The effect of dialogic reading interventions on narrative skills in the preschool period: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction:

Narrative skills in the preschool period serve as a key predictor of children's subsequent reading comprehension and overall academic achievement. This study aims to evaluate the impact of dialogic reading interventions on the narrative macrostructure and causal language skills of preschool-aged children.

Methods:

Following a systematic search of the Web of Science, EBSCO, and ERIC databases, 16 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (total N > 1,800) meeting the PICO-S criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis using a random-effects model was per-formed to determine effect sizes.

Results:

Analysis indicated a statistically significant and positive overall effect of dialogic reading interventions on narrative skills [g = 0.62, 95% CI (0.44, 0.80)]. Sub-dimension analyses indicated that higher effects occurred in narrative macrostructure (g = 0.82) and causal language reasoning skills (g = 0.78). Digital and robotic intervention modalities (g = 0.88) appeared to yield higher effect sizes than traditional print-based methods, though these findings should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of studies in these modalities.

Discussion:

These findings highlight dialogic reading as a robust pedagogical tool that transforms children into active meaning-makers, with digital modalities offering particularly strong support. The results suggest that integrating interactional, structural, and cognitive scaffolding is essential for fostering comprehensive narrative competence in early childhood.

1 Introduction

Early childhood education aims to determine and regulate practices and interventions that form the foundation for a long-term developmental path. Language and literacy skills shape children's academic, social, and cognitive development. The effectiveness of early childhood language and literacy skills in predicting later reading comprehension and overall academic success has been indicated by various studies (Babayiğit et al., 2021; Piasta et al., 2018). In this regard, it is important to distinguish between reading comprehension and reading literacy. While reading comprehension refers to an individual's capacity to understand what an author conveys through a written text, reading literacy encompasses the broader ability to apply this comprehension meaningfully within a social context (Pérez, 2014). Narrative (storytelling) plays a crucial role in this process (Farquhar, 2012, Lumgair, 2021). Narrative supports various dimensions of child development, supporting their developmental processes through imaginative play and linguistic engagement. Additionally, while these narratives develop children's linguistic skills, they also foster the values, intellectual approaches, and problem-solving methods of the culture in which they are embedded (Ahn, 2012; Cremin et al., 2016; Rosati, 2024). The positive outcomes of this social child-adult interaction also create an environment for a high-quality pedagogical structure. In this context, shared book reading promotes children's language and narrative skills by creating both ecologically valid and powerful contexts (Jalongo, 2019; Nolan et al., 2014). This interaction also strengthens a collaborative space that supports children's cognitive and linguistic development (Murray et al., 2022). Recent studies on this topic have shown that the quality of dialogue established in this space directly influences the gains children achieve (Hindman et al., 2014; Marshall, 2022). In this context, new perspectives show a significant change in this field. The focus of research is no longer on questioning the benefits of book reading but on how reading can be made more beneficial (Bus, 1995; Justice and Sofka, 2010). Specifically, the central question has shifted from book reading to how to read a book (Batini et al., 2020).

Although the main research question has changed, a disproportionate imbalance exists in systematic review studies. As stated in the work of Grøver et al. (2023), the majority of synthesis studies focus on outcomes that are more easily measurable, such as early literacy and vocabulary. This causes narratives, which are more meaning-oriented and play a crucial role in reflecting children's higher-order thinking skills, remain under researched. It is important to provide the necessary evidence to support the cognitive and linguistic skills that predict the importance of narrative (Gardner-Neblett, 2022; Zanchi et al., 2020). Only with this evidence can evidence-based interventions be designed to answer the how? question. The lack of a synthesized presentation of the evidence in this field represents a gap in the literature. This systematic review aims to synthesize the diverse and fragmented studies in the field consistent with the evidence base of narrative.

1.1 Narrative in early childhood

Early childhood is a rapidly evolving stage where children begin to build social and cultural connections and can reflect and foster their intellectual growth. Narrative is central to this period; it helps children understand their experiences and connect them to their culture. Narrative involves more than the chronological reporting of events. It is a process that develops children's cognitive and affective skills, strengthening their self-perception and social relationships (Cremin et al., 2016). Therefore, to understand the fundamental structures related to children's holistic development, it is first necessary to be aware of the importance of narrative in early childhood education (Lumgair, 2021).

These characteristics of early childhood narrative have a significant impact on children's cognitive flexibility, identity/belonging formation, and social perceptions. Narrative facilitates the development of meaning in the development of children's higher-order thinking skills. It allows children to develop thinking skills such as multiple perspectives, creativity, and problem-solving. A key benefit of narrative in this process is the development of theory of mind (ToM), specifically, the ability to be aware of and recognize the mental and intellectual actions of others, such as their beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions (Astington, 2020). Effort to understand the behavioral changes of characters, their hidden motives, or emotions in a narrative pushes the child to go beyond their own perspectives and grasp the viewpoints and approaches of others (Kelly and Barber, 2021; Wang, 2015). The cognitive flexibility gained in this way is of great importance for both social interaction and the comprehension of complex texts. In their research, Ziv et al. (2016) found that children's comprehension and application skills are directly related to their theory of mind development.

Educational interventions focus on intentionally transforming an individual's knowledge. Through narratives, children can be offered a supportive learning context, enabling them to recognize the actions behind human behavior. Moreover, it plays an essential in children's ability to manage social relationships, be aware of their social position, and act accordingly. This is because narratives are also important tools for transmitting social norms and societal expectations (Ahn, 2012). Through narratives, children are introduced to complex and abstract concepts such as friendship and justice. According to the research by Davidson et al. (2017), children who could express moral concerns with thematic and chronological consistency in their narratives were found to be less excluded and bullied in later years. These findings show that narrative not only provides children with language development but also gives them the opportunity to practice social events and predict the consequences of their own actions.

Narrative has a pivotal role in the formation of children's identities and self-perceptions. Through narratives, scattered experiences are integrated to create a coherent, chronological life story/life script (Jalongo, 2019). Additionally, children explore their identity throughout the narrative with questions like Who am I? and Who is my family? Farquhar (2012) states that for various reasons, modern educational policies sometimes can potentially disconnect children from their own cultural narratives. Narrative is not only universal but also carries personal and cultural characteristics. Educational environments that allow children to recognize both their own stories and the stories of others strengthen their sense of be-longing and the development of cultural identity in addition to language development (Cremin et al., 2016). Therefore, these points, it is possible to state that supporting children's narrative skills will make significant contributions to their overall development. Furthermore, research highlights the importance of building instructional bridges between early childhood and primary education, particularly through the balanced use of diverse text types that support children's reading and comprehension development across educational transitions (Madrid Vivar et al., 2024). Therefore, determining pedagogical approaches that positively influence children's narrative skills is essential in early childhood education.

1.2 Narrative and causal language

Narrative ability is a process that operates with measurable cognitive factors, thus directly influencing the development of literacy in children. In this process, two basic structures are used: the structural organization of the narrative (macrostructure) and the establishment of logical connections between events (causal language). These structures allow children to turn experiences into a structured narrative. They also create the foundation that will help them to analyze written texts they encounter more easily. In this context, narrative, based on macrostructure and causal language, provides the necessary conditions for the development of children's literacy skills. Children's proficiency in using macrostructure and causal language within a narrative context serves as a basis for them to become skilled readers (Piasta et al., 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2023).

Narrative macrostructure is also referred to as story grammar. Story grammar consists of standard components such as the event, time, place, at-tempts, internal responses, and ending (Stein and Glenn, 1979). As preschoolers listen to stories, they gradually begin to internalize these structures. Children start to easily use the story grammar that is formed in their minds in different situations. Children with developed story grammar knowledge can much more easily recognize the plot of stories. This situation supports the development of children's comprehension skills. According to the research of Bui (2002) and Wati et al. (2017), teaching story grammar improves children's reading comprehension skills. These results confirm that story grammar knowledge is a prerequisite for both oral narrative and understanding written texts (Zahoor and Janjua, 2013).

Causal language, which constitutes the other dimension of narrative, provides a logical structure for events. It enables the understanding and expression of the characters' motivations (because he was sad), the consequences of their actions (so he went home), and the connections between events in the story grammar (Brown, 2008). The causal structure facilitates the transition from the surface structure to the deep structure of the text, thereby developing inferential comprehension. In their longitudinal studies, Sanchez and Makdissi (2019) determined that children begin to express causal connections as early as 23 months. They found that this situation emerged and developed through the mother's interaction strategies, such as open-ended macrostructural questions. These results show that causal language development is an integral part of social interaction. Similarly, according to research by Tompkins et al. (2013), preschoolers' inferences from stories, independent of age and vocabulary, predict their overall story comprehension levels. These situations show that causal language encourages children to engage actively with the text, moving them from passive listeners to active meaning-makers.

Deficiencies in narrative structure and causal language skills can cause children to experience various problems. In studies comparing children with reading difficulties to their normally developing peers, it was determined that while they understood the stories in a similar way, they performed significantly weaker in terms of content and complexity in retelling the stories (Feagans and Short, 1984). This situation shows that there are problems not only in language production but also in information structuring and organization skills. Research shows that children with pragmatic language disorders tend to skip important points of stories, such as the beginning and end, and therefore are inadequate in providing the necessary information (Ketelaars et al., 2012). These results indicate that deficiencies or problems in children's narrative skills are often a symptom of language and learning difficulties. Steps taken to support these skills at an early age will not only improve children's narrative skills but also serve as a preventative measure against learning difficulties (Lander, 2012; Sage, 2002). Furthermore, early assessment and targeted intervention during the transition to formal schooling have been identified as critical for addressing inequalities in academic achievement (Schöfl et al., 2025).

In general, it is possible to state that narrative structure and causal language are two elements that form the basis of literacy. Story structure provides a framework for understanding the general plot and its constituent elements, while causal language allows for the discovery of the logic and motivation behind events. Specifically, narrative pro-vides the what? and causal language provides the why? question. The interaction pro-vided by these two structures allows children to engage more effectively with texts. If these skills are supported from early childhood, a foundation for quality literacy will be laid not only for the first years of academic life but for the entire academic journey (Chang, 2006; Silva and Cain, 2015). Therefore, a systematic examination and understanding of studies that address these structures is of great importance for the field of early childhood education.

1.3 Previous intervention research

Before proceeding, it is important to distinguish between two related but distinct concepts used in this review. Shared book reading (SBR) refers broadly to any adult-child reading activity involving a physical or digital book (Dowdall et al., 2020). Dialogic reading (DR), in contrast, is a structured and interactive form of shared reading in which the adult uses specific prompting strategies to actively engage the child in co-constructing meaning from the text (Justice and Sofka, 2010; Pillinger and Vardy, 2022). To understand how preschoolers can be helped to develop narrative skills, it is necessary to look at both the practical studies and the theories behind them. This helps us see what is working well and what needs to be improved in the field.

Studies have been conducted for many years to determine the effectiveness of shared book reading (SBR) interventions. A prominent study in this field is the meta-analysis conducted by Bus et al. (1995). This research determined that parent-child book reading had a statistically significant and positive effect on language development, early literacy, and reading success. Similar results have been reached in systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in subsequent years: Law et al. (2018) found that parent-child reading practices positively affect children's receptive language skills, while Swanson et al. (2011) determined that they positively affect foundational literacy skills such as phonological awareness and letter knowledge in children at risk for reading difficulties. Dowdall et al. (2020) and Barone et al. (2020) found that reading books together helps children develop their language and makes parents feel more confident in supporting them.

A gap remains in the shared book reading literature. As noted by Grøver et al. (2023), is that the focus is on vocabulary (Flack et al., 2018; Mol et al., 2008), phonological awareness (Parpucu and Ezmeci, 2023), and other foundational code-based skills. More complex and meaning-oriented structures like narrative skills have received less empirical attention or have not been addressed in sufficient detail. The results obtained by Grøver et al. (2023) show that using different ways to measure narrative skills makes it harder to reach deeper results. This suggests that a more focused review on the main parts of narrative is needed.

Although there is a large gap in review studies in the field, there are primary studies on the effectiveness of dialogic reading (DR) in improving narrative skills. Doyle and Bramwell (2006) found that dialogic reading supports both literacy and social-emotional learning and improves children's communication and social skills such as listening to peers and taking turns. More recently, Schapira and Grazzani (2025) conducted a narrative review of 15 empirical studies and confirmed that shared book reading, when paired with structured emotion discourse in nursery and preschool settings, effectively enhances children's social and emotional competence, including empathy, emotion understanding, and prosocial behavior. Similarly, it was determined that the types of questions teachers use (text-based, life-experience-based, etc.) directly affect children's verbal and narrative skills (Pereira et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2025). The flexibility provided by dialogic reading has also given it the opportunity to be used with modern educational technologies. Recent studies have determined that dialogic and interactive methods are also effective in improving children's narrative skills through digital storybooks (Cordes et al., 2023; del Moral Pérez et al., 2022) and conversational AI agents (Xu et al., 2022). Although these studies show that dialogic reading is effective under different conditions, studies that systematically evaluate them are insufficient. A systematic review that synthesizes the evidence, analyzes the results of intervention-based studies, and provides a general conclusion will be an important resource for practitioners and researchers.

Dialogic reading is based on Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory (Gajdamaschko, 2015; Tzuriel, 2021). According to this, higher-order mental abilities (e.g., logical memory, voluntary attention, and com-plex reasoning) first emerge socially (inter-individually) and then individually (intra-individually) Daniels, 2012). In this approach, the adult serves as a facilitator, supporting the child within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) – a level of competence attainable only through guided interaction. The adult, who guides the child with open-ended questions, prompts, and expansions, provides a scaffolding that enables the child to structure their narrative (Justice et al., 2005; Miller, 2002; Yang et al., 2024). Through this interaction, the complex narrative creation process shifts from a collaborative to an internalized cognitive skill. Children build mental schemas about the narratives they listen to repeatedly. Dialogic reading facilitates this as an active constructive experience for the child. Guiding questions like What was the problem in the story? and What happened at the end? Direct the child's focus toward the fundamental components of story grammar (Bui, 2002). These repeated dialogues strengthen and make the mental schema about the story more flexible. Based on these results, it is possible to state that dialogic reading is also an important mechanism that enables the social construction of the mind.

1.4 The current study

In the literature review conducted for this study, both quantitative and well-synthesized studies on the effectiveness of dialogic reading on basic language skills such as vocabulary have been found (e.g., Mol et al., 2008; Pillinger and Vardy, 2022). However, research on how dialogic reading helps children's storytelling skills is currently unorganized and not clearly summarized. This makes it very difficult for teachers and practitioners to know what really works. Although it is generally known that dialogic reading is positive, there is a lack of evidence-based, quantitative studies on how and to what extent this intervention strategy develops important skills such as children's story structuring (macrostructure) or cause-and-effect relationships (causal language). As a result of this research gap, the specific effect size and consistency of dialog reading on these developmental outcomes remain unclear.

The main purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the effect of dialogic reading interventions on the narrative macrostructure and causal language that form the basis of narrative skills in preschool children. This review aims to see how much dialogic reading really helps children's storytelling. By bringing different studies together, it offers a clear, evidence-based guide for the field.

What is the combined effect size of dialogic reading interventions applied in the preschool period on the two dimensions of narrative, narrative macrostructure and causal language, and how does the magnitude of this effect vary depending on which factors?

2 Materials and methods

This systematic review was designed in consideration of the criteria specified in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021).

2.1 Eligibility criteria

The studies included in the analysis were pre-determined and met the PICO-S (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design) criteria. The review included studies with typically developing children between the ages of 3 and 5. Studies including groups diagnosed with any developmental disorder, language delay, or learning difficulty were excluded. Intervention (I): The intervention of the study must be primarily dialogic reading or interactive book reading. The intervention focused on structured interactions between children and adults during shared book reading. Comparison (C): Studies must have a control group to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Pre-test/post-test studies without a control/comparison group were excluded. Outcomes (O): Studies must provide a quantitative outcome measure for (1) narrative macrostructure/story grammar and/or (2) causal language. Studies focusing on other language skills such as vocabulary or only on changes in adult behavior were excluded. Study Design (S): Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs were included in the review. Observational, correlational, case studies, review studies, review articles, and dissertations were excluded. Only full-text studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals were considered. This decision was made on practical grounds, as English is the primary language of publication in the fields of early childhood education and applied linguistics, and the majority of peer-reviewed intervention research in this area is disseminated in English. However, it is acknowledged that this restriction may introduce a language bias, potentially excluding relevant studies published in other languages. No year limitations were set to ensure a comprehensive overview of the available literature. The search was conducted up to December 2025.

2.2 Information sources and search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in December 2025 in the Web of Science (Core Collection) (WoS), ERIC, and EBSCO electronic databases. These databases were selected due to their extensive coverage of educational and linguistic research. This research strategy was structured around the concepts of population, intervention and outcomes. These concepts were adapted to suit the syntax of the databases. The complete search strategy is detailed in Supplementary Material S1 to allow for further verification.

2.3 Study selection and data extraction

The author and an external expert conducted the screening process independently to identify eligible studies. First, the titles and abstracts of the articles were screened based on the eligibility criteria. In the second stage, the full texts of the articles that were deemed potentially suitable were examined. Disagreements in these stages were resolved by consensus between the two reviewers.

A predefined form was used for data extraction. The author independently extracted publication information, participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures, and statistical data required for the meta-analysis.

This review allowed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for standardized and clear re-porting. The specific locations where each reporting item is addressed within the manuscript are detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1

2.4 Risk of bias assessment

To evaluate the internal validity and reliability of the findings of the included publications, the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool (Sterne et al., 2019). The RoB 2 was used to systematically evaluate potential biases in areas such as the randomization process, deviations from the intended intervention, missing data, and measurement of outcomes. For non-randomized intervention studies, the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool, developed for such designs, was used (Sterne et al., 2016). These tools were chosen because, compared to general quality checklists, they allow for a detailed assessment of specific methodological limitations that may affect the validity of the results. The assessment process was conducted independently by the authors.

2.5 Data synthesis strategy

The findings from this systematic review were synthesized by combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. The characteristics of the included studies, intervention types, and findings were summarized through a qualitative synthesis (narrative syn-thesis) by thematically grouping them in the context of the research question. Next, a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted for outcome variables where a sufficient number (k ≥ 3) of conceptually homogeneous studies were found. The metaphor package in R software (Viechtbauer, 2010) was used for the meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference between groups (Hedges' g) was calculated for the effect size. To account for potential variations between studies, effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. The degree of heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. Based on appropriateness, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were planned to identify the sources of this heterogeneity, using pre-specified moderator variables (e.g., implementer, setting, intervention duration).

2.6 Reliability

Key steps of the review, including screening and data extraction, were performed independently by the author and the external expert (P.V. Paul). Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Additionally, to quantitatively document inter-rater reliability during the full-text screening stage, a Cohen's Kappa coefficient was calculated on a randomly selected 20% subset of the articles. A high Kappa value (κ > .80) was accepted as an indicator of the reliability of the screening process.

3 Results

This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

Table 1 presents the key concepts analyzed in this systematic review and how these concepts are classified according to specific criteria. In this study, the concepts of narrative macro structure and causal language were operationalized to represent higher-level skills in children's language and cognitive development prosses. Intervention definitions were based on structured dialogic reading protocols in the literature, while participant boundaries were clarified based on age and developmental status. The level of evidence definition has been structured in accordance with the hierarchical value of meta-analysis results.

Table 2 delineates the eligibility criteria utilized for the selection of studies, structured according to the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Out-comes, and Study Design). The participant parameters were restricted to typically targeting narrative macrostructure (story grammar) or reasoning were mandatory for inclusion. Methodologically, the review was limited to peer-reviewed randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs to provide more reliable insights into the impact of these interventions.

Table 3 presents the methodological quality and risk of bias for the 16 studies included. As shown in Table 3, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool was used for randomized controlled trials (RSTs), while the ROBINS-I tool was used for quasiexperimental designs. Among RCTs (n = 11), the majority of studies were classified as low risk in most domains, indicating strong internal validity. In longitudinal studies, certain concerns were identified in the domain of data loss (D3) due to natural attrition rates. For quasi-experimental studies (n = 5), the overall risk level was determined to be moderate (D1), primarily as a result of the inability to perform random assignment at the participant level. This assessment indicates a generally high level of methodological rigor and provides a reliable evidence base for subsequent quantitative analyses.

Table 4 provides a comprehensive synthesis of the methods and intervention characteristics of the 16 included studies. The total sample consists of over 1,800 participants. These encompass a broad geographic and linguistic distribution, including Türkiye, the United States, Germany, Norway, Korea, Indonesia, and Netherlands. The age range of participants is between 3 and 6, appropriate for the preschool period. The interventions included in this review are categorized into four primary modalities. These are: traditional detailed shared reading (n = 7), digital or tablet-based dialogic reading (n = 4), robotic social actors (n = 1), and cognitive scaffolding strategies such as mind mapping or categorization (n = 4). Intervention durations showed a heterogeneous distribution, ranging from single-session applications to comprehensive programs spanning an entire year. Narrative outputs were assessed using various established tools, such as the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENN), the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN), and the Paris and Paris (2003) rubric. This approach allowed for a comprehensive assessment of both narrative macrostructure and causal language reasoning skills.

Table 5 presents a quantitative synthesis of the pooled effect sizes for each narrative sub-dimension of this study and the corresponding Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) classifications. Narrative macrostructure, assessed through story grammar accuracy and component inclusion, was identified as an evidence-based practice (EBP) with high certainty, showing a significant pooled effect size [g = 0.82, 95% CI (0.65, 0.99)]. Narrative production, measured through retelling tasks, also has a moderately large effect size [g = 0.54, 95% CI (0.38, 0.70)]. The causal language reasoning and inferential comprehension dimensions were categorized as potential EBP with moderate certainty, with effect sizes of g = 0.78 and g = 0.42, respectively. On the other hand, linguistic complexity measures, including mean length of utterance (MLU) and anaphoric use, were found to have a lower effect size [g = 0.25, 95% CI (−0.10, 0.60)] and insufficient evidence. These data reveal that dialogic reading interventions are highly effective in developing structural narrative components but have a more limited effect on formal linguistic complexity in the pre-school period.

Table 6 details the narrative analysis of potential moderator variables that may account for the observed statistical heterogeneity (%78). In terms of intervention duration, short-term and intensive sessions (n = 4) were found to have higher immediate effect sizes (g = >0.85), whereas long-term interventions (n = 5) ensured that narrative schemas were maintained at a moderate but more stable level. In the context of application modality, digital and robotic interventions were found to exhibit higher effect sizes (g > 0.70), which the authors frequently associate with increased participant interest and the novelty effect. A clear trend was also observed in the target population. Bilingual (DLL) children showed significant performance gains (g > 1.00), indicating that dialogic reading may be particularly effective for children with linguistic risk. The depth of scaffolding was identified as a determining factor. Questions involving high cognitive demands for inference consistently yielded higher gains in causal language skills and inferential reasoning compared to simple labeling tasks.

Table 7 presents the results of a quantitative subgroup analysis conducted to determine the statistical effect of predefined moderator variables on the combined effect size. These results indicate that the application modality plays a significant moderator role (Q = 18.42, p < .001). Digital and robotic interventions were found to have a significantly higher effect size (g = 0.88) compared to traditional printed book reading (g = 0.46). The duration of the intervention was also found to be a significant moderator (Q = 6.35, p = .012), with short-term intensive programs (g = 0.82) providing higher immediate gains than long-term applications (g = 0.44). Moreover, the target population was found to significantly influence intervention outcomes (Q = 7.12, p = .012). It was confirmed that bilingual (DLL) children benefited more significantly (g = 0.95) from these interventions compared to their monolingual peers (g = 0.52). These quantitative results suggest that the statistical heterogeneity is associated with specific methodological characteristics.

Figure 2 presents a forest plot showing the individual effect sizes (Hedge' g) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 16 included studies. The analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to account for methodological heterogeneity. Each study is represented by a square. The size of the square corresponds to the relative weight of the study in the meta-analysis. The horizontal lines indicate the precision of the estimates. The pooled effect size is shown by the diamond symbol below the graph. The overall estimate [g = 0.62, 95% CI (0.44, 0.80)] confirms the statistically significant and positive effect of dialogic reading interventions on children's narrative skills, as the diamond does not intersect the vertical zero effect line (g = 0). The distribution of individual results also highlights the variability between research designs and intervention modalities.

Figure 2

A funnel plot created to assess potential publication bias among the 16 studies included in Figure 3 is provided. The x-axis represents individual effect sizes (Hedges' g), while the y-axis represents the standard error reflecting the precision of the studies. The graph shows that the studies exhibit a relatively symmetrical distribution around a pooled effect size estimate of 0.62. The majority of studies are located in the upper part of the funnel. This indicates a predominance of studies with large sample sizes and high statistical precision. The balanced distribution of studies on both sides of the vertical mean line suggests minimal risk of systematic publication bias and enhances the overall re-liability of the meta-analysis findings.

Figure 3

Figure 4 presents the Dialogic Narrative Support Framework (DNSF) developed based on the synthesis of the 16 intervention studies included. This hierarchical model shows the development of scaffolding strategies used to increase children's narrative competence. The base of pyramid, basic interaction, shows the fundamental mechanisms of dialogue, such as the PEER strategy and digital/robotic supports that establish social interaction. The second layer, structural construction, includes CROWD prompts and wordless books to focus on the macro-structure of the narrative (story grammar). The third layer, cognitive deepening, uses questions and mind mapping to facilitate higher-order causal language skills and inferential reasoning. The arrow on the right corresponds to the increasing cognitive complexity inherent in these strategies. Taken together, DNSF provides a mechanism-based explanation for the identified combined effect size (g = 0.62). These results suggest that the integration of interactive, structural, and cognitive supports is necessary for narrative competence.

Figure 4

4 Discussion

The findings of the present study indicate that dialogic reading (DR) interventions have a significant and positive impact on the narrative skills of preschool [g = 0.62, 95% CI (0.44, 0.80)]. These findings extend previous meta-analyses conducted in this area. For instance, Noble et al. (2019) reported an effect size of g = 0.21 for shared book reading on general language skills, while Barone et al. (2019) identified a similar magnitude of d = 0.26. Additionally, Cusiter et al. (2025) observed a notably lower effect size (g = 0.11) for language outcomes among children at risk. The higher effect size obtained in the present study (g = 0.62) compared to the general literature may partly be attributed to its specific focus. In response to the focus bias highlighted by Grøver et al. (2023), this meta-analysis synthesized studies specifically targeting narrative competence rather than basic linguistic skills such as vocabulary alone. These results are consistent with the meta-analysis by Pesco and Gagné (2017), which reported effect sizes of 0.58 for narrative comprehension and 0.50 for narrative expression. This supports the idea that dialogic reading provides an effective scaffolding framework for narrative development. The findings further reveal a hierarchical distribution among the sub-dimensions of narrative skills. The highest effect was observed in narrative macrostructure (g = 0.82), followed by causal reasoning (g = 0.78) and narrative production (g = 0.54). This hierarchy reinforces the conclusions drawn in Pillinger and Vardy’s (2022) systematic review regarding the success of DR in supporting the construction of story grammar schemas in children. The substantial effect size identified for narrative skills indicates that such interventions encourage children to move beyond passive listening and engage more actively with the story content.

4.1 Narrative macrostructure

The highest effect size observed in this study pertains to the narrative macrostructure dimension [g = 0.82, 95% CI (0.65, 0.99)]. This finding lends support to the theoretical framework of Stein and Glenn (1979), which posits that story grammar is constructed in the child's mind as a structured schema. The systematic review by Pillinger and Vardy (2022) also emphasizes the effectiveness of DR in strengthening these structural schemas. The large effect size observed here highlights the importance of cognitive scaffolding in supporting narrative organization. An analysis of the studies included in this review indicates that Lever and Sénéchal (2011) found children receiving DR interventions showed significantly higher achievement in story grammar units compared to control groups. Similarly, Grolig et al. (2020) determined through their cluster-randomized study that wordless picture books facilitated children's grasp of macrostructural components such as character, setting, and plot. According to Grøver et al. (2023), the structural aspects of narrative skills are frequently remain under-researched in traditional reading methods. The high effect size (0.82) obtained in this study suggests that CROWD prompts—particularly recall and sequencing questions—help children establish the underlying structure of the narrative. This development in macrostructure is closely related to the capacity of verbal scaffolding to create stable narrative representations, as noted by Pesco and Gagné (2017). Moreover, research by Ergül and Aktaş (2024) confirms that while interactive reading practices primarily improve pre-literacy components in both Turkish and international literature, narrative structure serves as the primary catalyst for this development. Additionally, studies by August et al. (2024) indicate that the semantic richness displayed in children's story retellings is directly grounded in the quality of these macrostructural schemas. These advancements in narrative macrostructure suggest that dialogic reading provides children with both linguistic input and a cognitive framework for organizing information. As indicated by Van der Wilt et al. (2022), high-quality guidance provided by teachers or parents elevates the child's story comprehension from a basic level to one of synthesis. This process corresponds with the Structural Construction stage, which forms the middle layer of the dialogic narrative support framework (DNSF) introduced in the present study. At this stage, children learn to establish the hierarchical structure of the narrative by internalizing the support received into a cognitive schema.

4.2 Causal language and inferential reasoning

Dialogic reading supports children's deep engagement with texts, as reflected in the significant impact observed on causal [g = 0.78, 95% CI (0.44, 1.12)] and inferential comprehension [g = 0.42, 95% CI (0.15, 0.69)]. These results align with the effect size of 0.58 reported by Pesco and Gagné (2017) for narrative comprehension. As noted by Van der Wilt et al. (2022), narrative competence requires not only the chronological sequencing of events (the literal level) but also the establishment of logical connections and character motivations (the causal level). The results indicate that the scaffolding provided by DR helps children establish these logical connections effectively. This development highlights the significance of why and how oriented inferential questions during the intervention. Collins (2016) posits that dialogic discussions focused on inferential thinking help children identify underlying meanings within the text. Similarly, Lim et al. (2024) observed that while direct questioning strategies are effective for literal comprehension, open-ended and inference-focused questions significantly increase cognitive depth. Moreover, Nurmahanani (2025) found that even when traditional DR is combined with visual tools like mind maps, the foundational dialogic scaffolding remains the decisive factor in causal reasoning processes.

These findings support the process described by Makdissi and Boisclair (2006) as the complexification of causal relations. According to Grøver et al. (2023), inferential dimensions in narrative skills develop over a longer period compared to constrained skills such as vocabulary; however, they contribute significantly to a child's long-term academic progress. This is further supported by the syntactic manipulation capacity emphasized in the meta-analysis by Tong et al. (2024), which corresponds with the causal language usage identified in these findings (g = 0.78). This suggests that dialogic reading provides children not only with story content but also with the mental language necessary to organize that story into a logical framework. These gains in causality and inference transform dialogic reading from a simple book-sharing activity into a process of mental construction occurring within Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD). As stated by Pillinger and Vardy (2024), the use of high-cognitive-demand dialogic techniques allows children to bridge the landscape of action and the landscape of consciousness, thereby elevating their narrative competence. This progression represents the cognitive deepening stage, the uppermost layer of the DNSF model, where the children reach a higher level of narrative competence by establishing logical and psychological connections between events.

4.3 The impact of technology and digitalization

The results indicate that digital and robotic interventions (g = 0.88) exhibited a significantly higher effect on preschool narrative skills compared to traditional printed book applications (g = 0.46) (Q = 18.42, p < .001). This difference provides additional insight into the current discussions on digitalization within the literature. In an extensive meta-analysis, Furenes et al. (2021) determined that comprehension tends to decrease when digital books are merely transferred from paper to screen (digitization); however, digital versions outperform printed ones when story-congruent enhancements are integrated. The high effect size identified in this study (g = 0.88) may stem from the fact that features such as dictionaries, animations, and sound effects were designed to support the narrative flow, as emphasized by Chuang and Jamiat (2023). Among the included studies, Altun (2024) and Cordes (2023) found that tablet-based dialogic reading supported the development of narrative comprehension and retelling skills more effectively than traditional methods. This supports the findings in the systematic review by Hare et al. (2024) regarding the superiority of digital media in fostering engagement. Moreover, meta-analyses by Schwabe et al. (2022) and Li and Liu (2023) suggest that screen-based reading, when combined with appropriate dialogic strategies, may establish an effective cognitive scaffold for narrative texts. Providing a neurocognitive perspective, Farah et al. (2019) utilized EEG data to indicate that dialogic reading more effective engagement in brain regions related to narrative processing compared to passive screen exposure.

Regarding robotic interventions, Wang et al. (2023) reported a moderate positive effect (g = 0.57) on learning outcomes. The study by Kory Westlund et al. (2017) included in this review suggests that social robots represent a viable alternative to traditional narrators for narrative modeling (phrase-level similarity) and vocabulary retention. AI and robotics roadmaps provided by Mustafa et al. (2024) indicate that these tools support intersubjectively during the narrative process by facilitating joint attention. A similar interactive power is observed in the work of Gaudreau et al. (2020), where narrative connections are established even through video-chat-based dialogic reading, overcoming physical distance. However, these high effect sizes necessitate methodological caution. Listanto et al. (2025) argue that the effectiveness of interactive e-books is contingent upon high-quality design. Furenes (2021) warns that features like embedded dictionaries may occasionally increase cognitive load, thereby hindering story comprehension. Additionally, Pillinger and Vardy (2022) suggest that a novelty effect rather than the technology itself may enable children to focus on narrative tasks for longer durations. Consequently, while the integration of technological tools reading appears to be an effective way to support narrative skills, this effectiveness remains dependent on the pedagogical alignment between technology and story content.

4.4 Intervention duration and the dual language learner (DLL) effect

The results of this study indicate that intervention duration and target population characteristics play a key role in the development of narrative skills. Short-term and intensive programs (≤4 weeks) yielded a notably high effect size of g = 0.82, whereas long-term programs showed a more balanced and stable effect of g = 0.44 (Q = 6.35, p = .012). This finding aligns with the accelerated development observed by Cordes et al. (2023) and Gaudreau et al. (2020) in focused, short-term interventions. Moreover, the risk of a fade-out effect identified in meta-analyses by Barone et al. (2019) and Dowdall et al. (2020) provides a plausible explanation for the lower yet more stable effect sizes observed in long-term interventions. As emphasized by Grøver et al. (2024) and Ismail et al. (2024), unconstrained skills—such as narrative competence—require sustained support over time to successfully transform into internalized cognitive schemas like story grammar. A notable finding of this study is the apparently significant effect of dialogic reading on DLL children (g = 0.95, p = .012). This result parallels the findings of August et al. (2024) regarding increased semantic richness in narrative production through the COLLTS program. Positive outcomes reported by Fitton et al. (2018) further suggest that dialogic reading may serve as a cognitive bridge for English Learners. Through the combined impact described by Cusiter et al. (2025) as a synergistic intervention effect, cross-linguistic dialogic interactions enable DLL children to develop narrative skills more rapidly than their monolingual peers (g = 0.52) (Pillinger and Vardy, 2022). In terms of the depth of cognitive scaffolding, the use of high-cognitive-demand questions—as highlighted by Collins (2016) and Nurmahanani (2025)—appears to be effective in enhancing inferential thinking skills among DLL children. While Liang and Hwang (2023) suggest that DLL children from low socioeconomic backgrounds might benefit less from digital interventions, the data in the present study (e.g., Grolig, 2020; Wall, 2022) indicate that appropriately structured dialogic scaffolding can help provide equal educational opportunities for children at risk. When the effect size of verbal scaffolding (0.58) reported by Pesco and Gagné (2017) is considered alongside the g = 0.95 observed for the DLL group in this study, it may be suggested that dialogic reading serves as an effective support for disadvantaged populations. The boost effect observed in DLL children underscores the necessity of tailoring dialogic reading practices to specific population needs. As noted by Hall et al. (2025), narrative patterns—which Grøver (2023) describes as overlooked advantages—become more enduring through high-quality dialogic interactions.

4.5 Vygotsky, ZPD, and the dialogic narrative support framework (DNSF)

The findings suggest that the impact of dialogic reading on narrative skills is not merely reflective; rather, it represents a systematic process of cognitive construction as described by Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural theory. Dialogic reading functions as a form of cognitive scaffolding that enables children to support the zone of proximal development (ZPD)—a level of competence they cannot reach independently without adult guidance. As argued by Yang et al. (2024) and Justice et al. (2024), this scaffolding process provides the child with opportunities to transform an externalized social dialogue into an internalized narrative schema over time. This theoretical framework, which serves as a common denominator for the 16 synthesized studies, is operationalized in the proposed dialogic narrative support framework (DNSF) pyramid. The foundational layer of the DNSF model, foundational interaction, is the social prerequisite for narrative development. Within this layer, PEER strategies (Prompt, Evaluate, Expand, Repeat) are implemented, often supported by technological and robotic tools (Gaudreau et al., 2020; Kory Westlund et al., 2017). This interactive process facilitates the establishment of intersubjectivity, which is critical for narrative growth. The overall effect on narrative skills observed in this social domain (g = 0.62) supports the social gate effect identified in Farah et al. (2019). EEG findings, which optimize narrative processing in the brain. The second layer, Structural Construction, reflects the macrostructural development that exhibited the highest effect size (g = 0.82) in this study. Scaffolding provided through wordless picture books and CROWD prompts, as seen in Grolig et al. (2020), builds the schemas for plot structure and story grammar. Lever and Sénéchal (2011), confirm that success in this layer is intrinsically linked to the child's ability to organize complex narrative structures. This central component of the DNSF pyramid explains how skills previously identified as overlooked structural advantages (Grøver, et al., 2023) are transformed into stable cognitive schemas. At the highest level of the DNSF model is Cognitive Deepening, which reflects the original findings of this study regarding causal language (g = 0.78) and inferential comprehension (g = 0.42). The results from Nurmahanani (2025) and Collins (2016) demonstrate that dialogic reading transitions children from the what of an action to the why (causality). Strategies such as mind mapping, observed in Van der Wilt et al. (2022), further facilitate this higher-order cognitive synthesis. Ultimately, the DNSF model reveals the synergistic nature of dialogic reading's impact on narrative skills (Cusiter et al., 2025). This hierarchical progression delineates the pathway toward holistic narrative competence, as articulated by Pillinger and Vardy (2022). The combined effect size identified in this meta-analysis (g = 0.62) is achieved through the seamless integration of these three layers: interactional, structural, and cognitive.

4.6 Limitations and future directions

The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered certain structural and methodological limitations identified in the literature. First, persists in the reporting of implementation fidelity persists across a majority of the included studies, a concern also highlighted by Dowdall et al. (2020) and Barone et al. (2019). While the risk of bias assessment in the present study indicated a generally low risk, data regarding the extent to which interventions were standardized in classroom or home environments remains limited. This constraint may influence the generalizability of the identified effect sizes. A second limitation concerns the diversity of assessment tools utilized to measure narrative skills. As emphasized in the systematic review by Grøver et al. (2023), conceptual differences between instruments such as the MAIN, ENNI, and researcher-developed rubrics contribute to a degree of heterogeneity in the definition of narrative competence.

The high effect size identified for technology and robotic interventions (g = 0.88) might be associated with the novelty effect noted by Kory Westlund et al. (2017) and Cordes et al. (2023). Given the risk of habituation—where interest in technology may diminish over time, as suggested by Furenes et al. (2021)—longitudinal studies are necessary to determine the enduring impact of these tools on long-term narrative development. Additionally, the control group type, as discussed by Noble et al. (2019), plays a significant role in explaining the variance in effect sizes between active and passive control conditions in this study.

For future research, it is recommended that studies focus on follow-up measurements to better understand the sleeper effect identified by Grøver et al. (2024). Moreover, as proposed by Cusiter et al. (2025), there is a need for more Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) examining the synergistic effects of language- and code-focused interventions. Specifically, the effects of dialogic reading within the framework of the DNSF model should be investigated for children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those at risk for dyslexia (Hall et al., 2025). Finally, in accordance with the AI roadmaps provided by Chuang and Jamiat (2023) and Mustafa (2024), pedagogical criteria should be established for digital applications capable of providing interactive scaffolding within the narrative process.

This systematic review was not pre-registered in a publicly available registry such as PROSPERO or OSF prior to data collection. This represents a methodological limitation, as the absence of pre-registration reduces transparency regarding whether inclusion criteria and analytical decisions were determined a priori. Future systematic reviews in this area are encouraged to prospectively register their protocols to enhance methodological rigor and reproducibility.

5 Conclusions

The present study demonstrates that dialogic reading is a highly effective intervention strategy for enhancing narrative skills during the preschool period. The identified overall effect size of g = 0.62 indicates that this method serves as a strong support for higher-order cognitive processes, particularly in narrative macrostructure and causal reasoning. The proposed Dialogic Narrative Support Framework (DNSF) suggests that narrative development is realized through the hierarchical integration of interactional, structural, and cognitive layers. The positive influence observed in digital and robotic interventions further underscores the potential benefits of supplementing traditional methods with technology. Dialogic reading interventions can help children become active meaning-makers who can establish logical and causal links between events. Consequently, dialogic reading should be recognized as an essential pedagogical tool that prepares children for the transition to academic life and the complexities of written text environments.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express her sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Peter V Paul (The Ohio State University) for his valuable expert opinion, guidance, and validation during the evaluation and selection of the studies included in this systematic review. Part of this study was presented as a poster at a symposium organized by The Ohio State University, Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy in 2025.

References

• 1

  AhnJ. (2012). A review of the place of narrative in the early years: a way into literacy. Educ. Res.54, 305–318. Available online at:https://www.interesjournals.org/articles/a-review-of-the-place-of-narrative-in-the-early-years-a-way-into-literacy.pdf (Accessed January 14, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  *AltunD. (2024). The effects of e-stories on preschoolers’ narrative comprehension, retelling and Reading attitudes among poor and good comprehenders. J. Early Child. Lit.24, 471–504. 10.1177/14687984221079010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AstingtonJ. W. (2020). “The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language,” in The Developmental Interdependence of Theory of Mind and Language, eds. J. W. Astington and D. Tzuriel (London: Routledge), 179–206. 10.4324/9781003135517-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  *AugustD. L.CarlsonC. D.BarrC. D.BergeyR. (2024). COLLTS: a promising interactive read-aloud intervention for three-year-old dual-language learners. Early Child. Educ. J.52, 515–525. 10.1007/s10643-023-01447-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BabayiğitS.RoulstoneS.WrenY.WrenY. (2021). Linguistic comprehension and narrative skills predict Reading ability: a 9-year longitudinal study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.91, 148–168. 10.1111/bjep.12353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BaroneC.ChambuleyronE.VonnakR.AssirelliG. (2019). Home-based shared book Reading interventions and children’s language skills: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Educ. Res. Eval.25, 270–298. 10.1080/13803611.2020.1814820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BatiniF.D’AutiliaB.PeraE.LucchettiL.TotiG. (2020). Reading Aloud and first language development: a systematic review. J. Educ. Train. Stud.8, 49–68. 10.11114/jets.v8i12.5047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BrownD. D. (2008). The use of causal connections by young children: implications for school readiness. Early Child. Educ. J.36, 44–53. 10.1080/15240750701831909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BuiY. N. (2002). Using story-grammar instruction and picture books to increase Reading comprehension. Acad. Exch. Q6, 127–133. Corpus ID: 140806484.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BusA. G.van IJzendoornM. H.PellegriniA. D. (1995). Joint book Reading makes for success in learning to read: a meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Rev. Educ. Res.65, 1–21. 10.2307/1170476

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ChangC. (2006). Linking early narrative skill to later language and Reading ability in mandarin-speaking children: a longitudinal study over eight years. Narrat. Inq.16, 275–293. 10.1075/ni.16.2.04cha

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ChuangC. J.JamiatN. (2023). A systematic review on the effectiveness of children’s interactive Reading applications. Contemp. Educ. Technol.15, ep412. 10.30935/cedtech/12941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  *CollinsM. F. (2016). Supporting inferential thinking in preschoolers: effects of discussion on children’s story comprehension. Early Educ. Dev27, 932–956. 10.1080/10409289.2016.1170523

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  *CordesA. K.EgertF.KörnerF. (2023). Fostering child language with short-term digital storybook interventions: dialogic Reading or screen-based story exposure?Z. Entwicklungspsychol. Pädagogische Psychol.55, 155–168. 10.1026/0049-8637/a000264

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CreminT.FlewittR.MardellB.SwannJ. (2016). Storytelling in Early Childhood: Enriching Language, Literacy, and Classroom Culture. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781138932142

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  CusiterJ.ShortK.WebbA.MunroN. (2025). Combined language and code emergent literacy intervention for at-risk preschool children: a systematic meta-analytic review. Child. Dev.96, 1519–1545. 10.1111/cdev.14252

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  DanielsH. (2012). Dialectic and dialogic: the essence of a Vygotskian pedagogy. Cult. Hist. Psychol.8, 70–79. Available online at:https://psyjournals.ru/en/journals/chp/archive/2012_n3/56309

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  DavidsonA. J.WaltonM. D.KansalB.CohenR. (2017). Narrative skills predict peer adjustment across elementary school years. Soc. Dev.26, 891–906. 10.1111/sode.12219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  del Moral PérezM. E.Neira PiñeiroM. d. R.López-BouzasN.Castañeda FernándezJ. (2022). Production of oral narratives with an app in early childhood education: analysis of engagement and narrative competence. Digit. Educ. Rev.41, 65–81. 10.1344/der.2022.41.65-81

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  DowdallN.Melendez-TorresG. J.MurrayL.GardnerF.HartfordL.CooperP. J. (2020). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child. Dev.91, 383–399. 10.1111/cdev.13225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  DoyleB. G.BramwellW. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social–emotional learning through dialogic reading. Read. Teach.59, 554–564. 10.1598/RT.59.6.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  ErgülE.AktasN. (2024). The impact of interactive Reading activities at primary school level on language skills: a systematic review. J. Theor. Educ. Sci.17, 616–642. 10.30831/akukeg.1379716

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  *FarahR.MeriR.KadisS. D.HuttonJ.DeWittT.Horowitz-KrausT. (2019). Hyperconnectivity during screen-based stories listening is associated with lower narrative comprehension in preschool children exposed to screens vs dialogic reading: an EEG study. PLoS One14, e0225445. 10.1371/journal.pone.0225445

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  FarquharS. (2012). Narrative identity and early childhood education. Educ. Philos. Theory44, 289–301. 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00656.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  FeagansL.ShortE. J. (1984). Developmental differences in the comprehension and production of narratives by Reading-disabled and normally achieving children. Child. Dev.55, 1727–1736. 10.2307/1129920

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  FittonL.McIlraithA. L.WoodC. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res.88, 712–751. 10.3102/0034654318790909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  FlackZ. M.FieldA. P.HorstJ. S. (2018). The effects of shared storybook reading on word learning: a meta-analysis. Dev. Psychol.54, 1334–1346. 10.1037/dev0000512

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  FurenesM. I.KucirkovaN.BusA. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s Reading on paper versus screen: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res.91, 483–517. 10.3102/0034654321998074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GajdamaschkoN. (2015). “Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn, ed. WrightJ. D. (Oxford: Elsevier), 329–334. 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23203-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  Gardner-NeblettN. (2022). What predicts oral narrative competence among African American children? Exploring the role of linguistic and cognitive skills. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.65, 2931–2947. 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  *GaudreauC.KingY. A.DoreR. A.PuttreH.NicholsD.Hirsh-PasekK.et al (2020). Preschoolers benefit equally from video chat, pseudo-contingent video, and live book Reading. Front. Psychol.11, 2158. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02158

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  *GroligL.CohrdesC.Tiffin-RichardsS. P.SchroederS. (2020). Narrative dialogic Reading with wordless picture books: a cluster-randomized intervention study. Early Child. Res. Q.51, 191–203. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  *GrøverV.GustafssonJ. E.RydlandV.SnowC. E. (2024). Are there sustained effects of a preschool shared-reading intervention addressing dual language learners?Sci. Stud. Read.28, 441–462. 10.1080/10888438.2024.2335925

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  GrøverV.SnowC. E.EvansL.StrømmeH. (2023). Overlooked advantages of interactive book Reading in early childhood? A systematic review and research agenda. Acta Psychol.239, 103997. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103997

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  HallJ.EddyC.VoutsinaC. (2025). Adult–child pedagogical interactions in the home and in preschool: what commonalities can preschoolers experience in the context of cognitive development?Early Child Dev. Care195, 373–394. 10.1080/03004430.2025.2484227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  HareC.JohnsonB.VlahiotisM.PandaE.Tekok-KılıçA.CurtinS. (2024). Children’s Reading outcomes in digital and print mediums: a systematic review. J. Res. Read.10.1111/1467-9817.12461

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  HindmanA. H.SkibbeL. E.FosterT. D. (2014). Exploring the variety of parental talk during shared book Reading and its contributions to preschool language and literacy. Read. Writ.27, 287–313. 10.1007/s11145-013-9445-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  IsmailN.JuhariR.MadonZ.ArshatZ.DaudM. N.AzamN. D. (2024). Parental scaffolding and problem-solving skills in early childhood: a systematic literature review. Libr. Prog.44. 10.48165/bapas.2024.44.2.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  JalongoM. R. (2019). “Personal stories: autobiographical memory and young children’s stories of their own lives,” in Exploring Your Role in the Interactive Art of Storytelling, eds. JalongoM. R.IsenbergP. J. (Cham: Springer), 11–28. 10.1007/978-3-030-19266-2_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  JusticeL. M.MeierJ.WalpoleS. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: an efficacy study with at-risk preschoolers. Appl. Psycholinguist.26, 461–477. 10.1044/0161-1461(2005/003)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  JusticeL. M.SofkaA. E. (2010). Engaging Children with Print: Building Early Literacy Skills Through Quality Read-alouds. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KellyJ.BarberA. T. (2021). Interactive read-aloud instruction with narratives: teaching inferencing using theory of mind. Teach. Except. Child.53, 282–291. 10.1177/0040059920987876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  KetelaarsM. P.JansoniusK.CuperusJ.VerhoevenL. (2012). Narrative competence and underlying mechanisms in children with pragmatic language impairment. Appl. Psycholinguist.33, 281–303. 10.1017/S014271641100035X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  *Kory WestlundJ. M.JeongS.ParkH. W.RonfardS.AdhikariA.HarrisP. L.et al (2017). Flat vs. Expressive storytelling: young children’s learning and retention of a social robot’s narrative. Front. Hum. Neurosci.11, 295. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00295

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LanderR. (2012). Teaching narrative structure to children with poor oral narrative skills in schools. (Doctoral dissertation). UK: University of Southampton.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LawJ.CharltonJ.McKeanC.BeyerF.Fernandez-GarciaC.MashayekhiA.et al (2018). Parent-child Reading to Improve Language Development and School Readiness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University. Available online at:https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/9062

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  *LeverR.SénéchalM. (2011). Discussing stories: on how a dialogic Reading intervention improves kindergartners’ oral narrative construction. J. Exp. Child Psychol.108, 1–24. 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LiY.LiuY. (2023). Which Reading comprehension effect is better, “electronic Reading” or “paper reading”? meta-analysis of research in recent 20 years. Tel. and Inf. Rep.10.1016/j.teler.2024.100142

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LiangJ. C.HwangG. J. (2023). A robot-based digital storytelling approach to enhancing EFL learners’ multimodal storytelling ability and narrative engagement. Comput. Educ.201, 104827. 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  *LimH. E.LeeS.LeeJ. S.LeeJ.YimD. (2024). The comparative study of narrative comprehension in children according to interactive Reading strategies with adults. Commun. Sci. Disord.29, 198–210. 10.12963/csd.231013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ListantoV.ArlinwibowoJ.PermatasariA. D.IftitahK. N.AnwasO. M. (2025). Which is better: e-book or printed book? A meta-analysis of educational materials in language learning. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.26, 170–192. 10.19173/irrodl.v26i3.8468

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  LumgairH. (2021). Using Stories to Support Learning and Development in Early Childhood. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Madrid VivarD.Molina GarcíaM. J.Pascual LacalM. R. (2024). Exploring the textual journey: building bridges between early childhood and primary education. Invest. Lect.19, 95–122. 10.24310/isl.19.1.2024.17880

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  MakdissiH.BoisclairA. (2006). Interactive Reading: a context for expanding the expression of causal relations in preschoolers. Writ. Lang. Lit.9, 177–211. 10.1075/wll.9.2.02mak

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MarshallC. (2022). Introduction to the special section on the emergent literacy and language early childhood checklist for teachers. First. Lang.42, 548–551. 10.1177/01427237221095302

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MillerS. M. (2002). “Vygotsky and education: the sociocultural genesis of dialogic thinking in classroom contexts for open-forum literature discussions,” in Learning for Life in the 21st Century, eds. WellsG.ClaxtonG. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers), 113–126.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MolS. E.BusA. G.de JongM. T.SmeetsD. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: a meta-analysis. Early Educ. Dev.19, 7–26. 10.1080/10409280701838603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MurrayL.RaysonH.FerrariP. F.WassS. V.CooperP. J. (2022). Dialogic book-sharing as a privileged intersubjective space. Front. Psychol.13, 786991. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.786991

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MustafaM.TliliA.LampropoulosG.HuangR.JandrićP.ZhaoJ.et al (2024). A systematic review of literature reviews on artificial intelligence in education (AIED): a roadmap to a future research agenda. Smart Learn. Environ.11, 5. 10.1186/s40561-024-00350-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  *NeumanS. B.KaeferT. (2025). Knowledge-building through categorization: boosting children’s vocabulary and content knowledge in a shared book reading program. Early Educ. Dev.36, 1634–1653. 10.1080/10409289.2025.2493016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  NobleC.SalaG.PeterM.LingwoodJ.RowlandC. F.GobetF.et al (2019). The impact of shared book Reading on children’s language skills: a meta-analysis. Ed. Res. Rev.10.31234/osf.io/cu7bk

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  NolanA.StevensJ.RabanB. (2014). Storytelling and Storymaking in the Early Years. Melbourne: Deakin University.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  *NurmahananiI. (2025). Effectiveness of shared dialogic Reading activities in improving language competences, story comprehension, and causal reasoning abilities in early childhood. Asia-Pac. J. Res. Early Child. Educ.19, 191–217. 10.17206/apjrece.2025.19.3.191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J.372, n71. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ParpucuN.EzmeciF. (2023). The impact of shared book Reading on children’s phonological awareness skills: a meta-analysis. Lit. Res. Instr.62, 415–434. 10.1080/10573569.2023.2245383

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  PereiraA. E.GabrielR.JusticeL. M. (2019). O papel da formulação de questões durante a leitura compartilhada de livros na educação infantil. Ilha Desterro72, 201–221. 10.5007/2175-8026.2019v72n3p201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  PescoD.GagnéA. (2017). Scaffolding narrative skills: a meta-analysis of instruction in early childhood settings. Early Educ. Dev.28, 773–793. 10.1080/10409289.2015.1060800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  PérezE. J. (2014). Comprensión lectora VS competencia lectora: qué son y qué relación existe entre ellas. Invest. Lect.1, 65–74. 10.24310/revistaisl.vi1.10943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  PiastaS. B.GroomL. J.KhanK. S.SkibbeL. E.BowlesR. P. (2018). Young children’s narrative skill: concurrent and predictive associations with emergent literacy and early word Reading skills. Read. Writ.31, 1479–1498. 10.1007/s11145-018-9844-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  PillingerC.VardyE. (2022). The story so far: a systematic review of the dialogic reading literature. J. Res. Read.45, 533–548. 10.1111/1467-9817.12407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  PuspitasariN.DamaiantiV. S.SyihabuddinS.SumiyadiS. (2023). The role of narrative ability on emergent literacy skills and early word reading of early childhood students. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res.22, 14. 10.26803/ijlter.22.8.14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  RosatiN. (2024). Nursery rhyme, rhythm and narrative thinking in early childhood education. Eduk. Elem. Teorii Prakt.19, 87–100. 10.35765/eetp.2024.1974.05

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  SageR. (2002). Start talking and stop misbehaving: teaching pupils to communicate, think and act appropriately. Emot. Behav. Diffic.7, 85–96. 10.1177/1363275202007002003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SanchezC.MakdissiH. (2019). La genèse de l’expression causale dans le discours narratif du jeune enfant en contexte de lecture interactive avec sa mère. Repères59, 23–49. 10.4000/reperes.1966

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  SchapiraR.GrazzaniI. (2025). Shared book Reading and promoting social and emotional competences in educational settings: a narrative review. Front. Psychol.16, 1622536. 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1622536

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  SchöflM.WeberC.SeifertS.FörsterN. (2025). Editorial: the important role of the early school years for Reading, writing and math development: assessment and intervention at school entry. Front. Educ.10, 1720577. 10.3389/feduc.2025.1720577

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  SchwabeA.LindF.KoschL.BoomgaardenH. G. (2022). No negative effects of reading on screen on comprehension of narrative texts compared to print: a meta-analysis. Media. Psychol.25, 779–796. 10.1080/15213269.2022.2070216

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ShabaniK.KhatibM.EbadiS. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. Engl. Lang. Teach.3, 237–248. 10.5539/elt.v3n4p237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  SteinN. L.GlennC. G. (1979). “An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children,” in New Directions in Discourse Processing, Vol. 2, ed. FreedleR. O. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing), 53–120.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  SterneJ. A. C.HernánM. A.ReevesB. C.SavovićJ.BerkmanN. D.ViswanathanM.et al (2016). ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br. Med. J.355, i4919. 10.1136/bmj.i4919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  SterneJ. A. C.SavovićJ.PageM. J.ElbersR. G.BlencoweN. S.BoutronI.et al (2019). Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br. Med. J.366, l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  SwansonE.VaughnS.WanzekJ.PetscherY.HeckertJ.CavanaughC. L.et al (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early Reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for Reading difficulties. J. Learn. Disabil.44, 258–275. 10.1177/0022219410378444

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  TompkinsV.GuoY.JusticeL. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension, and language skills in the preschool years. Read. Writ.26, 403–429. 10.1007/s11145-012-9374-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  TongX.YuL.DeaconS. H. (2024). A meta-analysis of the relation between syntactic skills and reading comprehension: a cross-linguistic and developmental investigation. Rev. Educ. Res.95, 385–426. 10.3102/00346543241228185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  TzurielD. (2021). “The socio-cultural theory of vygotsky,” in Feuerstein and the Theory of Mediated Learning Experience, eds. J. W. Astington and D. Tzuriel (Cham: Springer), 53–66. 10.1007/978-3-030-75692-5_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  *Van der WiltF.BoermaI.van OersB.van der VeenC. (2019). The effect of three interactive Reading approaches on language ability: an exploratory study in early childhood education. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J.27, 566–580. 10.1080/1350293X.2019.1634242

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw.36, 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  *WallD.FoltzS.KupferA.GlenbergA. M. (2022). Embodied action scaffolds dialogic Reading. Educ. Psychol. Rev.34, 401–419. 10.1007/s10648-021-09617-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  WangK.SangG.HuangL.LiS.GuoJ. (2023). The effectiveness of educational robots in improving learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Sustainability15, 4637. 10.3390/su15054637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  WangZ. (2015). Theory of mind and children’s understanding of teaching and learning during early childhood. Cogent Educ.2, 1011973. 10.1080/2331186X.2015.1011973

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  WatiR. N.HasanB.SudirmanS. (2017). Improving students’ Reading comprehension achievement of narrative text through story grammar strategy. J. Pendidik. Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa6. Available online at:https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/192046-EN-improving-students-reading-comprehension.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  WuY.ChenS.WangX.QiaoP.JiangY. (2025). Teacher-child talk in shared-book reading with preschoolers: linkages between teacher questioning and child responsiveness. Early Child. Educ. J.53, 11–23. 10.1007/s10643-024-01830-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  XuY.AubeleJ.VigilV.BustamanteA. S.KimY.-S. G.WarschauerM. (2022). Dialogue with a conversational agent promotes children’s story comprehension via enhancing engagement. Child. Dev.93, 484–498. 10.1111/cdev.13708

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  ZahoorM.JanjuaF. (2013). Narrative comprehension and story grammar. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.3, 429–439. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i9/249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  ZanchiP.ZampiniL.FasoloM. (2020). Oral narrative competence and literacy skills. Early Child Dev. Care190, 2309–2320. 10.1080/03004430.2019.1572132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ZivM.SolomonA.StraussS.FryeD. (2016). Relations between the development of teaching and theory of mind in early childhood. J. Cogn. Dev.17, 264–284. 10.1080/15248372.2015.1048862

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar