pedagogical approaches that inform the study of nonfiction picturebook reading, with the aim of determining which mediation strategies are most effective and how they might be adapted to diverse educational contexts, including those involving students with learning difficulties.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-9">Objective and Research Questions</hd> <p>The aim of this systematic review is to organize, clarify, and analyze research conducted since 2000 on the reading of nonfiction picturebooks in contemporary early childhood and elementary education. The review seeks to systematize what has been studied: the theoretical foundations, methodologies used, contexts examined, and the outcomes reported. Ultimately, the goal is to guide future teaching practices and inform international curricular frameworks on the role of nonfiction reading in literacy and education. As the first systematic review focused on the reading processes of nonfiction picturebooks, this study aims to holistically address the following questions in accordance with the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation and Research Type) framework for qualitative and mixed methods research:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What underlying assumptions have guided empirical research on children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks (PI) over the past 25 years?</item> <p></p> <item> What research methods (R) have been employed to empirically investigate children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks in the last 25 years?</item> <p></p> <item> What reading strategies (D) have been designed to empirically study children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks in the past 25 years?</item> <p></p> <item> In what contexts and years (S) have empirical studies on children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks been published?</item> <p></p> <item> What findings (E) have emerged from empirical research on children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks in the last 25 years?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191105821-10">Method</hd> <p>Before describing the method used in this systematic review, we indicate, in accordance with the journal's requirements, that artificial intelligence (ChatGPT‐5, OpenAI) was used to review the English translation of the manuscript, as English is not the authors' first language.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-11">Protocol, Information Sources, Eligibility Criteria, and Search Strategy</hd> <p>The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Protocols (PRISMA‐P) (Moher et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]). We selected the PRISMA protocol because it is the internationally recognized guideline for systematic reviews. PRISMA‐P aligns with established practices in the health sciences—the field where methodological standards for systematic reviews were first developed—such as registration in PROSPERO and the recommendations of the <emph>Cochrane Handbook</emph> (v. 6.5 online, 2024). This handbook, regarded as an international benchmark, notes in Chapter III ("Reporting the Review") that PRISMA‐P "is an evidence‐based, minimum set of items for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses to ensure the highest possible standard for reporting is met." Although our study is situated in the field of education, the cross‐disciplinary applicability of PRISMA‐P supports its adoption in this review. Other guidelines often cited, such as ENTREQ, SRQR, or SPIRIT (2025), do not address the reporting of systematic review protocols but focus instead on qualitative syntheses, primary qualitative studies, or clinical trial protocols. In this context, PRISMA‐P remains the most appropriate framework for systematic reviews in education.</p> <p>Studies were selected on the basis of predefined eligibility criteria. To establish these criteria, we relied on the SPIDER framework for the following reason. The PRISMA protocol (Administrative Information, Methods, section 8) indicates that researchers must specify the characteristics of studies eligible for inclusion in the review, using criteria such as PICO or other alternatives (Moher et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>], 5). In our case, given that the review is primarily qualitative in nature, the use of the PICO model was not appropriate. Instead, we adopted the SPIDER framework, which is regarded as more suitable for qualitative or mixed‐methods research, as noted by Sánchez‐Martín et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>], 130–131). The criteria are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> – <emph>Sample</emph>: Studies that examined the reading of nonfiction picturebooks in children aged 3–12 years (early childhood or elementary education) were included. This review excluded studies focused on young adults (YA) or adults.</item> <p></p> <item> – <emph>Phenomenon of Interest</emph>: The reading processes of nonfiction picturebooks in early childhood and elementary education from an empirical perspective. Our interest lies in achieving a holistic understanding of the phenomenon, exploring how the reading of nonfiction picturebooks has been researched and practiced, the methods employed, the contexts in which it has taken place, and the results obtained, particularly concerning literacy and other learning processes.</item> <p></p> <item> – <emph>Design</emph>: Empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods) conducted in this field has been included, with an international perspective and chronologically framed (from 2000 to 2024, any country, in any language).</item> <p></p> <item> – <emph>Evaluation</emph>: The results from these studies have been analyzed in depth using a mixed methods approach, as they had not been systematically reviewed previously. The goal is to provide pedagogical guidelines that integrate the reading of nonfiction picturebooks into early childhood and elementary education, utilizing established literacy protocols and strategies.</item> <p></p> <item> – <emph>Research Type</emph>: Quantitative and qualitative exploratory studies, observational studies, case studies, and action research have all been included to provide a comprehensive, holistic view that can lead to subsequent specific systematic reviews in each area. Given that this is a complex construct approached from multiple perspectives, all of these have been considered in determining the eligibility of the studies. Only articles published in peer‐reviewed scientific journals were considered, excluding popular media publications, doctoral dissertations, and monographs that are not indexed in recognized databases.</item> </ulist> <p>The search for relevant research was conducted in the following databases, chosen for their relevance to the study topic: Web of Science (WOS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and Dialnet. The key search terms included "nonfiction" and "picturebook," along with their spelling variations, following the syntax and search strategy detailed below. The search was restricted to articles published in scientific journals within the three databases, covering the period from January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2024. This timeframe was chosen to explore how educational research on the reading of nonfiction picturebooks has evolved over the past 25 years.</p> <p>In the case of ERIC, the following Boolean operators were used: #1 Nonfiction AND picturebook: 15 results, #2 Nonfiction AND picture book: 343 results, #3 Non fiction AND picture book: 555 results, #4 Non‐fiction AND picturebook: 7 results, #5 Non‐fiction AND picture book: 162 results. The total records found in ERIC were 1082. In WOS, this syntax was used: ((((((ALL=(nonfiction AND picturebook)) OR ALL=(nonfiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(non fiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(non‐fiction AND picturebook)) OR ALL=(non‐fiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(Nonfiction AND album)) OR ALL=(Non fiction AND album). As this search, with the criteria from the previous database, yielded only 60 results, it was decided to broaden the search with the strategy non fiction AND children and its spelling variants to achieve a broader view of the theoretical construct. The complete syntax was formulated as follows: (((((((((ALL=(nonfiction AND picturebook)) OR ALL=(nonfiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(non fiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(non‐fiction AND picturebook)) OR ALL=(non‐fiction AND picture book)) OR ALL=(Nonfiction AND album)) OR ALL=(Non fiction AND album)) OR ALL=(nonfiction AND children)) OR ALL=(non fiction AND children)) OR ALL=(non‐fiction AND children). Thus, the total results with the expanded syntax were 452. In ProQuest, the following search strategy was used: (nonfiction AND picturebook) OR (nonfiction AND picture book) OR (non fiction AND picture book) OR (non‐fiction AND picturebook) OR (non‐fiction AND picture book) OR (nonfiction AND album) OR (non fiction AND album), which yielded 650,841 results. Because of its inoperability, another search was conducted with the terms grouped orthographically, with the following final syntax: (nonfiction AND picturebook) OR (non‐fiction AND picturebook) OR (non fiction AND picturebook) AND (children), which yielded 466 results. The Spanish database Dialnet was added for its relevance in studies within this field, using two syntaxes: (libro álbum AND no ficción) and ("libro de no ficción"), with a total of 56 results. Additionally, because of their relevance and impact on the theorization of the nonfiction picturebook in early childhood education internationally, four fundamental references were added to the initial database: Sanders ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref83">38</reflink>]), Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]), Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref85">13</reflink>]), Goga et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref86">10</reflink>]), and Tabernero Sala ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref87">44</reflink>]). In summary, the search phase concluded with <emph>n</emph> = 2004.</p> <p>After removing duplicates, the database contained <emph>n</emph> = 1367 results.</p> <p>During the screening phase, 137 studies were deemed relevant for the review after assessing the titles and abstracts of the compiled records. Figure 1 illustrates the phases of search and identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of the studies reviewed:</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Study inclusion decision tree." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The first phase was carried out by the first author, including the removal of duplicates. Beginning with the eligibility phase, both authors collaboratively screened the studies for inclusion in the full‐text review, eliminating those identified as irrelevant on the basis of their titles and abstracts. During this inter‐researcher agreement, the exclusion criteria were established, guiding the selection of the final sample (<emph>n</emph> = 34). Ultimately, both authors extracted data from the articles using a consensus‐developed database.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-13">Exclusion Criteria and Data Management</hd> <p>As illustrated in Figure 1, 137 studies were selected during the eligibility phase after excluding those that did not focus on the reading of nonfiction picturebooks on the basis of their titles or abstracts. Of these 137 studies, 103 were eliminated in the subsequent phase of full‐text review for the reasons outlined below: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>) did not conduct empirical research (<emph>n</emph> = 48), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>) focused on fiction instead of nonfiction picturebooks (<emph>n</emph> = 17), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>) included nonfiction books in digital format or solely text‐based (<emph>n</emph> = 10), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>) consisted of a sample of young adults or adults rather than readers aged 0–12 (<emph>n</emph> = 14), (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref92">5</reflink>) utilized nonfiction picturebooks but did not investigate their reading, focusing instead on other issues (<emph>n</emph> = 31), and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>) comprised reports or formative dissertations rather than research articles (<emph>n</emph> = 19). Some articles met multiple exclusion criteria and were thus classified in more than one elimination category. The open‐source software Zotero was utilized to record the results and manage the various phases of screening and eligibility.</p> <p>We decided to exclude nonfiction books in digital format for the following reasons. First, the object of our review is the nonfiction picturebook, conceived as a specific genre of children's and young adult literature, characterized by its multimodal and aesthetic nature. These features are intrinsically linked to the physical medium and cannot be fully transferred to digital editions that are purely textual or hyperlinked. Second, studies on digital nonfiction literature typically focus on different types of materials (not picturebooks) and on themes such as digital literacy, on‐screen reading, or information‐seeking strategies. Including such studies would have extended the scope of our review beyond its intended focus and introduced a level of heterogeneity that would have compromised the coherence and comparability required to conduct a systematic review of this kind.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-14">Study Records and Data Collection Process</hd> <p>After finalizing the selection of 34 studies, data collection was conducted using two software tools: Microsoft Excel and NVivo (v. 15). The selected studies' data were gathered through inter‐researcher consensus, on the basis of the following categories: author, year, research country, method, research design, context, research objective, sample, starting assumptions, reading strategy, mediation, and results.</p> <p>The analysis proceeded in two phases. In the first phase, each section of the study was synthesized according to its category, with any discrepancies between the two researchers resolved through discussion. Emergent categories, such as "mediation," which were not anticipated at the outset of the review, became prominent following the initial reading. In this context, the concept of "mediation," as explained by Zehr ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref94">55</reflink>]) in line with Feuerstein's conceptualization, is understood as the accompaniment during the reading process, which may take the form of <emph>active mediation</emph> (by a teacher, researcher, or parent who reads aloud or interacts with the child), <emph>passive mediation</emph> (merely observing the child's reading without intervening), or <emph>mixed mediation</emph> (combining both types of mediation at different moments within the same study).</p> <p>This phase was conducted using Microsoft Excel. In the second phase, NVivo was employed to categorize and systematize the data from the first phase. This involved creating a reformulated category system, developed ad hoc through consensus, after re‐examining the initial data. The categories from phase 1 were then converted into macro‐categories in phase 2, from which subsequent categories and subcategories were developed, as outlined in the table found in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Final system of quantifiable and qualitative emergent categories.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Macrocategory</th><th align="center">Category</th><th align="center">Subcategory</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Year</td><td align="center">2000–2024</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Research country</td><td align="center">AustraliaCreteCzechiaSpainSwedenUKUSA</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Method</td><td align="center">QuantitativeQualitativeMixed method</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Context</td><td align="center">Formal education</td><td align="center">PreschoolPrimary school</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Informal education</td><td align="center">EditorialFamily</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mediation</td><td align="center">Active mediationPassive mediationMixed mediationNA</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Research design</td><td align="center">Action research (reading intervention)Exploratory study (descriptive‐observational)Exploratory study (descriptive‐quantitative)Exploratory study (observational‐qualitative)</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading strategy</td><td align="center">Autonomous reading</td><td align="center">Freedom in book selectionIndividual reading</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Dialogic‐interactive strategies</td><td align="center">Dialogic adult–child reading in the family settingDialogic adult–child reading in the school settingDialogic peer reading</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Pre‐reading mediator intervention to activate prior knowledge</td><td align="center">Pre‐reading of examples to familiarize children with nonfiction picturebooksPresentation and introduction of key concepts prior to reading nonfiction picturebooks</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Post‐reading activities for nonfiction books</td><td align="center">Completion of questionnaires to assess reading comprehension of nonfiction picturebooksCompletion of worksheets to assess understanding of the differences between fiction and nonfictionCreation of nonfiction picturebooks by childrenDevelopment of concept maps to support learning the characteristics of nonfiction picturebooksPost‐reading explanation of specific characteristics of nonfiction picturebooks to distinguish between fiction and nonfictionWorksheet development to reinforce content from reading nonfiction picturebooks</td></tr><tr><td align="center">NA</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Starting assumptions</td><td align="center">Children's reading preferences for fiction or nonfiction picturebooks</td><td align="center">Boys prefer nonfiction picturebooks, whereas girls prefer fiction picturebooksNonfiction picturebooks should be integrated into education from an early age to cater to the diversity of children's tastesOlder children tend to prefer nonfiction over fictionPleasurable reading is primarily focused on fiction</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Hybridization in nonfiction picturebooks</td><td align="center">Hybrid nonfiction books blur children's opportunities to experience pure nonfiction picturebooksHybrid nonfiction books make the genre more appealing to readersThe boundaries between fiction and nonfiction are increasingly blurred</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Presence of nonfiction picturebooks in current early childhood education</td><td align="center">Nonfiction picturebooks are rarely used in early childhood or primary classroomsNonfiction picturebooks are scarcely present in school or classroom librariesTeachers are not familiar with the fiction‐nonfiction categoriesTeachers do not integrate nonfiction picturebooks into their classrooms either because they are unfamiliar with them or not adequately preparedU.S. curriculum guidelines recommend the inclusion of nonfiction picturebooks in early childhood and primary classrooms</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading nonfiction picturebooks aloud</td><td align="center">Adult–child interaction with nonfiction books is nearly twice as much as that with fiction booksFor children with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder), using nonfiction picturebooks during shared reading can be an effective tool for developing literacyNonfiction picturebooks are underutilized in shared adult–child read‐aloud practices (both in schools and families)Shared adult–child reading of fiction and nonfiction is highly effective in developing literacy, motivation, and reading comprehensionThe presence of adult mediation enhances the effectiveness of reading nonfiction picturebooks</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading nonfiction picturebooks in children with ASD</td><td align="center">Children with ASD are at greater risk of poor reading outcomesChildren with ASD have more difficulty understanding narrative texts than expository ones, making nonfiction picturebooks potentially useful for their reading comprehensionChildren with ASD show a preference for nonfiction picturebooksNonfiction picturebooks are easier to understand for children with ASDThere are no studies on reading preferences in children with ASD between fiction and nonfiction</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Research on nonfiction picturebooks</td><td align="center">A shortage of studies on children's responses to nonfiction picturebooks in early childhood or primary education is still perceivedA shortage of studies on specific mediation strategies for reading nonfiction picturebooks is still perceivedThere are no studies analyzing the movements of teachers and children while participating nonfiction book readingThere is a scarcity of research on nonfiction picturebook readingThere is growing research interest in nonfiction picturebook readingThere is less bibliographic development of nonfiction books compared to fiction books</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Results</td><td align="center">Children's reading preferences</td><td align="center">Both boys and girls predominantly prefer NFPB (Nonfiction Picturebooks) reading over fiction picturebooksBoys prefer NFPBs over fiction picturebooksChildren select NFPBs on the basis of curiosity about the topic, visual characteristics of the book, and knowledge of the authorsChildren select NFPBs on the basis of recommendations from their peers or teachersFrom 5th grade onwards, students develop specific motivations for certain NFPB authors, with preferences consistently repeatedGirls prefer fiction picture books over NFPBsGirls' motivation in both fiction and nonfiction reading is higher than boys'In cases where students with ASO prefer fiction picture books over NFPBs, this was significantly related to their social communication skillsIn family settings, there is a clear preference for fiction readingIt should not be assumed that children with ASD have preferences for certain types of booksMotivation for child‐chosen NFPBs influences their reading comprehension (higher motivation correlates with better comprehension)Reader preferences should be considered when selecting classroom booksThe most preferred books among families are those with animal themes</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Current NFPBs as literacy tools</td><td align="center">Children experience difficulties summarizing the key information in an NFPBCurrent NFPBs allow for the development of both efferent and aesthetic stances toward readingCurrent NFPBs allow young readers to connect their prior knowledge with the information provided by the textCurrent NFPBs are highly effective literacy tools because of their accessibility featuresCurrent NFPBs are highly effective tools for literacy because of their multimodal nature and balance between text and imagesCurrent NFPBs enable young readers to connect the text with their personal experiencesCurrent NFPBs improve children's reading comprehension and information processing skillsCurrent NFPBs offer children the opportunity to explore different types of books and reflect on their most relevant characteristicsExposure to different types of books helps children with ASD to develop early language and reading comprehension skillsFragmentary reading and accessibility features in NFPBs encourage positive reading responses, even among the most reluctant readersHybrid NFPBs allow children to reflect on the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction, even for the youngest (preschool‐aged) readersHybrid NFPBs generate linear and empathetic reading strategies with the characters, closer to the strategies used in reading fictional picturebooksReading current NFPBs allows for creative writing activities of informative texts, fostering a sense of self‐efficacy in studentsReading NFPBs in the family setting of children with ASO promotes their reading comprehensionRepeated reading of familiar NFPBs from their personal library encourages reading engagement in children with ASD</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center">Current NFPBs in the learning process</td><td align="center">Reading current NFPBs helps children develop pictorial and iconographic representation skills for communicating informationReading current NFPBs in classrooms creates a need to share knowledge with othersReading current NFPBs in classrooms fosters children's curiosity and desire to learnReading current NFPBs motivates children and mediators to engage in follow‐up activities inspired by the books, reinforcing learningReading current NFPBs promotes children's interest in a wide range of subjects that, with other materials, may seem difficult or uninteresting to themReading current NFPBs promotes critical and reflective attitudes toward the topics they address</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Emotional responses during and after NFPB reading</td><td align="center">Current NFPBs elicit dramatic emotional responses from children, driven by empathy with the topics addressedCurrent NFPBs elicit positive emotional responses of joy, excitement, and humorTeachers' emotional responses to reading NFPBs are rare.The current format of NFPBs elicits surprise and wonder in young readers because of their visual and graphic elements</td></tr><tr><td align="center">NFPB reading strategies</td><td align="center">Dialogic and interactive NFPB Reading Shared Among PeersDialogic and interactive NFPB Reading Shared Between Adult Mediator and ChildPresence of NFPBs in the School Environment</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191105821-15">Outcomes, Prioritization, and Data Synthesis</hd> <p>The results were analyzed using the previously established system of categorical nodes. The macro‐categories "year," "research country," "method," "research design," "context," and "sample" were examined through quantitative methods, as these involved measurable variables suitable for descriptive statistical analysis. In contrast, the macro‐categories "starting assumptions," "reading strategy," "mediation," and "results" were analyzed using a mixed‐methods approach. Initially, we conducted a quantitative analysis of categorical saturation, code presence, and cross‐references between codes and cases. This was followed by a qualitative, in‐depth analysis to explain the quantitative data with greater precision and detail.</p> <p>The analysis placed particular emphasis on two macro‐categories—"starting assumptions" and "results"—both of which required closer attention because of their complexity and importance for informing future directions in the educational community. We sought to thoroughly understand the foundational assumptions guiding the research: what common beliefs influenced the researchers, which ideas shaped their methodological decisions, and how these factors might introduce potential biases. Additionally, we were keen to examine the outcomes derived from the empirical data. Specifically, we focused on identifying the reading strategies for nonfiction picturebooks that were most effective, the contexts in which they were employed, their impact on children's literacy and learning, and the strategies that had either been underexplored or yielded results of questionable validity.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-16">Risk of Bias</hd> <p>First, the exclusion criteria may introduce a risk of bias. By excluding publications not found in indexed journals, the research diversity may be limited, potentially leading to a skewed representation of practices. Second, the geographic scope of the review might create variations in the applicability of the results. To address this, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the data with careful attention to context; however, most cases did not reveal significant variations, and any that were noted have been reported in the results. Finally, the use of mixed methods—considering this review is the first in this field and takes an exploratory approach—may introduce biases, particularly when discrepancies arise among the emerging categories. Nevertheless, a cohesive analysis was achieved, as both quantitative and qualitative methods share a similar exploratory and observational nature, facilitating the connection of common conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-17">Confidence in Cumulative Evidence</hd> <p>In applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (GRADE; Neumann et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref95">32</reflink>]) to this review—bearing in mind that this is an educational study, not a clinical one, with an exploratory‐observational nature and predominantly qualitative methodology, along with its inherent limitations—several key criteria were used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. First, the impact of the pedagogical recommendations was assessed on the basis of evidence that adequately represented the phenomenon of interest. This included results that demonstrated a high level of consensus across the research, did not show inconsistencies or discrepancies requiring further investigation, or were not based on unsubstantiated subjective judgments by the researchers. Second, we analyzed the risk of bias (as discussed above), the generalizability of the findings on the basis of sample size, the transferability of results to similar educational settings, and the limitations of the research design and reading strategies employed. Third, the results were evaluated using GRADE levels of evidence quality (high, moderate, and low), following criteria for categorical saturation and consensus among studies.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-19">General Macrocategories (Year, Research Country, Method, Research Context, and Research Desig...</hd> <p>First, the results related to quantifiable variables are presented, as explained earlier. These data offer a broad overview of the subject and enable a more precise explanation of the key macrocategories for analysis. In this case, the focus is on the mixed‐method categories: "Starting Assumptions" and "Results."</p> <p>In the "Year" macrocategory, there is a noticeable upward trend in empirical research on children's reading of nonfiction picturebooks, particularly from 2012 onward (Figure 2). This increase aligns with the release of the Common Core Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards in the United States. In the previous decade, there were fewer references, appearing at a relatively steady but low rate. However, during the years of highest output (2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023), the number of articles rose to three—a relatively modest figure, considering all publication outlets were included. In 2024, there has been a further increase (four publications), a trend that will need to be monitored in the coming years, as it may be influenced by the January 2023 publication of the Position Statement on the Role of Nonfiction Literature (K‐12) in the U.S.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Publications per year." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Second, in the "Research Country" macrocategory—consistent with previous findings—a clear dominance of U.S. publications is evident, comprising a substantial 67.6%, whereas the UK and Spain account for a modest 8.8%, and only a minimal 2.9% comes from other countries such as Australia, Sweden, Crete, and Czechia (Figure 3):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Publications by country." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The coding matrix (Figure 4) demonstrates that interest in reading nonfiction picturebooks in the U.S. has remained constant, though relatively low in publication numbers, since the year 2000, with a notable increase starting in 2012. In contrast, no publications were identified in other research contexts until 2015, suggesting a significant international influence of U.S. research in this area:</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Coding matrix of the intersection of the codes "year" and "research country."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Third, in the "Research Method" category, the majority of studies utilize qualitative techniques (70.6%), whereas quantitative approaches (17.6%) and mixed methodologies (11.8%) are significantly less common. These findings highlight a notable gap in the literature regarding quantitative research that employs psychometric analysis tools and generalizable samples, in contrast to the prevalence of ethnographic studies focused on specific schools or student groups (Figure 5):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Research method." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In this regard (within the "Context" macrocategory), most studies were conducted in formal educational settings, primarily in elementary and preschool environments (80%). In contrast, informal education—comprised of research conducted in family or publishing contexts—plays a noticeably secondary role (Figure 6):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Research context." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The intersection of the Method and Year codes in the coding matrix reveals a slightly upward trend in qualitative methods, while mixed and quantitative methods show a lower, albeit regular, presence. In this context, although quantitative and mixed studies have been uniformly distributed since 2015, qualitative research on the reading of nonfiction picturebooks, which has been present since 2000, began to increase in 2016, culminating in a higher number of studies over the last 2 years (Figure 7):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Intersection of the codes "year" and "method."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Furthermore, although qualitative studies have achieved an international scope, encompassing locations such as Crete, Czechia, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, quantitative or mixed studies have only been carried out in English‐speaking countries (the USA, the UK, and Australia). As a result, there is a notable absence of quantifiable data regarding the reading of nonfiction picturebooks in other regions (Figure 8):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Intersection of the codes "research country" and "method."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Conversely, studies focusing on formal educational contexts predominantly employed qualitative or mixed methods (73.5%), whereas quantitative research represented only 5.9%. In contrast, quantitative studies were more frequently concentrated in informal contexts (66.7%), as opposed to 33.3% in formal settings (such as preschool or primary education). There remains a significant scarcity of quantitative data regarding the reading of nonfiction picturebooks in formal educational contexts (Figure 9):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0009.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0009.jpg" title="9 Intersection of the codes "method" and "context."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>From a research design perspective (Macrocategory 4), the analysis of the selected articles reveals two major groups: action‐research studies that implement reading interventions and exploratory studies. Within the latter, three types emerge: descriptive‐quantitative studies, which primarily investigate reading motivation and comprehension in students with typical development or ASD through nonfiction picturebooks; observational‐qualitative studies, which explore reading practices through ethnographic techniques, typically within a classroom or family setting; and descriptive‐observational studies, which use mixed methods, combining the analysis of reading outcomes via questionnaires or psychometric tests with qualitative data collection through participant or non‐participant observation. Notably, action‐research studies centered on reading interventions using nonfiction picturebooks are the most prevalent, followed by qualitative observational studies, descriptive‐quantitative studies, and descriptive‐observational studies (Figure 10):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0010.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0010.jpg" title="10 Research design." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Once again, apart from English‐speaking countries, which typically combine multiple research designs, the international landscape has primarily focused on action‐research projects centered exclusively on reading interventions (Figure 11):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0011.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0011.jpg" title="11 Intersection of the codes "research design" and "research country."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>From a diachronic perspective, the past 5 years have seen a growing trend in educational reading interventions with nonfiction picturebooks in classroom or specific school contexts, accompanied by a decline in other types of exploratory studies (Figure 12):</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0012.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0012.jpg" title="12 Intersection of the codes "research design" and "year."" /> </p> <p></p> <p>The sample sizes align with the previous data. Aside from one study (Topping [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]), which involved a large sample (<emph>n</emph> = 150,220), the remaining studies range from 3 to 190 children, with an average of 38.5. Quantitative studies, excluding Topping ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref97">46</reflink>]), also involve relatively small samples (<emph>x¯</emph> = 67.4). This reveals a clear scarcity—virtually an absence—of studies on reading nonfiction picturebooks that include large or generalizable child samples.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-31">Specific Macrocategories (Reading Strategy, Mediation)</hd> <p>On the basis of these general results, the category "Reading Strategy" emerged. Given that the majority of studies focused on reading interventions, it was important to identify the specific strategies employed with children, particularly in formal educational settings, where 80% of the research was conducted. We identified four types of strategies (including "Not applicable" to prevent saturation errors in studies of other types): independent reading strategies, dialogic‐interactive strategies, and pre‐ and post‐reading strategies (see Figure 13).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0013.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0013.jpg" title="13 Reading strategy." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As seen in Figure 13, dialogic‐interactive reading strategies were implemented in the majority of studies (<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref98">25</reflink>), whereas independent reading strategies were less frequently used (9 studies). Pre‐ and post‐reading activities appeared in 20 studies (12 and 8, respectively), and 6 studies did not present any reading strategy. Dialogic‐interactive reading strategies were applied in various ways: either mediated by an adult in the school setting (50%), between peers (35.29%), or in the family setting (8.82%).</p> <p>Secondly, pre‐ and post‐reading strategies led by the mediator (usually the teacher) were also significant. In the pre‐reading phase, the mediator either introduced examples of nonfiction picturebooks to help students conceptually familiarize themselves with the genre or presented key concepts theoretically to enhance their understanding of nonfiction picturebooks. The post‐reading strategies, more varied and complex, involved several activities to reinforce comprehension of nonfiction picturebooks. These included having children create their own nonfiction picturebook (20%) or other artistic projects, such as collages, videos, or drawings (20%); creating concept maps to summarize key features of nonfiction picturebooks (13.33%); completing worksheets to better understand the differences between fiction and nonfiction (13.33%); listening to instructor‐led explanations to clarify the boundaries and characteristics of each genre (13.33%); and answering reading comprehension questionnaires (6.67%). As the data indicate, 40% of post‐reading activities involved creative projects following the reading of nonfiction picturebooks, whereas 60% focused on conceptual worksheets or theoretical explanations about the differences between fiction and nonfiction.</p> <p>Third place is held by independent reading strategies, which were somewhat less common. In these cases, the student freely selected a nonfiction picturebook to read individually and silently.</p> <p>Reader mediation was predominantly active, meaning that in most studies, the teacher, parent, or adult researcher read aloud while engaging the children in discussions about the content, form, and conceptual features of the selected nonfiction picturebooks. Less commonly, passive reading strategies were observed, where children read independently (without adult mediation), or mixed strategies were used, combining periods of active and passive mediation (Figure 14).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0014.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0014.jpg" title="14 Mediation." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-34">Priority Macrocategories (Starting Assumptions and Results)</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191105821-35">Starting Assuptions</hd> <p>As one of the two priority categories (see above), it was essential to explore the assumptions about reading nonfiction picturebooks that underlie various studies, as well as the beliefs held by researchers that influenced their decisions regarding research design and the reading strategies implemented. This category was challenging to define because of the significant variety of starting points and differing perspectives on reading nonfiction picturebooks presented in each study. Despite this complexity, six categories emerged to group researchers' beliefs in this area: assumptions regarding nonfiction picturebooks as tools for literacy (present in a significant majority of 79.41% of studies); assumptions about the presence of nonfiction picturebooks in current education (also represented in a substantial 67.64%); assumptions about the evolution of research in nonfiction picturebooks (50%); assumptions about the practice of reading nonfiction picturebooks aloud (29.41%); children's reading preferences for fiction versus nonfiction (26.47%); assumptions about the conceptual boundaries between fiction and nonfiction and their occasionally hybrid nature (17.64%); and assumptions about reading nonfiction picturebooks among children with ASD (8.82%) (see Figure 15).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0015.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0015.jpg" title="15 Starting assumptions." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Among these six categories, beliefs about the value of nonfiction picturebooks as effective literacy tools encompass several key points: nonfiction picturebooks effectively support the development of multimodal reading (11 studies); they should be integrated into educational settings from an early age to expose children to diverse text types (9 studies); they foster curiosity and a desire to learn (7 studies); they provide accessible elements that facilitate the understanding of complex informational content at higher educational levels (6 studies); they serve as valuable alternatives to traditional textbooks because of their expository nature and multimodal features (4 studies); they are instrumental in cultivating critical reading skills and positive attitudes toward various topics (3 studies); and children with limited exposure to nonfiction picturebooks tend to show poorer reading comprehension outcomes (4 studies).</p> <p>Regarding researchers' beliefs about the presence of nonfiction picturebooks in contemporary education, most studies operate under the assumption that these books are underutilized in early childhood and elementary education (13 studies). This perception persists despite the clear inclusion of nonfiction picturebooks in U.S. curriculum standards and teaching recommendations (12 studies). As a result, researchers suggest that teachers may not integrate nonfiction picturebooks into their classrooms either because of a lack of familiarity with these resources or a perceived lack of preparedness to use them effectively (five studies). Additionally, there are less common assertions, such as "teachers are not familiar with the differences between fiction and nonfiction" (two studies) and "nonfiction picturebooks are scarcely present in school libraries" (three studies), both of which echo the broader assumptions identified previously.</p> <p>Less frequently represented in the studies are assumptions related to the read‐aloud practices of nonfiction picturebooks and children's reading preferences for fiction versus nonfiction. In the context of read‐aloud practices, some researchers posit that shared read‐aloud sessions of nonfiction picturebooks between adults and children are highly effective for fostering literacy, motivation, and reading comprehension (six studies) and that these practices enhance the overall effectiveness of reading nonfiction (three studies). Furthermore, it is suggested that adult–child interactions during the reading of nonfiction picturebooks occur nearly twice as frequently as during the reading of fiction picturebooks (two studies). In studies focusing on children with ASD, researchers indicate that using nonfiction picturebooks for literacy development can be particularly beneficial (one study).</p> <p>Regarding reading preferences, a recurring belief among researchers is that boys tend to prefer nonfiction picturebooks, whereas girls are more inclined toward fiction (four studies). Additionally, some studies suggest that older children are more likely to favor nonfiction over fiction (two studies) and emphasize the importance of integrating nonfiction picturebooks into early education to accommodate the reading preferences of all children (two studies). Conversely, a smaller yet notable segment of researchers argues that pleasure reading is primarily associated with preferences for fiction (one study).</p> <p>Concerning the evolution of nonfiction picturebooks in recent years, particularly the blurring of boundaries between fiction and nonfiction because of hybrid nonfiction picturebooks, researchers generally concur that these distinctions are becoming increasingly ambiguous (three studies). This view is accompanied by two contrasting perspectives: some studies suggest that hybrid nonfiction books can enhance the genre's appeal to readers (two studies), whereas others contend that this blurring diminishes opportunities for engaging with traditional nonfiction (two studies).</p> <p>Regarding the reading of nonfiction picturebooks by children with ASD, the predominant belief is that these children are at greater risk of experiencing poorer reading outcomes and face more challenges in comprehending narrative texts compared to expository ones. Consequently, reading nonfiction picturebooks may serve as a valuable tool for their literacy development (two studies), with some researchers noting that children with ASD tend to prefer these books (one study). However, it is also recognized that research on the reading preferences for fiction versus nonfiction among students with ASD is limited (one study), making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions in this area.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-37">Results</hd> <p>Thus, considering these assumptions about reading nonfiction picturebooks, we analyze the second priority macrocategory (Results), which allows us to assess what has been obtained through recent research and to what extent the results align with or contradict the initial assumptions. The emerging results from the four types of studies have been grouped into five categories: results regarding the reading of nonfiction picturebooks as tools for literacy; results concerning the various reading strategies implemented; results on the learning process during or after reading; results on children's reading preferences; and results on children's emotional responses (Figure 16). To classify the impact of these results, we provide a graphical representation of the code counts and narratively describe their percentage load in relation to the total number of selected studies.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0016.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0016.jpg" title="16 Results (categories)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As shown in Figure 16, the most frequent results (present in 79.41% of the studies) highlight the effectiveness of reading nonfiction picturebooks for children's literacy. This is followed by findings related to the various reading strategies that can be implemented (67.64%) and data on their role in the learning process (61.76%). To a lesser extent, results were found regarding children's reading preferences (29.41%) and their emotional responses to reading nonfiction picturebooks (23.53%).</p> <p>In the first category, "Current Nonfiction Picturebooks as Literacy Tools," 15 studies (44.12%) found that current nonfiction picturebooks significantly enhanced students' reading comprehension and their ability to process and understand information. Additionally, 13 studies (38.32%) indicated that these books were particularly effective for literacy because of their multimodal nature and the balance between text and images. Furthermore, 38.32% of the studies showed that nonfiction picturebooks provide children with opportunities to explore different types of literature and reflect on their key features, which broaden their understanding of reading. Although these findings had the highest counts among the selected articles, it is important to note that no single result was present in at least half of the studies; the maximum consensus was 15 out of 34 articles.</p> <p>Following these results, researchers concluded that current nonfiction picturebooks helped develop both efferent and aesthetic responses to reading (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref99">10</reflink>, 29.41%) and facilitated connections between content and students' prior knowledge (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>, 26.47%). Additionally, eight studies found that the fragmented reading style and accessibility features of these books encouraged positive reactions from children, even among reluctant readers (23.52%). Six studies also reported that these books helped children connect the text to their personal experiences (17.64%). Other results, although less frequently reported, include findings from three studies that indicated hybrid nonfiction picturebooks helped children think about the differences between fiction and nonfiction (8.82%). Two studies suggested these books promoted more linear and empathetic reading strategies similar to those used in fiction (5.88%). Furthermore, three studies showed that reading nonfiction picturebooks can lead to creative activities with informational texts, fostering a sense of self‐efficacy in students (8.82%). Only two studies reported negative outcomes after reading nonfiction, noting that children had difficulty summarizing and synthesizing key information (5.88%). Finally, one study found that exposure to various types of books, including nonfiction picturebooks, helped children with ASD develop language and comprehension skills at an earlier age.</p> <p>In the second category (Reading Strategies), the most frequently reported results, found in 15 studies, focused on dialogic‐interactive reading between adults and children. This was followed by peer reading, which was mentioned in 12 studies, and the availability of books in the school environment, noted in 5 studies (Figure 17).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01jan26/rrq70081-fig-0017.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70081-fig-0017.jpg" title="17 Results. Subcategory reading strategies." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Among these findings, the most significant result, reported in 10 of the 34 studies, showed that adult mediation during the reading of nonfiction picturebooks increased the number of high‐cognitive‐demand responses (29.41%) and fostered positive attitudes (8.82%). Additionally, nine studies concluded that shared reading of nonfiction picturebooks among peers was social in nature. It allowed children to connect with one another and engage with each other's responses (23.52%), share experiences and interests (20.58%), facilitate interaction between more and less skilled readers (8.82%), expand their vocabulary (2.29%), and feel empowered as critics of the works, which boosted their intrinsic motivation (5.88%) and sense of self‐efficacy (8.82%). However, two studies contradicted these findings, indicating that peer reading sometimes led to distractions and unrelated thoughts (5.88%) and created excessive noise in the classroom (8.82%).</p> <p>From the teachers' perspective, six studies concluded that their approach to reading nonfiction picture books was predominantly efferent, focusing on the information provided by the topic, with an emphasis on vocabulary (17.65%). Pre‐reading activities were shown to enhance subsequent learning of both the format and the content of the books (14.70%). Less commonly, three studies highlighted the need to use varied techniques to encourage reading nonfiction picturebooks (8.82%), and only one study found that relaxed reading of these books generated more reader responses than fiction ones (2.94%).</p> <p>Regarding studies focused on children with ASD, two studies concluded that these children responded more actively during the reading of familiar books (fiction or nonfiction, with no difference between genres), and that the quality of family members as read‐aloud mediators for nonfiction picturebooks did not impact the children's engagement with affective reading (2.94%).</p> <p>From a family reading perspective, three studies suggested that mediators conducted higher‐quality read‐aloud sessions, exchanging more opinions, extratextual statements, and using richer vocabulary with nonfiction books compared to fiction (5.88%). Additionally, nonfiction picturebooks were read selectively, whereas fiction books were read in full (2.94%).</p> <p>The third category, "Nonfiction Picturebooks in the Learning Process," showed more consistent results. Most of them concluded that reading contemporary nonfiction picturebooks sparked a need to share knowledge and encouraged curiosity, as well as a desire to learn about a wide range of topics that children often found difficult or uninteresting with other materials (52.94%, 11, 10, and 6 studies, respectively). These books also helped develop pictorial and iconographic strategies for communicating information (5 studies, 14.70%) and motivated mediators to design new activities inspired by the content (3 studies, 8.82%).</p> <p>The fourth category, "Children's Reading Preferences," did not produce significant results. Studies that assumed boys preferred nonfiction picturebooks confirmed this assumption (11.76%), although three studies found that both boys and girls showed a preference for nonfiction, whereas one study confirmed that girls favored fiction and were generally more motivated to read. Similarly, the belief that older children develop a preference for nonfiction picturebooks by familiar authors was supported by one study (2.94%). Another study found that children's favorite nonfiction books were about animals (2.94%). More commonly (six studies, 17.64%), results focused on the reasons behind children's book choices: curiosity about the topic, the physical characteristics of the books, familiarity with the authors, and recommendations from peers or teachers. For children with ASD, three studies (8.82%) reported no clear preference for one genre over the other. When fiction picturebooks were preferred, it was linked to their socialization skills.</p> <p>The fifth and final category of results, "Emotional Responses During or After Nonfiction Picturebook Reading," was less represented in the studies. In 7 out of the 34 studies (20.59%), positive emotional responses such as humor, enthusiasm, and joy were noted, whereas 6 studies (17.64%) identified feelings of surprise and wonder related to the visual elements of the books. Only one study (2.94%) reported dramatic emotional responses, driven by empathy for the book's themes. Furthermore, the emotional responses of teachers were largely underexplored, with only one study analyzing this aspect and concluding that they were barely perceived (2.94%).</p> <p>Given the qualitative nature of most of the studies reviewed and the necessity for a consistent methodological approach, the results of the selected articles do not permit statistical calculations of effect size. However, to guide future research and use the GRADE framework as a model to assess the impact of these studies, a table has been created to classify the findings on the basis of their frequency of occurrence. Findings that appear in more than 66.6% of the publications (23–34) are classified as having "high presence," whereas those appearing in 33.3%–66.6% (12–22) of the publications are categorized as "moderate presence." Findings that occur in less than 33.3% (1–11) of the publications are designated as having "low presence." This classification approach provides a clearer understanding of the predominant themes in the literature and establishes a foundation for future research (Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Frequency of result occurrence.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Results</th><th align="center">Frequency of occurrence</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Current nonfiction picturebooks are effective literacy tools: They enhance reading comprehension, foster both informational and aesthetic responses because of their multimodal nature, and provide opportunities to explore various types of literature and reflect on their characteristics. Their fragmented reading style engages reluctant readers and helps connect content with prior knowledge and personal experiences.</td><td align="center">High</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nonfiction picturebooks require a variety of reading strategies, particularly dialogic and social approaches, which foster high‐cognitive‐demand responses, promote interaction and the sharing of interests, and enhance motivation and a sense of self‐efficacy.</td><td align="center">High</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nonfiction picturebooks are effective learning tools that foster curiosity and encourage engagement with challenging or less interesting content compared to other materials. They also help develop pictorial and iconographic strategies for communicating information, while motivating educators to create new activities inspired by the books.</td><td align="center">Moderate</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Children tend to prefer fiction readings, especially as they get older and when the books feature animal themes and familiar authors.</td><td align="center">Low</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Current nonfiction picturebooks elicit strong emotional responses, particularly positive ones such as enthusiasm, surprise, and appreciation for the visual format and content.</td><td align="center">Low</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> The color values are presented there: High, Moderate and Low, as it is showned.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-40">Discussion</hd> <p>The PRISMA‐P systematic review reinforces and extends the theoretical premises outlined in the introduction, underscoring the growing relevance of the nonfiction picturebook within today's reading ecosystem. It consolidates this genre's recognition as a key pedagogical resource for cultivating critical, multimodal, and socially engaged readers.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-41">Temporal and Geographical Trends in Research on Nonfiction Picturebooks</hd> <p>Findings from this review indicate a steady rise in empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading since 2012. This trend can be explained by three main factors. First, the revitalization and renewal of the genre itself (Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref101">52</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref102">12</reflink>]; Jan, 2021)—evident in the increasing number and diversity of publications over recent decades—has sparked heightened scholarly interest and a proliferation of theoretical inquiry. Second, the influence of major international educational policy frameworks—such as those promoted by the European Agenda for Culture ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref103">8</reflink>]), UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref104">47</reflink>]), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—has reinforced the central role of reading in fostering critical, informed, and participatory citizenship. As Todaro and Mascia ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>]) and Mascia ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref106">21</reflink>]) argue, these initiatives have shaped not only the editorial evolution of nonfiction picturebooks but also the scientific research that takes them as its focus. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the curricular momentum emerging from the United States—particularly the Position Statement on the Role of Nonfiction Literature (K‐12) issued by the National Council of Teachers of English—has stimulated a notable increase in empirical studies exploring how nonfiction picturebooks can be integrated into classroom practice. This surge, especially visible after 2016, coincides with a growing recognition of the genre's educational potential. Despite their still limited presence in schools (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref107">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]; Shimek [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref109">40</reflink>]; Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref110">34</reflink>]), the expanding body of research since 2012 reflects a clear and sustained awareness of the nonfiction picturebook's pedagogical significance.</p> <p>Moreover, the incorporation of STE(A)M‐oriented educational models—particularly those promoted in the United Kingdom (University of Cambridge [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref111">48</reflink>])—further reinforces the growing recognition of nonfiction picturebooks as effective tools for integrating scientific inquiry, creativity, and visual literacy within educational practice. This alignment, as anticipated by Kuzmičová and Supa ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref112">18</reflink>]), underscores the genre's potential to bridge disciplinary boundaries and to cultivate curiosity‐driven, aesthetically engaged forms of learning.</p> <p>In line with this tendency, and largely driven by the curricular impetus originating in the United States, the review reveals a clear Anglo‐American predominance (68%) in empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that this hegemony is gradually expanding. In recent years, a number of studies conducted in other regions have begun to adapt North American frameworks to their own educational and cultural contexts. Although empirical research remains primarily concentrated in the United States—unlike theoretical and conceptual work, which shows greater European representation—a gradual diversification is emerging. Across these new geographical and linguistic settings, nonfiction picturebooks are increasingly recognized as valuable resources for fostering learning, supporting language development, and strengthening both informational and visual literacies.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-42">Methodological Approaches and Educational Contexts in Empirical Research on Nonfiction Pictur...</hd> <p>The analysis reveals a clear predominance of qualitative approaches (70.6%) in empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading, alongside a notable scarcity of quantitative or mixed‐method studies—which have virtually disappeared over the past two decades and remain almost exclusively concentrated in Anglo‐American contexts. This preference for qualitative inquiry is closely tied to the very nature of the object of study and to the theoretical frameworks that have shaped its investigation.</p> <p>As discussed in the introduction, nonfiction picturebooks are defined by their multimodal complexity, their aesthetic and affective dimensions, and their inherently dialogic character, which positions the child reader as an active interpreter in the co‐construction of meaning (Sanders [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref113">38</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref114">12</reflink>]; Goga et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref115">10</reflink>]). Accordingly, researchers tend to adopt qualitative methodologies—such as classroom interaction analysis, case studies, and interpretive discourse approaches—that capture the richness of children's reading responses, the emotions involved, and the meaning‐making processes that are not easily measurable through quantitative instruments.</p> <p>This methodological inclination also explains the typically small and context‐specific nature of the samples, which range from 3 to 190 participants, most often grouped in classroom settings or family‐based case studies. Even those studies employing quantitative tools rely on small cohorts, which limits the generalizability of their findings. Together, these tendencies suggest that empirical research on nonfiction picturebooks has thus far prioritized a deep, situated understanding of the reading experience over the production of large‐scale, generalizable evidence—privileging interpretive insight over statistical breadth.</p> <p>Furthermore, the recent theoretical orientation toward the affective turn (Massumi [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref116">22</reflink>]; Clough [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref117">5</reflink>]) and the concept of children's agency (Flynn [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]; Gubar [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref119">14</reflink>]) have further strengthened this methodological trend. Both frameworks prioritize understanding reading as a situated, embodied, and relational practice rather than as an observable or statistically quantifiable behavior. Accordingly, the prevalence of qualitative studies reflects an increasing scholarly interest in exploring how nonfiction picturebook reading interlaces cognition, emotion, and action—and how these intertwined dimensions may foster children's critical awareness, creative inquiry, and social participation.</p> <p>Nearly all of the studies (80%) have been conducted within formal educational settings, primarily in early childhood and elementary classrooms. This concentration is directly linked to the curricular momentum emerging in the United States, where nonfiction picturebooks have been explicitly promoted as pedagogical tools to strengthen reading comprehension, information and visual literacy, and critical engagement. In contrast, there remains a notable lack of research in informal learning contexts—such as homes, libraries, and publishing or community spaces—despite their potential to cultivate freer, more affective, and dialogic reading practices aligned with the aesthetic, emotional, and agentive dimensions that characterize the genre.</p> <p>Methodologically, over half of the studies employed action research designs that implemented structured reading interventions, whereas 41% adopted exploratory or observational approaches centered on children's reading responses. In recent years, a clear shift has emerged from descriptive explorations toward intervention‐based studies, signaling a gradual maturation of the field. This transition indicates that research is moving beyond documenting how children read nonfiction picturebooks to investigating how instructional mediation and pedagogical design can enhance their cognitive, aesthetic, and emotional engagement with these complex multimodal texts.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-43">Reading Strategies and Mediation in Nonfiction Picturebook Engagement</hd> <p>The findings indicate that dialogic–interactive approaches (74%) are the most effective strategies for engaging children with nonfiction picturebooks, whereas autonomous reading remains comparatively infrequent. These dialogic strategies are particularly productive because they integrate the cognitive, emotional, and aesthetic dimensions of the reading process—dimensions that are intrinsic to the hybrid and multimodal nature of the genre (Von‐Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref120">53</reflink>]; Goga et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>]). As Sanders ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref122">38</reflink>]) contends, nonfiction picturebooks invite readers to become active co‐constructors of meaning, a process that flourishes in dialogic contexts where conversation and shared interpretation deepen comprehension. Likewise, Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref123">13</reflink>]) and Alexander and Jarman ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>]) emphasize that deep engagement with such texts requires the concurrent activation of rational and emotional processes—an interplay that interactive strategies naturally foster by blending analytical reflection with affective response. Accordingly, our results suggest that active mediation by teachers or researchers—and, to a lesser extent, hybrid mediation combining guided and autonomous exploration—is particularly effective in nurturing curiosity, empathy, and critical thinking, all core components of the informational and visual literacies promoted by the genre.</p> <p>The predominance of teacher mediation over peer‐ or family‐based mediation can also be attributed to the curricular momentum that nonfiction picturebooks have recently gained (Brugar [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref125">3</reflink>]; National Council of Teachers of English [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]). The presence of an adult mediator supports reflective, multimodal reading practices by guiding children's attention to graphic resources, discourse organization, and the intricate relationships between text, image, and factual knowledge (Hervouët and Vidal‐Naquet [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref127">16</reflink>]). This form of mediation aligns closely with Rosenblatt's ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref128">35</reflink>]) model of integrated efferent and aesthetic reading, fostering both conceptual understanding and emotional engagement in equal measure.</p> <p>Moreover, reading practices associated with nonfiction picturebooks reveal a pronounced artistic and creative dimension, deeply connected to their visual and material qualities. Numerous studies describe activities in which children reinterpret textual content through expressive forms—such as collages, visual maps, self‐authored nonfiction books, or drawings—transforming reading into a creative and reflective act. These multimodal practices reinforce the interdependence of art, knowledge, and emotion, turning reading into an aesthetic exploration that extends the meaning of the book beyond its pages (Sanders [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref129">38</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref130">12</reflink>]; Goga et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref131">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-44">Alignment Between Empirical Findings and Theoretical Assumptions</hd> <p>The reviewed studies consistently affirm that nonfiction picturebooks are highly effective tools for fostering literacy and that their inclusion in contemporary education is essential—particularly when implemented through dialogic–interactive reading strategies. The most recurrent empirical findings converge in demonstrating that nonfiction picturebooks enhance reading comprehension, the ability to process complex information, and the active construction of knowledge, aligning closely with the informational and cognitive dimensions attributed to the genre in theoretical frameworks (Duke [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref132">6</reflink>]; Hervouët and Vidal‐Naquet [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref133">16</reflink>]). Their multimodal nature—balancing text and image within a cohesive interpretive system—strengthens visual literacy and promotes exploratory, non‐linear forms of reading (Von‐Merveldt [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref134">53</reflink>]; Goga et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref135">10</reflink>]; Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref136">34</reflink>]). As Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref137">12</reflink>]) observes, these books simultaneously engage rational and sensory processes, linking informational reading to aesthetic and emotional experience. In doing so, nonfiction picturebooks emerge as ideal instruments for cultivating comprehensive literacy within today's multimodal reading ecosystem (Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref138">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, the findings reveal that nonfiction picturebooks help children connect new content to prior knowledge, encourage a fragmented yet accessible reading style, and elicit positive emotional responses—even among reluctant readers—by allowing them to relate the text to their personal experiences (Alexander and Jarman [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref140">13</reflink>]). By nurturing empathy and curiosity, nonfiction picturebooks expand children's repertoires of reading strategies toward more reflective and affective engagement, similar to those traditionally associated with fiction. In this sense, empirical evidence corroborates that nonfiction picturebook reading stimulates not only comprehension and literacy but also creativity and artistic expression—dimensions that, as Grilli ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref141">12</reflink>]) argues, underscore the genre's educational value as a medium that unites art and knowledge.</p> <p>Moreover, the studies reviewed confirm that reading nonfiction picturebooks is a fundamentally social act, as Shimek ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref142">41</reflink>]) suggests. These books encourage children to interact with one another, exchange interpretations, and construct meaning collaboratively. Shared reading fosters cooperation among readers with differing levels of proficiency, transforming the classroom into an interpretive community where children feel empowered as critical and questioning readers. From this perspective, such interaction embodies the concept of agency (Flynn [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref143">9</reflink>]; Gubar [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref144">14</reflink>]), positioning the child as an active co‐constructor of meaning whose engagement possesses transformative potential—both in shaping understanding and in influencing the broader social environment, always in dynamic interdependence with adult mediation.</p> <p>In line with the preceding findings, the most consistent empirical results substantiate Sanders's ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref145">38</reflink>]) theoretical proposition, which conceives the nonfiction picturebook as a space where the author's voice invites readers into active and reflective participation. The studies reviewed demonstrate that these books spark curiosity and a genuine desire to learn about complex or unfamiliar subjects, fostering knowledge exchange and critical inquiry in ways that traditional instructional materials—such as textbooks—rarely achieve. Consistent with Sanders's framework, nonfiction picturebooks encourage dialogic and self‐reflective reading practices that prompt children to ask questions, formulate hypotheses, and share their discoveries collaboratively.</p> <p>With respect to reading preferences, the available research remains inconclusive. A weak tendency persists, suggesting that boys may display a stronger affinity for nonfiction picturebooks, whereas girls may favor fiction. However, this pattern appears to reflect inherited sociocultural expectations rather than intrinsic differences in interest or reading competence. This observation underscores the need for further investigation into how mediation and text presentation might help to disrupt and transcend these gendered assumptions.</p> <p>A comparable gap exists regarding the emotional and affective dimensions of nonfiction picturebook reading, which remain largely underexplored. The limited studies addressing this aspect (Sanjuán‐Álvarez and Cristóbal‐Hornillos [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref146">39</reflink>]; Pérez‐Martínez and Muela‐Bermejo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref147">34</reflink>]) indicate that nonfiction picturebooks elicit positive affective responses—such as enthusiasm, curiosity, surprise, and wonder—arising both from their visual and material design and from the aesthetic and exploratory experiences they afford. Although still preliminary, these findings lend empirical support to the theoretical alignment with the affective turn (Massumi [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref148">22</reflink>]; Grilli [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref149">13</reflink>]), suggesting that nonfiction reading not only conveys information but also mobilizes emotion, reinforcing the interdependence between feeling, learning, and action.</p> <p>Similarly, research on hybrid or narrative nonfiction picturebooks (Narančić Kovač [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref150">30</reflink>]; Muela‐Bermejo and Laborda‐Casamián [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref151">28</reflink>]) remains limited and inconclusive. The review suggests that the blurring of genre boundaries in such works can occasionally pose comprehension challenges, particularly for readers with specific learning needs, such as children with ASD. Yet this very interpretive complexity represents one of the defining features that theoretical frameworks associate with the genre's multimodal and boundary‐crossing nature. Consequently, it offers fertile ground for future inquiry into how young readers negotiate meaning and enact agency when engaging with texts that dissolve the distinctions between fact and fiction.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-45">Limitations and Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>This systematic review identifies several important limitations in the current body of empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading. First, the geographical scope of existing studies remains remarkably narrow. The overwhelming majority have been conducted in the United States, with only a few emerging from other linguistic or cultural contexts. This imbalance restricts the generalizability of findings and underscores the need for comparative and cross‐cultural investigations that explore how nonfiction picturebooks are read, mediated, and interpreted across diverse educational and sociocultural settings.</p> <p>Second, clear methodological constraints persist. Most studies rely on qualitative or mixed‐method designs with relatively small sample sizes, limiting the extrapolation of results and the identification of broader trends. Future research should incorporate more rigorous quantitative approaches capable of capturing large‐scale patterns of engagement and response. The development of instruments analogous to the Literary Response Questionnaire—but specifically adapted for nonfiction picturebooks—could enable systematic data collection and yield stronger empirical evidence on how children engage cognitively, emotionally, and aesthetically with this genre.</p> <p>Third, current research remains concentrated almost exclusively in formal educational environments, particularly early childhood and primary classrooms. There is a notable absence of studies situated in informal learning contexts such as families, public libraries, or community‐based programs, where nonfiction picturebooks could also play a crucial role in shaping reading habits and interpretive practices. Expanding inquiry into these spaces would offer a more comprehensive understanding of how children interact with nonfiction beyond institutional boundaries and within more spontaneous, affective, and socially situated reading experiences.</p> <p>Fourth, little systematic evidence exists regarding children's reading preferences, which continue to reflect traditional gender stereotypes—suggesting that boys prefer nonfiction and girls prefer fiction. Such assumptions are likely rooted in sociocultural conditioning rather than genuine differences in interest or reading competence. Future empirical work should therefore examine how mediation, cultural context, and text presentation influence these preferences. Likewise, the virtual absence of studies focusing on children with ASD is notable, especially given that the multimodal and factual nature of nonfiction picturebooks may be particularly well suited to supporting their comprehension and engagement.</p> <p>Finally, despite the theoretical prominence of the affective turn and the growing attention to children's agency in recent scholarship, these frameworks have not yet been systematically explored through empirical research. Future studies should investigate how emotional engagement, curiosity, and aesthetic experience contribute to developing critical awareness and agency among young readers. Addressing these gaps would not only deepen our understanding of nonfiction picturebooks as pedagogical and affective tools but also strengthen the dialogue between theory and empirical evidence in the broader field of literacy and reading research.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-46">Conclusion</hd> <p>This systematic review reaffirms the central position of the nonfiction picturebook within the contemporary reading landscape, emphasizing its distinctive capacity to integrate knowledge, emotion, and creativity. The analyzed studies demonstrate that nonfiction picturebooks foster reading comprehension, visual and informational literacy, and the development of active, critical, and socially aware readers. Their multimodal and aesthetic nature positions them as a powerful pedagogical tool for cultivating dialogic and reflective reading practices in which children act as interpreters and co‐creators of meaning. In this regard, the nonfiction picturebook emerges not merely as an instructional resource, but as a cultural and affective space aligned with the principles of the affective turn and children's agency—recognizing young readers as subjects capable of thinking, feeling, and acting through reading.</p> <p>Although empirical research on this genre remains limited in scope and diversity, current findings provide a strong foundation for the field's continued development. Future studies should expand their focus to encompass a wider range of cultural and educational contexts, integrate quantitative methodologies, and examine nonfiction picturebook reading within informal environments such as homes, libraries, and community programs. Equally important is a more sustained exploration of the emotional and aesthetic dimensions of reading—still insufficiently addressed empirically—to better understand how these books evoke curiosity, wonder, and creative engagement among children. Advancing in these directions will not only strengthen the dialogue between theory and practice but also consolidate the nonfiction picturebook as an essential medium for nurturing readers who are critical, imaginative, and deeply engaged with the complexities of the contemporary world.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-47">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by R+D+i project PID2021‐126392OB‐I00 entitled Nonfictional readings for the integration of critical citizens in the new cultural ecosystem. Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain (PID2021‐126392OB‐I00).</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-48">Disclosure</hd> <p> <emph>Permission Requirements</emph>: The authors confirm that all necessary institutional, legal, and administrative permissions required for the preparation and publication of this article have been properly obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-49">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors affirm that all ethical standards, protocols, and procedures applicable to the development of this article have been strictly observed and duly followed.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-50">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191105821-51">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data collected for this study may be made available for consultation upon reasonable request, subject to prior authorization and compliance with all applicable ethical guidelines, by contacting the first author of this article.</p> <ref id="AN0191105821-52"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, J., and R. Jarman. 2018. " The Pleasures of Reading Non‐Fiction." Literacy 52, no. 2 : 78 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, N. S. 2021. How We Read Now: Strategic Choices for Print, Screen and Audio. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brugar, K. A. 2019. " Inquiry by the Book: Using Children's Nonfiction as Mentor Texts for Inquiry." Social Studies 110, no. 4 : 155 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2019.1581724.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref28" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cain, M. A. 2015. " Children's Books for Building Character and Empathy." Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice 21 : 68 – 98. https://doi.org/10.26522/jitp.v21i.3516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clough, P. T. 2008. " The Affective Turn: Political Economy, Biomedia and Bodies." Theory, Culture and Society 25, no. 1 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Duke, N. K. 2000. " 3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade." Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 2 : 202 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref25" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Duke, N. K. 2003. " Reading to Learn From the Very Beginning: Information Books in Early Childhood." Young Children 58, no. 2 : 14 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> European Agenda for Culture. 2016. "Promoting Reading in the Digital Environment." https://op.europa.eu/en/publication‐detail/‐/publication/d1964bfe‐2ecd‐11e6‐b497‐01aa75ed71a1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref65" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Flynn, R. 2016. " What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Agency? " Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 8, no. 1 : 254 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goga, N., S. H. Iversen, and A. S. Teigland. 2021. Verbal and Visual Strategies in Nonfiction Picturebooks: Theoretical and Analytical Approaches. Scandinavian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graff, J. M., and C. Shimek. 2020. " Revisiting Reader Response: Contemporary Nonfiction Children's Literature as Remixes." Language Arts 97, no. 4 : 223 – 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grilli, G. 2020a. Non‐Fiction Picturebooks: Sharing Knowledge as an Aesthetic Experience. Edizioni ETS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grilli, G. 2020b. " Beauty and the World. Some Questions to Five Illustrators (Often Also Authors) of Non‐Fiction Picturebooks for Children on Their Work, Poetics, Inspiration(s)." In Non‐Fiction Picturebooks: Sharing Knowledge as an Aesthetic Experience, edited by G. Grilli, 267 – 293. Edizioni ETS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gubar, M. 2016. " The Hermeneutics of Recuperation: What a Kinship‐Model Approach to Children's Agency Could Do for Children's Literature and Childhood Studies." Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 8, no. 1 : 291 – 310. https://doi.org/10.1353/jeu.2016.0015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gubar, M. 2020. " Toothless Pedagogy? Problematizing Paternalism in Children's Literature and Childhood Studies." Children's Literature 48 : 153 – 197. https://doi.org/10.1353/chl.2020.000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hervouët, C., and J. Vidal‐Naquet. 2015. " Le Documentaire Aujourd'hui, Entre Permanence et Renouvellement." In Bibliothèques, Enfance et Jeunesse, edited by F. Legendre, 119 – 125. Éditions du Cercle de la Librairie.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Job, J., and M. R. Coleman. 2016. " The Importance of Reading in Earnest: Non‐Fiction for Young Children." Gifted Child Today 39, no. 3 : 154 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516644635.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuzmičová, A., and M. Supa. 2024. " Interesting Facts: Holistic Interviews on Children's Nonfiction Engagement." Language and Education 38, no. 4 : 560 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2024.2324946.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Littau, K. 2008. Teorías de la Lectura. Libros, Cuerpos y Bibliomanía. Manantial.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackey, M. 2020. " Who Reads What, in Which Formats, and Why? " In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by E. B. Moje, P. P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, and N. K. Lesaux, 99 – 115. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mascia, T. 2023. " L'evoluzione Creativa Della Letteratura Nonfiction per l'Infanzia e l'Adolescenza: Una Prospettiva Internazionale." Education Sciences & Society 1 : 401 – 419. https://doi.org/10.3280/ess1‐2023oa15697.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massumi, B. 1995. " The Autonomy of Affect." Cultural Critique 31 : 83 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGeown, S., J. Bonsall, V. Andries, D. Howarth, K. Wilkinson, and S. Sabeti. 2020. " Growing up a Reader: Exploring Children's and Adolescents' Perceptions of 'A Reader'." Educational Research 62, no. 2 : 216 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1747361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. 2023. "Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa. PIRLS 2021. Estudio Internacional de Progreso en Comprensión Lectora." Informe español. Secretaría General Técnica. Subdirección General de Atención al Ciudadano, Documentación y Publicaciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moher, D., L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, et al. 2015. " Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Protocols (PRISMA‐P) 2015 Statement." Systematic Reviews 4, no. 1 : 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046‐4053‐4‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moriarty, S. 2025. " Slow Violence and Precarious Progress: Picturebooks About Wangari Maathai." Humanities 14, no. 3 : 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/h14030050.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, B., and J. Hendershot. 2002. " Exploring Sixth Graders' Selection of Nonfiction Trade Books." Reading Teacher 56, no. 1 : 6 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muela‐Bermejo, D., and P. Laborda‐Casamián. 2023. " Respuestas Lectoras Infantiles Comparadas Ante Libros de no Ficción Narrativos y no Narrativos." Revista Colombiana De Educación 89 : 340 – 358. https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num89‐17426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muela‐Bermejo, D., and L. Pérez‐Martínez. 2024. " Enhancing Sustainability Education Through Critical Reading: A Qualitative Study in a Spanish Primary School." Environmental Education Research 31, no. 5 : 1033 – 1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2408428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Narančić Kovač, S. 2021. " A Semiotic Model of the Nonnarrative Picturebook." In Verbal and Visual Strategies in Nonfiction Picturebooks, edited by N. Goga, S. H. Iversen, A.‐S. Teigland, and S. N. Kovač, 37 – 51. Scandinavian University Press. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215042459‐2021‐04.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council of Teachers of English. 2023. Position Statement on the Role of Nonfiction Literature (K‐12). National Council of Teachers of English. https://ncte.org/statement/role‐of‐nonfiction‐literature‐k‐12/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann, I., S. Brennan, J. Meerpohl, et al. 2025. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) Book. GRADEpro. https://book.gradepro.org/guideline/overview‐of‐the‐grade‐approach.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas, C. 2006. " The Information Book Genre: Its Role in Integrated Science Literacy Research and Practice." Reading Research Quarterly 41, no. 2 : 226 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.2.4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez‐Martínez, L., and D. Muela‐Bermejo. 2024. " Exploring Silent, Small‐Group and Adult Mediated Reading With Nonfiction Picturebooks: Children's Responses and Educational Potential in Elementary School." L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 24, no. 1 : 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2024.24.1.618.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L. M. 1986. " The Aesthetic Transaction." Journal of Aesthetic Education 20, no. 4 : 122 – 128. https://doi.org/10.2307/3332615.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rybak, K. 2025. " Towards a Literature of Actions: Green Informational Picturebooks and Critical Engagement With Fighting Climate Change." Children's Literature in Education 56 : 210 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583‐023‐09549‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sánchez‐Martín, M., M. Pedreño Plana, A. I. Ponce Gea, and F. Navarro‐Mateu. 2023. " And, At First, it was the Research Question... The PICO, PECO, SPIDER and FINER Formats." Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado 16, no. 32 : 126 – 136. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v16i32.9102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, J. S. 2018. A Literature of Questions: Nonfiction for the Critical Child. University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanjuán‐Álvarez, M., and R. Cristóbal‐Hornillos. 2022. " Procesos Emocionales de la Lectura y el Aprendizaje en un Libro Ilustrado de no‐Ficción y en un Libro de Texto." Publica 52, no. 1 : 57 – 77. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v52i1.22294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimek, C. 2018. " Sites of Synergy: Strategies for Readers Navigating Nonfiction Picturebooks." Reading Teacher 72, no. 4 : 519 – 552. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1754.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimek, C. 2023. " "The Best Thing I Can Do for Readers Is Read!": How One Teacher Conducts Interactive Multimodal Read‐Alouds Using Nonfiction Picture Books." Reading Teacher 77, no. 4 : 495 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J. M., and M. K. Robertson. 2019. " Navigating Award‐Winning Nonfiction Children's Literature." Reading Teacher 73, no. 2 : 195 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1811.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, Y. K., and E. H. Son. 2020. " A Critical Content Analysis of Children's Nonfiction Books of Korea." Publishing Research Quarterly 36 : 156 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109‐019‐09700‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabernero Sala, R. (Coord.). 2022. Leer por curiosidad. Los libros de no ficción en la formación de lectores, 45 – 69. Graó.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Todaro, L., and T. Mascia. 2022. " Libri per Ragazzi: Formazione Della Coscienza Ecologica e Trasformazioni Correnti Negli Ambiti Della Non‐Fiction." Italica Wratislaviensia 13, no. 2 : 131 – 148. https://doi.org/10.15804/IW.2022.13.2.06.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. 2015. " Fiction and Non‐Fiction Reading and Comprehension in Preferred Books." Reading Psychology 36, no. 4 : 350 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.865692.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO International Commission on the Futures of Education. 2021. "Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education." United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://doi.org/10.54675/ASRB4722.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Cambridge, Digital Education Futures Initiative. 2021. "STEAM: The Movement Towards Creative STEM Learning [Online Panel Discussion]." University of Cambridge. https://<ulink href="http://www.deficambridge.org/events/steam‐creative‐stem‐learning">www.deficambridge.org/events/steam‐creative‐stem‐learning</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varelas, M., and C. Pappas. 2013. Children's Ways With Science and Literacy: Integrated Multimodal Enactments in Urban Elementary Classrooms. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M., V. Sotirovska, J. J. Darragh, and M. Elhess. 2021. " Examining Agency in Children's Nonfiction Picturebooks." Children's Literature in Education 53 : 33 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583‐021‐09435‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Véliz, S., and M. García‐González. 2022. " Becoming Abject: Testing the Limits and Borders of Reading Mediation." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 43, no. 1 : 15 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.178635.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Merveldt, N. 2018. " Informational Picturebooks." In The Routledge Companion to Picturebooks, edited by B. Kümmerling‐Meibauer, 231 – 245. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Von‐Merveldt, N. 2018. Informational Picturebooks, edited by B. Kümmerling‐Meibauer. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M. 2020. Lector, Vuelve a Casa: Cómo Afecta a Nuestro Cerebro la Lectura en Pantallas. Deusto.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zehr, J. M. 2023. " The Master Teacher." Mediated Learning Experience: International Practices and Advances 1, no. 1 : 9 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191105821-53"> <title> Studies Included in the PRISMA‐P Systematic Review </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alexander, J., and R. Jarman. 2018. " The Pleasures of Reading Non‐Fiction." Literacy 52, no. 2 : 78 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alexander, P. A. 2015. " Prizing Children's Science Information Books: The Text, Reading and the Reader." Literacy 49, no. 3 : 123 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12060.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Armstrong, R., J. Paynter, and M. Westerveld. 2019. " Fiction or Non‐Fiction: Parent‐Reported Book Preferences of Their Preschoolers With Autism Spectrum Disorder." Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 4 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941519896736.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Backman, A. 2023. " 'But Dragons Don't Exist, Do They?' Preschoolers' Focus in Determining Whether a Picturebook Is Non‐Fiction or Not." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 25, no. 2 : 367 – 393. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984231161115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Backman, A. 2024. " Fictionalised Non‐Fiction Picturebooks for Preschoolers: Children's Responses to Imaginary Constructs in Designed Reading Activities." Children's Literature in Education 55 : 377 – 398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583‐022‐09510‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chlapana, E. 2016. " An Intervention Programme for Enhancing Kindergarteners' Cognitive Engagement and Comprehension Skills Through Reading Informational Texts." Literacy 50, no. 3 : 125 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12095.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, B., B. Bradley, and S. Donovan. 2012. " Visual Representations in Second Graders' Information Book Compositions." Reading Teacher 66, no. 1 : 60 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.01100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Correia, M. P. 2011. " Fiction vs Informational Texts: Which Will Kindergartners Choose? " Young Children 66, no. 6 : 100 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cristóbal Hornillos, R., M. Sanjuán Álvarez, and E. M. Villar Secanella. 2023. " Análisis y Evaluación de Una Estrategia Didáctica Para el Aprovechamiento de Libros Álbum de no‐Ficción en Educación Primaria: Analysis and Evaluation of a Didactic Strategy to Take Advantage of Non‐Fiction Picture Books in Primary Education." Estudios λambda. Teoría Y Práctica de la Didáctica en Lengua y Literatura 8, no. 1 : 17 – 43. https://doi.org/10.36799/el.v8i1.129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, M. M., and S. Ellis Weismer. 2018. " A Preliminary Investigation of Parent‐Reported Fiction Versus Non‐Fiction Book Preferences of School‐Age Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder." Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 3 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518806109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K. 2000. " 3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade." Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 2 : 202 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enríquez, G., and A. Schulman‐Kumin. 2014. " Searching for "Truth": Using Children's Nonfiction for Social Justice and Common Core Goals." Journal of Children's Literature 40, no. 2 : 16 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleury, V. P., and A. L. B. Ford. 2020. " Shared Reading Extratextual Talk With Children With Autism Who Have Spontaneous Speech." Journal of Special Education 55, no. 1 : 32 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920926165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleury, V. P., and M. L. Hugh. 2018. " Exploring Engagement in Shared Reading Activities Between Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Caregivers." Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 48, no. 10 : 3596 – 3607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803‐018‐3632‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kersten, S. 2017. " Becoming Nonfiction Authors: Engaging in Science Inquiry." Reading Teacher 71, no. 1 : 33 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1577.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kesler, T. 2017. " Celebrating Poetic Nonfiction Picture Books in Classrooms." Reading Teacher 70, no. 5 : 619 – 628. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1553.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klvacek, M. L., E. E. Monroe, B. Wilcox, K. M. Hall‐Kenyon, and T. G. Morrison. 2019. " How Second‐Grade English Learners Experienced Dyad Reading With Fiction and Nonfiction Texts." Early Childhood Education Journal 47, no. 2 : 227 – 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐018‐0923‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuzmičová, A., and M. Supa. 2024. " Interesting Facts: Holistic Interviews on Children's Nonfiction Engagement." Language and Education 38, no. 4 : 560 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2024.2324946.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKay, K., T. A. Young, S. H. Munòz, and T. L. Motzkus. 2020. " Expository Texts in First‐Grade Classroom Libraries: Issues in Teacher Selection." Reading Psychology 41, no. 1 : 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malloy, J. A., A. W. Parsons, B. Marinak, A. J. Applegate, et al. 2017. " Assessing (and Addressing!) Motivation to Read Fiction and Nonfiction." Reading Teacher 71, no. 4 : 479 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1633.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maloch, B., and K. Horsey. 2013. " Living Inquiry: Learning From and About Informational Texts in a Second‐Grade Classroom." Reading Teacher 66, no. 6 : 462 – 471. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, S. L., and S. Kragler. 2012. " Early Signs of Self‐Regulating Print: Kindergartners at Work Reading to Understand Fiction and Nonfiction Text." Journal of Research in Childhood Education 26, no. 2 : 141 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.659648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohr, K. A. J. 2006. " Children's Choices for Recreational Reading: A Three‐Part Investigation of Selection Preferences, Rationales, and Processes." Journal of Literacy Research 38, no. 1 : 81 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moses, L., F. Serafini, and S. Loyd. 2016. " Looking Closely at Informational Texts: Considering the Role(s) of Mentor Texts for Kindergarten Children." Journal of Research in Childhood Education 30, no. 4 : 529 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1215361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, B., and J. Hendershot. 2002. " Exploring Sixth Graders' Selection of Nonfiction Trade Books: When Students Are Given the Opportunity to Select Nonfiction Books, Motivation for Reading Improves." Reading Teacher 56, no. 1 : 6 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.56.1.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muela‐Bermejo, D., and P. Laborda‐Casamián. 2023. " Respuestas Lectoras Infantiles Comparadas Ante Libros de no Ficción Narrativos y no Narrativos." Revista Colombiana de Educación 89 : 340 – 358. https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num89‐17426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez‐Martínez, L., and D. Muela‐Bermejo. 2024. " Exploring Silent, Small‐Group, and Adult‐Mediated Reading With Nonfiction Picturebooks: Children's Responses and Educational Potential in Elementary School." L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 24, no. 1 : 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2024.24.1.618.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, L., A. Van Kleeck, and C. J. Huberty. 2009. " Talk During Book Sharing Between Parents and Preschool Children: A Comparison Between Storybook and Expository Book Conditions." Reading Research Quarterly 44, no. 2 : 171 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.2.4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, A. 2021a. " A Comparison Between Preschool Teachers' Read‐Aloud Techniques With Fictional and Informational Picture Books in Small Groups." Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts 60, no. 1 : 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, A. 2021b. " Responding to Informational Texts Across the Efferent–Aesthetic Continuum in Preschool." Reading Teacher 74, no. 6 : 735 – 746. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1936.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimek, C. 2021. " Recursive Readings and Reckonings: Kindergarteners' Multimodal Transactions With a Nonfiction Picturebook." English Teaching: Practice and Critique 20, no. 2 : 149 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC‐07‐2020‐0068.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimek, C. 2023a. " "Reading Is Social": Dialogic Responses to Interactive Read‐Alouds With Nonfiction Picturebooks." Early Childhood Education Journal 52, no. 7 : 1615 – 1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐023‐01590‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimek, C. 2023b. " "The Best Thing I Can Do for Readers Is Read!": How One Teacher Conducts Interactive Multimodal Read‐Alouds Using Nonfiction Picture Books." Reading Teacher 77, no. 8 : 495 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swartz, L. 2020. " Choosing and Using Non‐Fiction Picturebooks in the Classroom." In Non‐Fiction Picturebooks: Sharing Knowledge as an Aesthetic Experience, edited by G. Grilli, 231 – 245. Edizioni ETS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. 2015. " Fiction and Non‐Fiction Reading and Comprehension in Preferred Books." Reading Psychology 36, no. 4 : 350 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.865692.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Diana Muela‐Bermejo and Rosa Tabernero‐Sala</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref126"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1494623
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Nonfiction Picturebook Reading in Early and Elementary Education: A PRISMA-P Systematic Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diana+Muela-Bermejo%22">Diana Muela-Bermejo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-6603">0000-0001-6162-6603</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rosa+Tabernero-Sala%22">Rosa Tabernero-Sala</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonfiction%22">Nonfiction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Picture+Books%22">Picture Books</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy+Education%22">Literacy Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70081
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This systematic review, conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P), provides the first comprehensive synthesis of empirical research on nonfiction picturebook reading in early childhood and primary education between 2000 and 2024. Drawing on 34 peer-reviewed studies, it traces the evolution of a genre that has gained increasing curricular and editorial prominence but remains underexplored in educational practice. The review highlights the transformative potential of nonfiction picturebooks as multimodal, aesthetic, and affective texts that foster reading comprehension, visual and informational literacy, and the development of active, critical, and socially engaged readers. Methodologically, the review followed the PRISMA-P protocol for qualitative and mixed-methods research, guided by the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research Type (SPIDER) framework. Studies were identified through a multi-database search strategy--using the Web of Science (WOS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and Dialnet--and selected according to explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and analysis were carried out using Microsoft Excel and NVivo through a two-phase coding process that combined quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Findings reveal a predominance of qualitative designs, dialogic and adult-mediated reading strategies, and interventions conducted primarily in formal educational settings, with a strong concentration in the United States. Despite consistent evidence supporting the pedagogical value of nonfiction picturebooks, substantial gaps persist--particularly regarding autonomous reading, emotional and aesthetic responses, and research in non-Anglophone or informal contexts such as families and libraries. By identifying the theoretical assumptions, reading strategies, and outcomes of existing research, this review positions the nonfiction picturebook not merely as an instructional tool but as a multimodal and affective medium for reimagining literacy education, nurturing curiosity, creativity, and agency in young readers across diverse educational landscapes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1494623
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494623
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70081
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Nonfiction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Picture Books
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Nonfiction Picturebook Reading in Early and Elementary Education: A PRISMA-P Systematic Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diana Muela-Bermejo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rosa Tabernero-Sala
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1