View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Is Narrative in Printed Text 'Primary' for Knowledge-Building? An Analysis of Genre and Medium

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is Narrative in Printed Text 'Primary' for Knowledge-Building? An Analysis of Genre and Medium
Language: English
Authors: Susan B. Neuman (ORCID 0000-0002-3065-1678), Tanya Kaefer, Ashley Pinkham
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2026 39(1):91-119.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 29
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Preschool Children, Literary Genres, Printed Materials, Video Technology, Child Development, Eye Movements, Comprehension
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-025-10634-y
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the materials supports, specifically the effects of genre (narrative and informational) and medium (print and video) on children's developing knowledge of text. Following pretests, 127 preschoolers were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: informational text (print or screen), or narrative text (print or screen) about insects. Eye-tracking data was collected to measure children's engagement with the text. After the viewing or reading, children were individually administered a series of comprehension tasks. Results indicated children seemed equally engaged with both genre; however, regardless of medium, children performed better on most measures when given the informational text. These results suggest that informational text in print as well as video may be an ideal source for knowledge-building in the early years.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1505634
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGylWXn6rrO9sgzFmEtDE2KAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMUOZjPbzs_v1KA58AIBEICBmj2w4DjIAeCtSdyhwqkhiWnq0N28KElhYtMKrUrOwM__NVuakaOFW9LubCWNBARLiE2oVvFuAbAx0bJ_qPBKA4-hGWmF_ztVPhCV16w_2ZXlh9wIgeo8GDjoX_5XqXf6eXFirBsgwWuwxJHWnnNEopR_0LCGEnqtSAZNweP0puSUoF9498_gybE6Sjm9ZmzKozjeaJipj4Vq9YM=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191377945;2ap01jan.26;2026Feb09.04:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191377945-1">Is narrative in printed text "primary" for knowledge-building? An analysis of genre and medium </title> <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the materials supports, specifically the effects of genre (narrative and informational) and medium (print and video) on children's developing knowledge of text. Following pretests, 127 preschoolers were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: informational text (print or screen), or narrative text (print or screen) about insects. Eye-tracking data was collected to measure children's engagement with the text. After the viewing or reading, children were individually administered a series of comprehension tasks. Results indicated children seemed equally engaged with both genre; however, regardless of medium, children performed better on most measures when given the informational text. These results suggest that informational text in print as well as video may be an ideal source for knowledge-building in the early years.</p> <p>Keywords: Knowledge-building; Preschoolers; Media; Narrative; Informational text</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Children are natural knowledge-seekers. They come into the world eager to learn. Right from the start, children are active participants in learning, exploring their environment and beginning to construct ideas and theories about how things work (Bowman et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; National Academies of Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]). However, the pace of that learning will largely depend on whether and to what extent children's inclinations to learn are supported by knowledge-building experiences in their environment that spark their curiosity and interests (Duncan & Murnane, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref4">44</reflink>]). These early content-rich experiences and the vocabulary they will acquire through learning about content will be fundamental to language comprehension and later reading success. Therefore, in this study, we examine how different material supports, specifically text genre (narrative vs. informational) and the medium of instruction (printed text vs. video), might best support young children's opportunities for knowledge-building.</p> <p>Knowledge-building as a concept refers to the general knowledge and features that make up concepts which children may acquire (Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]; Pollard-Durodola et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref6">67</reflink>]; Willingham, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref7">86</reflink>]; Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref8">87</reflink>]). It may reflect certain domains like science, and topics, concepts, and words that connect to them, creating knowledge-networks or schemas. These schemas are thought to act as an organizational framework, aiding students in accessing, and retrieving knowledge on a given topic (Anderson & Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Mosher et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref10">56</reflink>]; Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref11">81</reflink>]). Prior knowledge enables the listener or reader to fill in the gaps in texts, to form connections among ideas, and to build a coherent mental model of the meaning a text (McCarthy & McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref12">50</reflink>]). To comprehend text, listeners and readers are thought to create a situation model (Kintsch & Van Dijk, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]), activating their existing knowledge with new textual information to acquire and potentially modify their understanding of text.</p> <p>There is now a growing body of evidence indicating that content knowledge has a profound effect on what is understood, remembered or learned (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]; Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Hadley et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]; McCarthy & McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]; Neuman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref18">62</reflink>]). Yet less is known about the materials that might support knowledge-building in the very early years. To date, although much of the research has focused on storybook reading (Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref19">55</reflink>]; Wasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref20">81</reflink>]), a staple in early childhood classrooms, we have a limited understanding on the types of texts and/or the digital resources that might contribute to children's knowledge-building (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]). Therefore, in this study, we examine the effects of text types (e.g., specifically narrative and informational) in print and video and their effects on preschoolers' content or topic-specific comprehension (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-2">Role of text type and comprehension</hd> <p>Young children acquire vocabulary and content knowledge through listening to different types of text. Generally, these texts can be categorized at their broadest dimensions into two primary genre: narrative and informational (Wannagat et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref23">80</reflink>]). Narrative texts, for example, most often describe a series of causally and temporally connected events that revolve around one or more characters (Mandler & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]). Informational texts, on the other hand, are designed with the primary goal of providing information on a variety of topics (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Quinn & Paulick, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref26">68</reflink>]). These differences have led many to theorize that narrative and informational texts might differ in their potential for providing knowledge-building opportunities (Yopp & Yopp, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref27">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>By far, narratives are the most prevalent genre in book-reading activities in early childhood classrooms (Yopp & Yopp, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref28">88</reflink>]). In what now has become a classic study, Duke ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]) reported that informational book reading was rare, representing only 3.6 min of book reading time in first grade classrooms. According to some scholars, the lack of reading informational books might be due to a common assumption that narrative is somehow primary (Egan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]), and that children's ability to understand stories precedes their capabilities to understand and use non-story-like written language. Wells ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref31">84</reflink>]), for example, argued for a central place of stories in the early years, suggesting that constructing stories, or 'storying' is a fundamental means of making meaning for young children.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-3">Differences between narrative and informational texts</hd> <p>According to these and other scholars, there are reasons why narratives might have an advantage over informational texts when it comes to knowledge-building. Narratives often use language children are likely to hear in their day-to-day interactions with vocabulary that is highly familiar to them (Mar et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]). Topics of stories often include such common themes of overcoming fears, friendship, and love, experiences that are likely to map on closely to their everyday lives. Familiarity with such topics, and their common narrative structure may make it more comprehensible to the listeners who have prior knowledge, creating a situation model that aids in generating inferences from text (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref33">38</reflink>]). Story grammar, the knowledge about typical narratives structures that underlie stories has been known to facilitate comprehension and inference generation (Mandler & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]; Stein & Glenn, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref35">75</reflink>]). In their meta-analysis, for example, Clinton and colleagues (Clinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]) found that readers generated more knowledge-based inferences when reading narratives compared to informational text.</p> <p>On the other hand, the content of informational books is often less familiar to young children with vocabulary and concepts they have not experienced before (directly or indirectly (Best et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]). Vocabulary is often technical and the structure varied, making it more reliant on prior knowledge to form inferences (Cervetti & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]). Because it tends not to directly reflect everyday experiences, the information text will often use generic noun phrases to refer to classes or groupings of animals, objects, and places, and therefore may be more difficult to understand than stories (Pappas, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref39">64</reflink>]). In a large-scale meta-analysis of 75 unique samples, Mar and colleagues (Mar et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]) confirmed Clinton et al.'s findings, reporting that narratives were better recalled and more easily understood than informational texts (<emph>g</emph> = 0.24). Further confirmation from a sample of second grade students in a study by Kraal and colleagues (Kraal et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>]) who examined text genre and its influence on how readers processed texts. Students made more text-based and knowledge-based inferences with narratives whereas informational texts elicited more questions and comments.</p> <p>Another factor that may impact children's learning from genre is engagement. Studies suggest that when children are more engaged, they tend to remember more of the content (Williford et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref42">85</reflink>]) and are better able to transfer that knowledge to new contexts (Fulmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). Known as a way to quantify attention as a measure of engagement, eye-tracking technology has been used effectively with young children to determine how well they attend to varying task demands and its relation to comprehension (Evans & Saint-Auben, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]; Justice & Ezell, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref45">36</reflink>]). By measuring where the eyes are looking, it is possible to acquire concrete measurements of the visual plane that participants are attending. Eye-tracking studies (Meziere et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]; Takacs & Bus, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref47">77</reflink>]) have shown the relationship between attention and comprehension. They studies suggest that features or content age of a text that are not attended to are not likely to be comprehended (Takacs et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref48">77</reflink>]). Skilled comprehenders will even recognize when they have failed to understand something and return their attention to parts of the text to improve their comprehension (Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref49">69</reflink>]). In this study, therefore, we use eye-tracking to determine how children are engaging and attending to particular genre, and its association with learning. Since narratives are thought to be more interesting and fun to listen to, children may attend to them better, and learn more them (Browning & Hohenstein, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, these studies seem to argue for a narrative advantage. Nevertheless, there are some important caveats to consider. The majority of these studies have focused on older students and adults; none have addressed children in the early years (Clinton et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]; Mar et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). In addition, the narrative and informational texts reported in these studies were not equivalent in topic, length, or vocabulary. In Best's study ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]), for example, researchers compared the narrative text "Orlando" with the informational text, "Needs of plants." These texts differed in the number of words, the number of sentences as well as the readability of the texts. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, none of these previous studies used texts dealing with the same topic. Rather, in contrast, when narrative and informational texts have been matched for topic, length and readability, researchers have reported no differences between genres on text comprehension (Wannagat et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref54">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consequently, previous studies may have overestimated the narrative advantage in building knowledge. In addition, the bulk of the research has addressed older students in the upper elementary grades and above. To our knowledge, text genre has not been extensively studied among very young children. Therefore, in the present study, we examine the effects of genre designed to contain the same topic-related information on preschoolers' comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-4">Does the medium matter?</hd> <p>Increasingly children's initial exposure to either genre, however, is as likely to come from a digital version as it is from a printed book (Fisch, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]). Both narratives and informational content now routinely cross media boundaries. Popular stories often become screen adaptations, and more stories originally produced for the screen are subsequently rendered in print (Fisch, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]). Nevertheless, comparisons of learning from these media (e.g. print versus screens) have largely reported a 'paper advantage' or more strikingly, a "screen inferiority' effect (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). Convergent findings from numerous meta-analyses indicate that paper is superior to on-screen viewing not only for adults and secondary students, (Clinton, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]; Furenes et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]; Kong et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]) but for primary-aged students as well. Plus, there is evidence for the moderating effects of text genre: Researchers found that comprehension was significantly poorer for informational text when reading from digital formats compared to narrative texts (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). With its more complex academic vocabulary and structures, informational texts seemed to require deeper and more time for processing, taxing working memory and future recall.</p> <p>But screen media is a broad term that can encompass many different types of technologies. Broadly defined, it provides the user with a mediated exposure (rather than direct) to content on an electronic visual screen (Strouse & Samson, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref62">76</reflink>]). Nevertheless, within this broad definition, meta-analyses have typically included a range of experiences in their inclusion criteria for analysis. Furenes and colleagues (Furenes et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref63">28</reflink>]), for example, include both streaming video, ebooks, among other technology enhancements like dictionaries in their analysis, as well as outcomes related to whether children listened to the story or read it on their own. Similarly, Jing and colleagues in a recent meta-analysis of 63 studies (Jing et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref64">35</reflink>]) included games, TV/video, some with co-viewing, others not, and video chat to examine the impact on vocabulary development. Strouse and Samson in their meta-analysis, on the other hand, do not address comparisons with print; rather, they compare video to face-to-face presentations for children ages 0–6 years. Their results indicated that on average, children scored higher on tests of learning when information was taught face-to-face rather than watching the same information on video. Given the differences in technologies, their affordances and the varied content they represent, it becomes difficult to determine what actually constituted these comparisons with printed text.</p> <p>Consequently, the research on both the 'narrative advantage' and the 'paper advantage,' has been subject to numerous confounds, reflecting differences in the technology, content, the age of subjects, the mode of presentation (e.g., listening or reading) as well as outcomes. To address these concerns, in addition to genre comparisons, we examine the differences between the medium, specifically printed text and video on screen of the same content on children's content knowledge. Although the advantages of print, its pacing, its more direct experience, and its focus on language may make it more effective for knowledge-building, there are affordances in screen media that may have been overlooked.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-5">Screen media affordances and challenges</hd> <p>Screen media, defined in this study as video displayed on a screen, has become a nearly universal part of children's media landscape with a 98% penetration level in all households (Rideout & Robb, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref65">72</reflink>]). Although often blamed for capturing young viewers passive attention (Madigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref66">45</reflink>]), its educational content on screen offers several unique features that have the potential to support knowledge-building. Based on the dual-channel hypothesis (Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref67">63</reflink>]), the view is that individuals process verbal and visual information through separate channels which may together create a more robust mental image. There are now a fair number of studies that have demonstrated its capacity to enhance word knowledge and comprehension (Neuman et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]; Takacs et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref69">78</reflink>]; Verhallen & Bus, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref70">79</reflink>]). For example, features like animated illustrations, background music, and sound effects, working in close temporal proximity to the verbal messages can add to the meaning of unknown words (Bus et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]; Mayer & Moreno, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref72">49</reflink>]). A recent study using eye-tracking technology found that certain attention-directing devices on screen (e.g. sound effects, music, zooms) affected the duration of preschoolers' focus on target vocabulary, with subsequent gains in word identification and word meaning (Neuman et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref73">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet as a medium for knowledge-building, screen media also has its constraints. Unlike carefully-crafted books, programs are often fast-paced, with actions that may exceed children's capacity to comprehend the words and stories (Samudra et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref74">74</reflink>]). Working memory can quickly become overloaded, leading listeners to unintentionally overlook critical information. According to Fisch's capacity model, with limited working memory resources, children are likely to attend to narrative content (e.g. narrative dominance) more than the information sources. Given that most educational screen media embed educational messages within a narrative structure (Linebarger & Piotrowski, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]), the demands of processing information according to Fisch's capacity model ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>]) are likely to favor the central narrative of the program with the educational content not processed deeply and or comprehended well. In a recent study, researchers reported evidence that supported this thesis: preschoolers' comprehension of a narrative program with educational content (e.g. <emph>Martha Speaks)</emph> was significantly lower when compared with other educational program genres (e.g., <emph>Word of the Week)</emph> (Flynn et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>]<emph>).</emph></p> <p>Therefore, there is reason to believe that at its best, screen media might contribute to children's word learning. However, with its inveterate pacing, and more limited processing time, it is questionable whether it may support knowledge-building. To date, the majority of educational programming for young children has combined entertaining narratives with educational content (e.g., 'edutainment') (Resnick, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref78">71</reflink>]), potentially overloading working memory. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no research has attempted to examine children's learning from informational screen media.</p> <p>In sum, research on materials and resources for knowledge-building have reported advantages for narratives that are delivered through printed text. Informational texts, conveying more complex content, are reported to be less comprehensible especially for young children, while screen media, is thought to be too challenging to delve into the deeper levels of knowledge that may underlie educational stories.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-6">The present study</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to design and test the potential for knowledge-building from narrative and informational texts and videos among preschoolers. We addressed the following key questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is narrative primary? Is there a 'narrative advantage'? Do preschoolers acquire more content comprehension with narratives compared to informational text? Based on previous research (Mar et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>]), we hypothesized that children might attend to and comprehend a narrative with its more familiar structure than they would with an informational text.</item> <p></p> <item> Is there a medium effect? Are preschoolers' more able to acquire content comprehension from print, demonstrating a 'paper advantage' compared to a video presentation (e.g., screen media)? Consistent with the dual channel hypothesis, on the one hand, the animation, visual effects and spoken words might work together to support learning (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref80">48</reflink>]; Paivio, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref81">63</reflink>]). On the other hand, these formal features along with spoken language may overload children's working memory sources. Furenes and team, for example ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]), found that even when print and digital books were exactly identical, comprehension was lower for on-screen compared to printed books. Therefore, based on previous studies (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref83">17</reflink>]), we assumed that children might benefit more from print than from screen media.</item> <p></p> <item> Is there support for one genre over another for knowledge-building regardless of the medium of conveyance? Research has often focused on <uline>how</uline> information is delivered, specifically the type of technology and its affordances and constraints, rather than <uline>what</uline> it delivers or its content. In contrast, we proposed that the medium may not be "the message" (McLuhan, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref84">53</reflink>]) and that both technologies when content is controlled for quality may be important sources of learning that break the boundaries between formal and informal learning.</item> </ulist> <p>We addressed these questions using texts that were specially developed to contain the same content and vocabulary in two text genre (e.g., narrative and informational) in print as well as video formats. Because learning may depend in part, on paying attention to the right information at the right moment in time, we examine children's visual attention while they are engaged in the learning experience using eye-tracking technology to help reveal how they are processing information. Following their engagement with the text, we then measured their content comprehension and inferential reasoning to understand how their processing of information affected learning.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377945-8">Participants</hd> <p>Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the IRB offices of the University as well as the city in which the study was conducted prior to recruit and data collection commenced. Principals, teachers, and parents provided consent for participation in the study.</p> <p>A total of 127 preschoolers (M<subs>age</subs> = 52.57 months, SD<subs>age</subs> = 3.88) participated in the study. Children were enrolled in four early childhood schools from 18 classrooms in an urban setting. All qualified for free and reduced lunch. The sample was 89% African American, and 11% Hispanic; 50% of the sample was female. All of the children spoke English as their primary language. Table 1 describes the demographics of the sample.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographics of Sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Information</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Narrative</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p>Gender</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>46.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>51.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>53.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>50%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>53.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>49.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>46.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>50%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean age (and SD)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.57 (3.88)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.48 (3.67)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54.03 (3.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.59 (3.88)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ethnicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>89% African American</p><p>11% Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>90% African American</p><p>10% Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>88% African American</p><p>12% Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>89% African American</p><p>11% Hispanic</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IGDI-Picture naming</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.68 (2.76)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.33 (3.22)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.63 (3.28)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.66 (2.76)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IGDI-Which One Doesn't Belong</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.71 (3.72)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.03 (3.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.00 (3.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.66 (3.05)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191377945-9">Research design</hd> <p>The study used a 2 × 2 cross-sectional between-subjects design in which children were randomly assigned by both media and genre. Prior to the start of the study, children were assessed on their pre-existing vocabulary, and conceptual knowledge. Children were administered two brief screening measures, described below. There were no significant differences between groups. Following the pretests, children were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (i) Narrative-print; (ii) Narrative-video; (iii) Informational-print; and (iv) Informational-video. During the session, the child was either read to or viewed a video. Attention was measured using eye-tracking, a noninvasive technology that allowed for a more precise analysis of engagement with the text, and could help to determine how attention might vary according to genre or medium. In the current study we used measures of fixation, typically identified as the center of visual attention and guided by attentional processes (Lu et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]). After the reading or viewing, we administered a set of content comprehension assessments. To avoid pretest sensitization, or possible carry-over effects, these comprehension assessments were given as posttests only.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-10">Materials</hd> <p>We created four versions of an illustrated text on the topic of <emph>Insects.</emph> Previous research had shown the topic was of interest to preschoolers, and one that could be adapted to a narrative or informational format. For the narrative, the story needed to include a setting, characters, events, and resolution organized in a temporal sequence (Mandler & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref86">46</reflink>]); for the informational genre, generic noun phrases (Pappas, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref87">64</reflink>]), references to causal properties (Gelman & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>]), and characteristic properties of insects (e.g., six legs, three body parts). At the same time, both the vocabulary, and the content were the same, with only slight differences in the number of words in the text. Both narrative and informational printed texts were 29 pages with illustrations on a number of pages, taking about 5 min of reading time. Figure 1 shows examples from the narrative and the informational text. Full texts are in the appendix.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Example of Informational and Narrative Texts</p> <p>With the assistance of <emph>Sirius Thinking,</emph> a company specializing in educational video production, video versions of the narrative and informational texts were created. The content, and illustrated characters remained the same; however, the videos used a number of the formal features that typically characterize screen media; zooms, animations, and background music. An African American actress narrated the scripts in both versions. Both videos were approximately the same length as the print version, taking about 4.5 min of viewing time.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-11">Apparatus</hd> <p>Eye movements were measured with a Tobii Technology T120 eye-tracker integrated into a 17″ thin film transistor (TFT) monitor (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh PA), running Tobii Studio 3.0 Software. The typical spatial accuracy of this system was approximately 0.5 visual degrees, and the sampling rate was 120 Hz. Head movements, including forward movements typically resulted in a temporary accuracy error of approximately 0.2 visual degrees. In the case of particularly fast head movements (over 25 cm/s), there was a 300 ms recovery period to full tracking ability.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-12">Measures</hd> <p>Our measures were designed to examine how children build knowledge to comprehend content and make inferences beyond the text. They were based on the premise that children begin to build schemas by finding ways to group things (Gelman & Kalish, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]). Rather than think of individual items, categories group functions or properties to form concepts—mental representations that determine whether or not some entity is a member of a category. Consequently, our measures tap children's ability to form categories; to identify category membership through understanding its common properties, to determine how it might influence inference generation, and to recognize the hierarchical organization of the category, specifically that larger categories (e.g., such as animals) include smaller subcategories (e.g., such as insects).</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-13">Screening measure</hd> <p>Prior to the start of the study, we administered two pretests from the Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDI) (McConnell, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref90">51</reflink>]). These measures were used to ensure that our randomization process was effective in statistically equating all groups<emph>. Picture naming</emph>, a measure of expressive language, presents the child with individual pictures of objects found in the natural environment (e.g., clock; apple; bird) and asks the child to name the picture as quickly as possible (total = 15). The number of pictures named correctly within one minute is the child's score (e.g., test–retest reliability, 0.85). The second subtest, <emph>Which One Doesn't Belong</emph> (WODB), a measure of early comprehension, asks the child to indicate which of three objects presented is not related to the other two, again within a minute's time (total = 15) (test–retest reliability 0.78) (Rodriguez & Wackerle-Hollman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref91">73</reflink>]). Based on reported screening benchmarks (McConnell et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]), average scores indicated that children seemed on target to ensure adequate progress. There were no significant differences between groups on the picture naming task based on genre <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref94">120</reflink>) = 1.25, <emph>p</emph> = 0.267, or medium <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref96">120</reflink>), <emph>p</emph> = 0.513. Similarly, there were no significant differences on WODB based on either genre <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref98">120</reflink>) = 0.549,<emph> p</emph> = 0.460 or medium <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref100">120</reflink>) = 0.64, <emph>p</emph> = 0.427.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-14">Content comprehension</hd> <p>Four measures were administered to examine children's content comprehension: Basic categorization, categorical properties, inductive generalization (e.g., inferential reasoning) and class inclusion. Each assessment was designed to measure an aspect of content comprehension including children's understanding of the common characteristics of insects and how they might differ from other animals, their ability to apply the information to a novel item, and their ability to identify how insects might relate within a hierarchy of animals.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-15">Basic categorization</hd> <p>Categorization is central to concept development (Gelman & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]; Waxman & Namy, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref102">83</reflink>]). This task was designed to examine the extent to which children could identify insects as a group compared to other animals. Showing a picture of an insect, the administrator says, "See this?" [A picture of a butterfly]. Moving to the next slide which contained two pictures, one displaying a different picture of an insect [e.g., bee], and the other a thematically-related picture [e.g., net], she now says, "Which of these two pictures goes best with the first picture?" Children received a correct score if they identified the group rather than the theme. There was a total of 15 items. Cronbach alpha = 0.82.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-16">Categorical properties</hd> <p>Understanding the properties that constitute a particular category helps to build a knowledge network and further distinguishes what is and what is not an item or object in the membership of a category (Collins & Quillian, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref103">15</reflink>]). This task was designed to examined children's ability to identify the common characteristics of insects. In this task, the child was shown a picture of an insect [e.g., katydid]. The administrator says, "This is an insect. An insect is a type of animal. Do insects need food to survive?" Children responded by indicating <emph>yes</emph> or <emph>no</emph>. There were an equal number of correct and incorrect items, for a total of 16 items. Test items were randomized and presented in a set order across participants. Responses were coded dichotomously (i.e., correct or incorrect) by an experimenter, and a total correct score was derived for each child, which was then converted into a proportion score. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-17">Inductive generalization</hd> <p>This task examined whether children were able to use what they had learned in the text to make more generalized conclusions about the topic, a form of inferential reasoning (Gelman & Markman, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]; Gelman & O'Reilly, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>]). Here, the administrator says, "See this insect?" [e.g., bee]. "It has a thorax," then turns to the next slide with an unfamiliar insect, and asks, "Does this have a thorax?" Using the same format, items included four different scenarios: same category, similar appearance [novel insect], same category different appearance [different looking insect]; different category [bird], similar appearance [perceptual colors are the same as the insect]; and different category and different appearance [rabbit]. Prompts included: "Does this have __[wings; antennae; abdomen; food and shelter to survive]." Children responded yes or no. There was a total of 30 items. Cronbach's alpha = 0.80.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-18">Class inclusion</hd> <p>Our final task was to examine children's mastery of different levels of hierarchical classification; their ability to identify a basic category (e.g., insects), and to differentiate a subordinate member of a category, an indicator of more specific, detailed knowledge (e.g., bee is a type of insect) as well as a superordinate category, more general and abstract level (e.g., insect is a type of animal) (Deneault & Ricard, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref106">18</reflink>]). For Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref107">34</reflink>]), class inclusion was seen as a measure of the child's mastery of the structure of hierarchical classification. In this task, children viewed slides with a picture with nine animals per slide. Some of the pictures were of insects as well as other animals. To measure children's understanding of superordinate categorization, the administrator asked the child to point out the insects among an array of animals on the slide. This is followed by the question "Are insects' animals? (yes, or no). For the basic level, the administrator says, "Here are some insects. Show me all the ants. Are ants insects? (yes, no). There were 9 items. Cronbach's alpha = 0.89.</p> <p>In total, the tasks took approximately 30-min. The child was escorted back to the classroom following these activities.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-19">Procedure</hd> <p>Three trained graduate student assessors administered all assessments individually to children in a quiet location in each school. Pretests were administered a week before the start of the study. Children were randomly assigned to a counterbalancing condition to read or view the text. In the case of printed text, the research assistant would sit closely and read without asking questions or directly interacting with the child. In the video condition, the research assistant would help to position the child to the screen and then step aside during the viewing.</p> <p>Children were seated 63 cm away from the Tobii monitor. The eye tracking equipment was first calibrated by showing the participants a series of dots that appeared in 5-point sequence (one in each corner and the center of the screen). Next, children viewed the condition to which they had been assigned. Following the text experience, posttests were administered. Each session, including the time for the intervention and the posttests was about 35 min.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-20">Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377945-21">Eye-tracking data</hd> <p>From our eye-tracking data, we investigated children's attention while engaged with the text. Areas of interest (AOIs) were drawn around the entire frame for each picture/scene in the text in order to gauge children's overall engagement. Fixations are the most common eye movement, used to make inferences about cognitive processes and attention (Rayner et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref108">70</reflink>]). We extracted the total amount of fixation time throughout the text experience. Fixations were defined as any gaze coordinates lasting at least 60 ms, and were identified using the Tobii Studio fixation filter, which is the standard for studies of this type (e.g., Bavin, et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>]; Booth de Vries & Bus, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref110">6</reflink>]). Adjacent gazes (i.e., gazes within a 0.5° radius, lasting less than 75 ms) were merged into a single fixation. We then examined children's attention more specifically when key information targeted to the categorical properties of insects were described in both genres. For example, we drew areas of interest when the narrative text read: <emph>Insects like Byron have six legs that help them move around"</emph> and when the informational text read: "Insects have six legs that help them move around" to determine if attention varied at several key statements.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-22">Child outcomes</hd> <p>We first examined if our pretests were correlated with any of the attention or outcome measures. Table 2 indicates that both pretest measures were not significant with outcomes (all <emph>ps</emph> > 0.05). Therefore, we did not include pretests measures in any of the analysis. By contrast, children's age in months was significantly related to their class inclusion scores (<emph>r</emph> = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.048), as well as their overall attention to the screen, (<emph>r</emph> = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.041); as a result, children's age in months was added as a covariate in these analyses.</p> <p>Table 2 Correlations between Pretest and Outcome Measures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Picture naming pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Which one doesn't belong (WODB) pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>.27*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3<bold>.</bold> Categorization</p></td><td align="left"><p>.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Categorical properties</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Inductive generalization</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>.51**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6<bold>.</bold> Class inclusion</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.39**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<sups><emph>p</emph> <.01, **<emph>p</emph> <.001</sups></p> <p>We examined children's attention and outcomes using univariate ANOVA on genre and medium. Then we used Multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) with genre and medium entered as independent variables on children's attention and content comprehension. Together, this provided information on children's attention and on knowledge-building outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-23">Results</hd> <p>In these results, we first address our research questions by examining children's attention while being read to or viewing narrative and information text. We then turn to an analysis of the content comprehension outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-24">Is there a narrative advantage?</hd> <p>To address this question, our first analysis was to examine children's overall attention to narrative and informational text, collapsing the results from video and print. For each analysis, we used univariate ANOVA with genre entered as an independent variable, and children's age in months as covariate. We did this in two ways. First, we examined children's overall attention using the proportion of the total time they were fixated anywhere on the image. We found no significant differences based on genre, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>, 114) = 1.37, <emph>p</emph> = 0.243, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.01, indicating that children were equally engaged with the informational and narrative texts. Next, we examined the proportion of time children fixated on key categorical information specifically when a categorical property (e.g., an insect has six legs) was communicated. As shown in Fig. 2, once again, we found no significant difference based on genre <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref113">114</reflink>) = 1.44, <emph>p</emph> = 0.232, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.01. These results indicated that children attended equally well to both genres.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Attention by Genre</p> <p>Given that attention was high for both genres, our next set of analyses was to determine whether differences in children's content or semantic knowledge occurred as a result of condition. To address these analyses, we used multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) with genre and children's age in months entered as independent variables. The overall MANOVA showed a significant effect of genre <emph>F</emph> 3, 109) = 2.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.035, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.09. Follow-up analyses using univariate ANOVA indicated no significant differences between genre on categorization, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref115">110</reflink>) 0.95, <emph>p</emph> = 0.331, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.01, with children scoring equally well for each genre, and only marginally significant effects favoring the information genre, F (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>, 111) = 2.83, <emph>p</emph> = 0.096, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.03 for categorical properties. However, two of our outcome measures reported significant effects. Children in the informational condition outperformed those in the narrative condition on inductive generalization <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>, 110) = 9.50, <emph>p</emph> = 0.033, partial, η<sups>2</sups> = 0.08, and class inclusion, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>, 108) = 4.62, <emph>p</emph> = 0.232, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.04. Figure 3 displays these means.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Outcomes by Genre</p> <p>Overall, these results argue against the view that narrative is primary. Children were equally engaged in the narrative and informational text. Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, there was some evidence for the superiority of the information genre when examining content comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-25">Is there a medium effect?</hd> <p>Similarly, we began with an analysis of children's overall attention to video and print to examine the effects of medium, collapsing the results across genre. Once again, we used univariate ANOVA with medium entered as an independent variable and children's age in months as a covariate. Examining overall attention using the proportion of the total time they were fixated on the image, we found significant effects, with video outperforming print, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>, 114) = 19.37, <emph>p</emph> < 0.002, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.15. We next examined the proportion of time children fixated on key categorical information where that specific information was conveyed. Again, we found a significant difference based on medium, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref120">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref121">114</reflink>) = 12.63, <emph>p</emph> >. 001, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.10 with video drawing children's attention more than the printed book (see Fig. 4). Attention was higher with video than with the book in print.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Attention by Medium</p> <p>Yet even though attention was greater for video, there were no significant differences based on medium for any of our measures in content comprehension. The univariate ANOVAs showed no effects on categorization, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref123">110</reflink>) = 0.42, <emph>p</emph> = 0.520, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.004; categorical properties, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>, 111) = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> = 787, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.001; inductive generalization, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref126">110</reflink>) = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> = 0.887, partial η<sups>2</sups> < 0.001; and class inclusion, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref127">1</reflink>, 108) = 0.44, <emph>p</emph> = 0.511, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.004 (see Fig. 5).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Outcomes by Medium</p> <p>Taken together, these results indicate that although video was more engaging to children, drawing their attention more than the printed book, there were no differences in outcomes based on the medium. We found no evidence of a medium effect.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-26">What matters most for knowledge-building support?</hd> <p>Taking into account our previous analyses, we raised the final question of whether the genre mattered more for knowledge-building instead of the medium of conveyance. Table 3 summarizes the proportion of time on attention, and the mean percentages on outcomes. In this analysis, we show the proportion of fixations for both genre and medium as well as outcomes.</p> <p>Table 3 Attention by Condition</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Information</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Narrative</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Proportion of time fixated overall</p></td><td align="left"><p>.52 (.17)<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.40 (.18)<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.51 (.18) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.34 (.14) <sup>b</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proportion of time fixated on taxonomic information</p></td><td align="left"><p>.47 (.16) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.37 (.18) <sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.46 (.18) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.32 (.14) <sup>b</sup></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Cells marked <sups>a</sups> are significantly different than cells marked <sups>b</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05</p> <p>Looking first at attention, we used univariate ANOVA with genre and medium entered as independent variables, and found no significant main effects based on genre, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>, 112) = 1.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.196, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.02. Children appeared equally engaged with both narrative and informational texts. By contrast, there was a significant main effect in attention based on medium <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref129">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref130">112</reflink>) = 19.68, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.15 with children attending to the video more than the book. There were no significant interactions, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref131">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref132">112</reflink>) = 0.49, <emph>p</emph> = 0.485, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.004. These analyses clearly show that video captured children's attention more than the printed book.</p> <p>Nevertheless, these differences in attention did not appear to affect children's content comprehension scores. As shown in the Table 4, the information genre was superior for knowledge building than the narrative genre which contained the same information, but in a story-like form. We used multivariate ANOVA with genre and medium entered as independent variables, and children's scores on our content comprehension measures as dependent variables. The overall MANOVA showed a significant main effect of genre <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref133">4</reflink>, 108) = 2.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.035, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.09, but no significant main effects for medium, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref134">4</reflink>, 108) = 0.79, <emph>p</emph> = 0.537, partial η<sups>2</sups> =. 03. Follow up tests examining the significant genre effect showed that children in the information condition outperformed children in the narrative condition when making inductive generalizations <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref135">115</reflink>) = 3.09, <emph>d</emph> = 0.57 and class inclusion (controlling for age in months)<emph> F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref136">1</reflink>, 108) = 4.62, <emph>p</emph> = 0.034, partial η<sups>2</sups> = 0.04, and marginally better when determining categorical properties, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref137">116</reflink>) = 1.94, <emph>p</emph> = 0.055, <emph>d</emph> = 0.36. There were no significant differences between genres on categorization <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref138">115</reflink>) = 0.89, <emph>p</emph> = 0.374, <emph>d</emph> = -17.</p> <p>Table 4 Outcomes (proportion correct) by Condition</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Information</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Narrative</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th><th align="left"><p>Video</p></th><th align="left"><p>Book</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Categorical properties</p></td><td align="left"><p>.71 (.31)<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.67 (.34) <sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.53 (.33) <sup>d</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.62 (.37) <sup>d</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Inductive Generalization</p></td><td align="left"><p>.63 (.29) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.57 (.33) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.38 (.28) <sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.47 (.31) <sup>b</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Class Inclusion</p></td><td align="left"><p>.83 (.24) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.80 (.28) <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.75 (.29) <sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.67 (.39) <sup>b</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Categorization</p></td><td align="left"><p>.37 (.28)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.38 (.25)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44 (.30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.43 (.30)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Cells marked a are significantly different than cells marked b <emph>p</emph> <.05; Cells marked c are marginally significantly different than cells marked d <emph>p</emph> <.10</p> <p>Taken together, these results indicated that the information genre may provide content in a way that allows children to recall and generalize this semantic information to new topics better than the narrative genre in either video or print form.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the current study was to investigate the material supports, specifically the effects of genre and medium on children's developing knowledge of text. Previous studies, as well as several recent meta-analyses, have argued for the overall beneficial effects of narrative over information texts (Clinton, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref139">14</reflink>]; Mar et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref140">47</reflink>]) in printed form over digital versions (Clinton et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref141">13</reflink>]; Furenes et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref142">28</reflink>]) on various measures of comprehension. Together, this previous research has made the case that narratives in printed texts are superior to their alternatives for knowledge-building in the early years of schooling.</p> <p>However, much of this research has been confounded with a lack of control for text topic or particular medium. To account for the possible effects of text topic, we created informational and narrative texts of comparable length and difficulty in printed text and video forms. The informational text described facts and concepts, whereas the narrative version included the same facts and concepts, but in a plot revolving around a protagonist of plot-determining relevance. Overall, our study design was to assess the effects of genre and medium on content comprehension.</p> <p>We viewed content comprehension and knowledge-building as a process that involves individuals in building relations among common entities (Gelman & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref143">31</reflink>]). Categorization is thought to act as a kind of 'mental glue,' helping children to link current experiences to prior knowledge, and enabling novel inferences (Murphy & Medin, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref144">57</reflink>]). Cognitive scientists generally agree that categories serve as an efficient means of storing and retrieving information, and allow for making predictions that guide behavior (Waxman & Leddon, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref145">82</reflink>]). Our measures were designed to examine aspects of categorization, including whether children could identify categories, their common properties, make inferences, and recognize the hierarchical structure of a category including how it relates to super-ordinate and basic categories.</p> <p>Contrary to our expectations, the results of our analysis did not provide evidence that narrative had an advantage for knowledge-building. Children seemed equally engaged in both narrative and information versions as evidenced by our eye-tracking analyses. Moreover, in contrast to our expectations, children performed marginally better in the informational condition when identifying categorical properties, and significantly better when making inductive generalizations and class inclusion. Therefore, our results do not align with previous studies that have indicated large effects of genre (Best et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref146">4</reflink>]; Clinton et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref147">13</reflink>]), or the findings of a meta-analysis by Mar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref148">47</reflink>]) who did not find any indication that control for content was a relevant moderator when it came to effects of genre on comprehension. Rather, our results support Pappas's contention ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref149">65</reflink>]) that challenges the assumption that narrative is somehow primary, or that children's abilities to understand stories precede their capability to understand informational text. In her small-scale study of kindergartners, she found that children were just as successful in reenacting informational books as they were stories, and that when asked, children actually preferred the informational books over stories.</p> <p>Similarly, our analysis of medium did not find a "paper advantage," in contrast to the findings from several meta-analyses. Screen media has often been blamed for capturing young viewers' passive engagement (Madigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref150">45</reflink>]), and displacing time that could otherwise be spent on more worthwhile activities. However, while our analysis found that the video versions engaged children more than the printed book, their attention was hardly passive as evidenced by our eye-tracking data. Children performed just as well on measures of content comprehension as they did with the printed text. There were no effects of the medium. These results suggest that under some conditions, high-quality, educational screen media may have positive learning benefits. It provides further support from a recent meta-analysis by Jing and her colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref151">35</reflink>]) who found small-to-medium (r = 0.25) positive effects of screen media on children's vocabulary.</p> <p>In fact, children performed better on all measures when presented with an informational text compared to narrative text, regardless of the medium. A potential explanation for this finding might be explained, in part, by Fisch's capacity model (Fisch, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref152">23</reflink>]). In this model, Fisch argues that when the educational content is tangential to the narrative, the two parallel processes are likely to compete for limited resources in working memory, with the result being that the educational content is not processed as deeply as it might otherwise be. According to Fisch, since children are likely to give priority to narrative over educational content (e.g. narrative dominance), fewer resources are available for information. Therefore, while we would like to believe that the educational content in our texts was woven tightly into the narrative, we cannot discount the possibility that the two parallel processes were less complementary than competitive with one another.</p> <p>However, it could also suggest that we have under-estimated children's interest in informational text. Although the topic of insects might not intrigue adults, to young children it might a source of great curiosity. In this study, children's attention was drawn to the informational text compared to the narrative version of insects regardless of the medium. These results suggest that we may have over-emphasized the medium of conveyance rather than its content. For example, in a previous study (Neuman et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref153">59</reflink>]), researchers reported that the content of the story not the medium predicted vocabulary and comprehension for low-income preschoolers.</p> <p>Consequently, while we know that young children benefit from many experiences with a rich array of texts, these results make a case for increasing children's exposure to informational texts. Still, to our knowledge, findings from Yopp and Yopp's survey of over 1000 teachers (Yopp & Yopp, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref154">88</reflink>]), indicating that informational texts represented only a small proportion of books read aloud at all grade levels (< 8%), preschool through third grade, have not dramatically changed in early childhood classroom instruction. Although findings from a recent study suggests that a higher percentage of informational reading seemed to occur in early elementary years (e.g., 27% in grade 1; 41% in grade 2) (Quinn & Paulick, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref155">68</reflink>]), there remains a paucity of informational book reading opportunities in preschool settings. Pentimonti and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref156">66</reflink>]) found that it represented only 4% of read-alouds in preschool classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-28">Possible explanations for discrepancies between this study and previous findings</hd> <p>Our results contrast with previous research in the literature. Beside the confounds and other issues mentioned in our review of the literature, there are other possible explanations for the discrepancy between our findings and previous research. One obvious explanation for these differences in our findings is the ages of children in our study. All of our participants were preschoolers ranging in ages from 4.0 to 4.8 years old compared to previous meta-analysis which largely addressed elementary and upper-grade level students. Another explanation for our divergent findings may lie in our assessment of content comprehension. The assessment tasks in this study were based on our understanding of how semantic knowledge develops by helping children organize incoming information into meaningful chunks that can assist in storing and retrieving information (Anderson & Pearson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>]). By encoding knowledge within categorical structures, discrete facts may be slotted into more coherent wholes or schemas, assisting working memory, and freeing cognitive space to consider other aspects of the task (Gelman & Kalish, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref158">29</reflink>]). Our measures, therefore, were designed to better understand how factual knowledge may be encoded into long-term memory, permitting a more efficient means for retrieving information, and promoting inferences.</p> <p>In contrast, many of the extant studies in meta-analyses favoring print over screens, for example, have used single measures of immediate recall. In Furenes et al.'s meta-analysis of studies with elementary grade students ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref159">28</reflink>]), 26 of the 39 studies reviewed used single measures of comprehension including retelling, recalling the sequence of a story, and closed-ended questions. In Clinton's meta-analysis of print compared to screens for undergraduate students ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref160">13</reflink>]), only 2 studies used open-ended questions compared to 27 studies that included only multiple-choice literal details.</p> <p>At the same time, one might argue that our measures were better suited for informational rather than narrative texts. Clinton's meta-analysis of the differences between narrative and expository texts of 18 reports ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref161">14</reflink>]), for example, included studies that measured inferencing and comprehension through thinking aloud, sentence verification, and multiple-choice questions. Best et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref162">4</reflink>]) used both multiple-choice questions and recall to examine narrative and expository text. Therefore, in further research, it might be beneficial to consider adding measures such as recall or thinking aloud, tapping the more traditional ways to measure comprehension in narrative texts in addition our assessments.</p> <p>Relatedly, another explanation for the discrepancy between our results and previous studies of genre effects may be that typical narratives are not primarily designed for knowledge-building, but for engagement and learning about what constitutes a story form (Cullinan & Person, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref163">16</reflink>]). This is clearly a possibility, yet at the same time many narrative stories are actually blended or hybrid texts (e.g. integrating narrative and informational text) designed to delight as well as to convey knowledge (Bintz & Ciecierski, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref164">5</reflink>]). Still, we cannot exclude the possibility that our assumptions for knowledge-building were more heavily weighted in favor of an informational rather than a narrative text.</p> <p>The fact that content comprehension did not support the narrative with its more predictable story structure compared to the information version, however, could also reflect the story itself. For example, in our effort to parallel the text versions to include the same vocabulary, content and length, we may have generated narratives that did not contain enough of the schematic knowledge of how stories typically unfold. Our story might not have had the character development, and compelling challenges that are evident in many narrative stories that engage children. Therefore, future research should probably consider stories of slightly longer length with more richly developed characters as well as additional stories in any comparisons of genre on knowledge-building.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-29">Limitations</hd> <p>In addition to these considerations, we recognize a number of other limitations in our research. Due to our concern for pretest sensitization, we did not include a pre- and post-test design. Therefore, our study cannot report knowledge gains. At the same time, we would argue that our expressive language and concept screening measures were able to adequately tap children's prior knowledge and indicated that groups were statistically equivalent prior to the intervention. In addition, our research protocol called for no direct interactions with the child while viewing or being read to. As a result, the natural conversations that might occur through co-viewing (Neuman et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref165">61</reflink>]), or interactive reading (Mol et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref166">55</reflink>]) did not take place. We must also recognize that the materials developed for this study were carefully controlled, and constructed to be developmentally appropriate to preschoolers. We cannot claim that all informational text may be as accessible or engaging. Informational texts that have cumbersome text structures, dense content, or abstract concepts may not provide for the multiple exposures to key words and concepts that are so important for knowledge-building. And finally, our research was conducted in a lab-like setting within a school and does not represent how book reading or screen media activity is likely to occur. Therefore, we cannot assume that these activities in a more naturalistic setting would result in a similar finding.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-30">Conclusion</hd> <p>Overall, our results show that children seemed to attend and to benefit from both narrative and informational text. Contrary to the extant literature, however, we found no evidence for a narrative advantage or a print superiority effect. Rather as active knowledge seekers, we found that genre in print and screen media of high quality may be sources for knowledge-building, opening up new opportunities for greater access to learning for children within and beyond institution walls.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-31">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191377945-32">Informational Text</hd> <p>Look at all the animals.Animals come in many shapes and sizes.Some are big and some are small; some have fur and some have scales.But all animals need food and water to stay healthy and strong.Animals need shelter too, to help protect them from wind and rain and cold weather.Food, water and shelter are things that all animals need to survive.Guess what?Insects are a kind of animal.That's right, insects are a special type of animal.Insects have six legs that help them move around.One, two, three, four, five, six.See?They have six legs.Some insects use their six legs to gather food and water.Insects use their six legs to find shelter too.They come in many different sizes and shapes.Many are small but some can be big.You might find them in different places.They may in caves, or land or rivers.They may live in cold weather or.Warm weather.Most insects also have wings.Some, like this butterfly, have big, beautiful wings.Others, like this ladybug, have tiny, little wings.But some, like this flea, don't have wings at all.Insects use their wings to fly.They can fly off to find food and shelter.It might surprise you, but insects don't have ears like you or me.Instead, they have two antennae that stick out of their heads.Insects use their antennae to see and feel what's around them.They use their two antennae to help them find food and to stay out of danger.Because insects are animals, they need food to survive.Some, like grasshoppers, eat grass and leaves.Others, like flies, eat fruits and vegetables.Insects like ants and cockroaches eat a little bit of everything.Insects use their two antennae to find what they like to eat.Insects have special kinds of bodies.Their bodies have three segments.The first segment is called the head.Antennae are part of the head.The mouth is also part of the head.Insects use their heads when they're eating.The middle segment of an insect is called the thorax.Wings are a part of the thorax.All six of the legs are also part of the thorax.Insects need a thorax to move around.The third segment is called the abdomen.Insects don't have bellies like you or me.When they eat, their food is stored in their abdomen.Most insects poop after they eat.They poop using their abdomens.All insects have three body parts: head, thorax, abdomen.Insects are a type of animal.This means that they need shelter to survive.Some insects, like bees, live in hives.Others, like ants and cockroaches, live in nests.All insects need shelter.Wherever they live, they use shelter to stay warm and protect them from danger.Insects are a very special kind of animal.All insects have two antennae, six legs, and three body segments.They may look different from other animals like octopuses or moose or eagles, but insects are an important type of animal too.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-33">Narrative Text</hd> <p>Once upon a time, I went on a safari to learn all about animals.</p> <p>I wanted to see animals of all shapes and sizes!</p> <p>What kinds of foods do they eat?</p> <p>What kinds of shelters protect them from bad weather?</p> <p>As I got deeper into the jungle, I discovered that I was lost!</p> <p>How would I get back to camp?</p> <p>Suddenly, I saw a type of animal called an insect.</p> <p>The fellow waved and said, "I'm Byron the Beetle!</p> <p>Follow me, I'll show you the way!".</p> <p>I decided to follow Byron.</p> <p>He could lead me back to camp, and I could learn about insects along the way.</p> <p>Byron led the way on his six legs.</p> <p>Insects like Byron have six legs that help them move around.</p> <p>"See? I have six legs!" Byron said "One, two, three, four, five, six!"</p> <p>"We insects use our six legs to gather food and water!"</p> <p>He continued, "Sometimes, we use our six legs to find shelter!".</p> <p>One of Byron's friends was a butterfly named Brianna.</p> <p>Oh, look at those big wings!</p> <p>"Most insects have wings." said Brianna.</p> <p>"Some are big and some are tiny. Look at my friend Lila the Ladybug."</p> <p>"But some insects, like Franco the Flea, don't have any wings at all!"</p> <p>I was learning so much about my insect friends!</p> <p>They could use their wings to find food and shelter.</p> <p>If only they could help me find my camp!</p> <p>We headed deeper into the jungle.</p> <p>Suddenly, there was a sound. All of my new friends stopped to listen.</p> <p>"We listen with our antennae." said Byron.</p> <p>"Insects don't have ears like people do.</p> <p>We have two antennae that stick out of our heads!".</p> <p>I could see their antennae.</p> <p>The insects could even use their antennae to find food and stay out of danger!</p> <p>After so much walking, my stomach started growling. I was hungry!</p> <p>What did my insect friends like to eat?</p> <p>"I like eating fruits and vegetables" said Mo Mosquito.</p> <p>"Insects like me eat a little bit of everything!" said Cody the cockroach.</p> <p>"We use our two antennae to find our favorite foods."</p> <p>I noticed that the insects' bodies had three parts!</p> <p>"My head is at the top of my body," said Maria the Moth.</p> <p>"Antennae are part of my head.</p> <p>So is my mouth.</p> <p>"My middle is called the thorax.</p> <p>My wings are a part of my thorax. Guess what?</p> <p>My six legs are also part of my thorax!".</p> <p>I realized that insects need their thorax to move around.</p> <p>"My bottom is called the abdomen" Maria continued.</p> <p>I realized that insects don't have bellies like you or me.</p> <p>Their food is stored in their abdomen.</p> <p>Maria went on, "Most insects poop after they eat!</p> <p>We poop using our abdomen."</p> <p>We made our way through the jungle. We were all getting tired.</p> <p>Animals like insects want to rest in their shelters.</p> <p>Bees want to rest in their hives.</p> <p>Ants and cockroaches wanted to rest in nests.</p> <p>The insects all wanted to use their shelters to stay warm and safe from danger.</p> <p>Would I make it back to the shelter of my camp?</p> <p>I was tired, and scared.</p> <p>Then I heard a faint sound. I was perfectly still so I could listen carefully.</p> <p>I heard Byron "Over here!" "Here's your camp!".</p> <p>My safari taught me that insects are a very special kind of animal!</p> <p>Insects have two antennae, six legs, and three body segments.</p> <p>Insects may look different from other animals, but they are very important just the same.</p> <p>I love a good safari.</p> <p>And so do my new friends.</p> <hd id="AN0191377945-34">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191377945-35"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson RC, Pearson PDPearson PD. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Handbook of reading research. 1984; Longmann: 255-291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L, Dreher MJ, Shiplet A, Beall L, Voelker A, Garrett A, Finger-Elam M. Children's comprehension of informational text: Reading, engaging, and learning. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2011; 4; 1: 197-227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref109" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bavin EL, Kidd E, Prendergast LA, Baker EK. Young children with ASD use lexical and referential information during on-line sentence processing. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016; 7; 171: 1-10. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Best R, Floyd R, Mcnamara D. Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology. 2008; 29; 2: 137-164. 10.1080/02702710801963951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref164" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bintz W, Ciecierski L. Hybrid text: An engaging genre to teach content area material across the curriculum. Reading Teacher. 2017; 71: 61-69. 10.1002/trtr.1560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref110" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Both-de Vries AC, Bus AG. Visual processing of pictures and letters in alphabet books and the implications for letter learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2014; 39; 2: 156-163. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bowman B, Donovan S, Burns MS. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. 2000; National Academy Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref50" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Browning E, Hohenstein J. The use of narrative to promote primary school children's understanding of evolution. Education. 2013; 3–13; 43: 530-547. 10.1080/03004279.2013.837943</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref71" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bus A, Takacs Z, Kegel C. Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children's emergent literacy. Developmental Review. 2015; 35: 79-97. 10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabell S, Hwang H. Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly. 2020; 55; S1: S99-S107. 10.1002/rrq.338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cervetti G, Pearson PD, Palinscar A, Kendeou P, Biancarosa G, Higgs J, Berman A. How the reading for understanding initiative's research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly. 2020; 55; S1: S161-S172. 10.1002/rrq.343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cervetti G, Wright TMoje E, Afflerbach P, Enciso P, Lesaux N. The role of knowledge in understanding and learning from text. Handbook on Reading Research. 2020; Routledge: 237-260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clinton V. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading. 2019; 42: 288-325. 10.1111/1467-9817.12269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clinton V, Taylor T, Bajpayee S, Davison M, Carolson S, Seipel B. Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33: 2223-2248. 10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins A, Quillian M. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1969; 8: 240-247. 10.1016/S00222-5371(69)80069-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cullinan B, Person D. Grownups' guide to children's literature. 2009; Continuum International Publishing Group</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado P, Vargas C, Ackerman R, Salmeron L. Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review. 2018; 25: 23-38. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deneault J, Ricard M. The effect of hierarchical levels of categories on children's deductive inferences about inclusion. International Journal of Psychology. 2005; 40: 65-79. 10.1080/00207590444000032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke N. 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly. 2000; 35; 2: 202-224. 10.15598/RRQ.35.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan G, Murnane R. Whither opportunity?. 2011; Russell Sage Foundation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egan K. Primary understanding: Education in early childhood. 1988; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans MA, Saint-Auben J. What children are looking at during shared storybook reading. Psychological Science. 2005; 16: 913-920. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01636.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisch S. A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychology. 2000; 2; 1: 63-91. 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0201_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisch SM. Cross-platform learning: On the nature of children's learning from multiple media platforms. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2013; 2013; 139: 59-70. 10.1002/cad.20032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisch S. Children's learning from educational television: Sesame Street and beyond. 2014; Routledge. 10.4324/9781410610553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flynn R, Wong K, Author SB, Kaefer T. Children's attention to screen-based pedagogical supports: An eye-tracking study with low-income preschool children in the United States. Journal of Children and Media. 2019; 13; 2: 180-200. 10.1080/17482798.2019.1575887</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulmer G, Lee I, Tan K. Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers' assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education Principles. 2015; 22: 1-20. 10.1080/0969594X.2015.1017445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furenes M, Kucirkova N, Bus A. A comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2021; 91: 483-517. 10.3102/0034654321998074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelman S, Kalish CDamon W, Lerner R, Kuhn D, Siegler R. Conceptual development. Handbook of Child Psychology. 2006; Wiley: 687-733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelman S, Markman E. Categories and induction in young children. Cognition. 1986; 23: 183-209. 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90034-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelman S, Meyer M. Child categorization. Wires Cognitive Science. 2010; 2: 95-105. 10.1002/wes.96</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelman S, O'Reilly A. Children's inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure. Child Development. 1988; 59: 876-887. 10.2307/1130255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadley E, Dickinson D, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff R. Building semantic networks: The impact of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers' depth of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly. 2018; 54: 41-61. 10.1002/rrq.225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inhelder B, Piaget J. The early growth of logic in the child. Classification and seriation. 1964; Harper & Row</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jing M, Ye T, Kirkorian H, Mares M. Screen media exposure and young children's vocabulary learning and development: A meta-analysis. Child Development. 2023; 00: 1-21. 10.1111/cdev.13927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justice L, Ezell H. Word and print awareness in 4-year-old children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2001; 17: 207-225. 10.1177/026565900101700303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim J, Burkhauser M, Relyea J, Gilbert J, Scherer E, Fitzgerald J, McIntyre J. A longitudinal randomized trial of a sustained content literacy intervention from first to second grade: Transfer effects on students' reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2023; 115: 73-98. 10.1037/edu0000751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. 1998; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W, Van Dijk T. Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review. 1978; 85: 363-394. 10.1037/0033-295X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong Y, Seo Y, Zhai L. Comparisons of reading performance on screen and on paper. Computers & Education. 2018; 123: 138-149. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraal A, Koornneef A, Saab N, van den Broek P. Processing of expository and narrative texts by low- and high-comprehending children. Reading and Writing. 2018; 31: 2017-2040. 10.1007/s11145-017-9789-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linebarger D, Piotrowski J. TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk preschoolers' story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2009; 27: 47-69. 10.1348/026151008x400445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, W, He, H, Urban, A, & Griffin, J. (2021). What the eyes can tell: Analyzing visual attention with an educational video game. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (pp. 1–7).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugo-Gil J, Tamis-LeMonda C. Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children's cognitive development across the first 3 years. Child Development. 2008; 79; 4: 1065-1085. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01176.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madigan S, McArthur B, Anhorn C, Eirich R, Christakis D. Associations between screen use and child language skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020; 174: 665-675. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandler JM, Johnson N. Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology. 1977; 9: 111-151. 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90006-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mar R, Li J, Nguyen A, Ta C. Memory and comprehension of narrative versus expository texts: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2021; 28: 732-749. 10.3758/s13423-020-01853-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer RMayer R. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learing. 2005; Cambridge University Press: 31-48. 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer RE, Moreno R. Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review. 2002; 14: 87-99. 10.1023/A:1013184611077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy K, McNamara D. The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist. 2021; 56; 3: 196-214. 10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConnell S. Individual Growth and Development Indicators. 2020; Renaissance Learning</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConnell S, Wackerie-Hollman A, Roloff T, Rodriguez M. Designing a measurement framework for response to intervention in early childhood programs. Journal of Early Intervention. 2015; 36: 263-280. 10.1177/1053815115578559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLuhan M. Understanding media. 1964; Signet Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mézière DC, Lili Y, Reichle ED, von der Malsburg T, McArthur G. Using eye‐tracking measures to predict reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2023; 58; 3: 425-449. 10.1002/rrq.498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mol S, Bus A, deJong M. Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79; 2: 979-1007. 10.3102/0034654309332561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosher D, Burkhauser M, Kim J. Improving second-grade reading comprehension through a sustained content literacy intervention: A mixed-methods study examining the mediating role of domain-specific vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2024; 116: 550-568. 10.1037/edu0000868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy G, Medin D. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review. 1985; 92: 289-316. 10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). A new vision for high-quality preschool curriculum. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Wong KM, Kaefer T. Content not form predicts oral language comprehension: the influence of the medium on preschoolers' story understanding. Reading and Writing. 2017; 30; 8: 1753-1771. 10.1007/s11145-017-9750-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Flynn R, Wong K, Kaefer T. Quick, incidental word learning in educational media: All contexts are not equal among low-income preschoolers. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68: 2913-2937. 10.1007/s11423-020-09815-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Samudra P, Wong KM, Kaefer T. Scaffolding attention and partial word learning through interactive coviewing of educational media: An eye-tracking study with low-income preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 112; 6: 1100-1110. 10.1037/edu0000428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman SB, Samudra PG, Wong KM. Two may be better than one: Promoting incidental word learning through multimedia. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2021; 73: 101-252. 10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. 1986; Oxford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas C. Young children's strategies in learning the "book language" of information books. Discourse Processes. 1991; 14: 203-225. 10.1080/01638539109544782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas C. Is narrative primary? Some insights from kindergarteners' pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1993; 25: 97-128. 10.1080/10862969309547803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pentimonti JM, Zucker TA, Justice LM, Kaderavek JN. Informational text use in preschool classroom read-alouds. The Reading Teacher. 2010; 63: 656-665. 10.1598/RT.63.8.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollard-Durodola S, Gonzalez J, Simmons D, Davis M, Simmons D, Nava-Walichowski M. Using knowledge networks to develop preschoolers' content vocabulary. The Reading Teacher. 2012; 65; 4: 265-274. 10.1002/TRTR.01035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn A, Paulick J. First-year teachers' informational reading instruction: Prevalence, quality and characteristics. Reading Research Quarterly. 2021; 57: 227-253. 10.1002/rrq-390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 124; 3: 372-422. 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner K, Foorman B, Perfetti C, Pesetsky D, Seidenberg M. How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2001; 2: 31-74. 10.1111/1529-1006.00004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick, M. (2022). Edutainment? No thanks. I prefer playful learning. Retrieved from https://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/edutainment.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rideout V, Robb M. The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age 0–8, 2020. 2020; Common Sense Media</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez M, Wackerle-Hollman A. Bridging the gap: Individual growth and development indicators: The "Which One Doesn't Belong" task. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2015; 40: 96-98. 10.1177/1534508414556505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samudra P, Wong K, Author SB. Can small changes matter? Reducing cognitive load in educational media supports low-income preschoolers' vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114: 1277-1291. 10.1037/edu0000742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein N, Glenn CFreedle RO. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. Advances in discourse processing. 1979; Ablex: 53-120; 2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strouse G, Samson J. Learning from video: A meta-analysis of the video deficit in children's ages 0 to 6 years. Child Development. 2021; 92: e20-e38. 10.1111/cdev.13429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takacs Z, Bus A. How pictures in picture storybooks support young children's story comprehension: An eye-tracking experiment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2018; 174: 1-12. 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.04.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takacs Z, Swart E, Bus A. Can the computer replace the adult for storybook reading? A meta-analysis on the effects of multimedia stories as compared to sharing print stories with an adult. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5; 1: 1-12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhallen M, Bus A. Low-income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary through digital picture storybooks. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102: 54-61. 10.1037/a0017133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wannagat W, Steinicke V, Tibken C, Nieding G. Same topic, different genre: Elementary school children's mental representations of information embedded in narrative and expository texts. Learning and Instruction. 2022; 80. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101559101559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik B, Hindman A, Snell E. Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016; 37: 39-57. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waxman S, Leddon EGoswami U. Early word learning and conceptual development: Everything had a name and each name gave birth to a new thought. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of children's cognitive development. 2010; Wiley: 180-208. 10.1002/9781444325485.ch7; 2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waxman SR, Namy L. Challenging the notion of thematic preferences in young children. Developmental Psychology. 1997; 33: 555-567. 10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells G. The meaning makers. 1985; Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williford A, Whittaker J, Vitiello V, Downer J. Children's engagement within the preschool classroom and their development of self-regulation. Early Education and Development. 2013; 24: 162-187. 10.1080/10409289.2011.628270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willingham D. The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. 2017; Jossey-Bass</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright T, Cervetti G, Wise C, McClung N. The impact of knowledge-building through conceptually-coherent read alouds on vocabulary and comprehension. Reading Psychology. 2022; 43: 70-84. 10.1080/02702711.2021.2020187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yopp H, Yopp R. Young children's limited and narrow exposure to informational text. Reading Teacher. 2012; 65; 7: 480-490. 10.1002/TRTR.01072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yopp R, Yopp H. Informational texts as read-alouds at school and home. Journal of Literacy Research. 2006; 38: 37-51. 10.1207/s15548430jlr3801-2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susan B. Neuman; Tanya Kaefer and Ashley Pinkham</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref163"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1505634
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Is Narrative in Printed Text 'Primary' for Knowledge-Building? An Analysis of Genre and Medium
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+B%2E+Neuman%22">Susan B. Neuman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3065-1678">0000-0002-3065-1678</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tanya+Kaefer%22">Tanya Kaefer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ashley+Pinkham%22">Ashley Pinkham</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 39(1):91-119.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 29
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literary+Genres%22">Literary Genres</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Printed+Materials%22">Printed Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comprehension%22">Comprehension</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-025-10634-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to investigate the materials supports, specifically the effects of genre (narrative and informational) and medium (print and video) on children's developing knowledge of text. Following pretests, 127 preschoolers were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: informational text (print or screen), or narrative text (print or screen) about insects. Eye-tracking data was collected to measure children's engagement with the text. After the viewing or reading, children were individually administered a series of comprehension tasks. Results indicated children seemed equally engaged with both genre; however, regardless of medium, children performed better on most measures when given the informational text. These results suggest that informational text in print as well as video may be an ideal source for knowledge-building in the early years.
– 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: EJ1505634
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1505634
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-025-10634-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 29
        StartPage: 91
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literary Genres
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Printed Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comprehension
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Is Narrative in Printed Text 'Primary' for Knowledge-Building? An Analysis of Genre and Medium
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan B. Neuman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tanya Kaefer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ashley Pinkham
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1