Generated view: 8 sources whose Kunskapsbank note was filed under this theme, and the claims and candidates they link to.
C20 weakened
Reading picture books with young children in an interactive way (asking them questions and getting them to talk about the story) grows their spoken vocabulary more than no shared reading or a passive control in several meta-analyses, but the edge over ordinary reading aloud is not clearly shown when studies are pooled (Noble et al. 2019), and shared-reading language gains are near zero against active non-language controls.
Serves: Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
Ages: foralder-tidig-barndom
Bounds: Interactive shared reading (dialogic / interactive book reading) versus ordinary reading aloud, passive control, or no shared reading, with spoken vocabulary / oral language as the outcome, for young children. Kill-condition test survived 2026-10-27 (Mol, Bus & de Jong 2009, Review of Educational Research 79(2), 979–1007, DOI 10.3102/0034654309332561; full text from Leiden thesis ch.4): 31 (quasi-)experiments, oral language d = .54 (95% CI [.33, .74]); expressive vocabulary d = .62; receptive d = .45; control with no intervention d = .34, with non-language intervention d = .95; teacher-delivery limit from the same full text — Dialogic Reading by teachers d = −.08 (ns), by experimenters d = .58, teacher–small group d = .15 (ns). Kill-condition test survived 2026-10-27 extra8 on the ordinary-reading arm (Mol, Bus, de Jong & Smeets 2008, Early Education and Development 19(1), 7–26, DOI 10.1080/10409280701838603; Leiden thesis ch.3 OA): parent Dialogic Reading vs reading-as-usual; overall vocabulary d = .42 [.30, .53] (k = 16, N = 626); expressive d = .59 [.44, .75] (k = 9); receptive d = .22 [.05, .39]; preschool d = .50 vs kindergarten d = .14 (ns); not-at-risk d = .53 vs at-risk d = .13 (ns). Kill-condition test survived 2026-10-27 extra9 on the no-shared-reading / control arm (Dowdall, Melendez-Torres, Murray, Gardner, Hartford & Cooper 2020, Child Development 91(2), e383–e399, DOI 10.1111/cdev.13225; CentAUR OA accepted MS): RCT-only meta of caregiver-directed interactive / dialogic picture-book sharing, 19 RCTs, N = 2,594; expressive language d = 0.41 [0.20, 0.61] (16 studies, 35 ES, N = 1,664); receptive d = 0.26 [0.12, 0.40] (16 studies, 24 ES, N = 1,871); caregiver competence d = 1.01; dosage limit — medium–high intensity expressive d = 0.54 vs low intensity (<60 min) d = 0.19 (ns), receptive low-intensity d = 0.09 (ns). Weakened 2026-10-27 (Noble, Sala, Peter, Lingwood, Rowland, Gobet & Pine 2019, Educational Research Review 28, 100290, DOI 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290; OA full text stored): shared-reading interventions overall g = 0.194; dialogic-reading moderator ns (p = .579 / .370); active controls g = 0.028 (p = .703); follow-up g = 0.139 (ns). Whitehurst et al. 1988 (record verified; numbers not yet read). Not decoding (C12) and not topic knowledge for comprehension (C17).
Attack record: 4 attacks: 3 survived, 1 narrowed · Evidence links: 5 linked sources (4 supports, 1 limits)
5 link(s) from sources in this view.
C29 weakened
Training preschool children's executive functions (ages 3–6) raises their scores on executive-function tests by about a third of a standard deviation, but has not been shown to raise learning-related or academic outcomes reliably compared with control groups: one meta-analysis found no significant extra effect on learning and behaviour outcomes pooled together (g = 0.17, not significant; Scionti et al. 2020), while another found literacy and numeracy gains of about 0.4 standard deviations in 4- to 6-year-olds right after training, resting on very few studies per outcome and including non-randomised ones (Birtwistle et al. 2025).
Serves: Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
Ages: foralder-tidig-barndom
Bounds: Stand-alone cognitive training for ages 3–6 (computer or game-based tasks); not whole curricula such as Tools of the Mind and not physical activity. Evidence on file: Scionti, Cavallero, Zogmaister & Marzocchi 2020 (Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2812, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02812; full text read 2026-11-05, open access, PMC6965160): 32 studies (randomised or pre-post with an active or passive control, at least 10 sessions), 123 effect sizes; executive functions g = 0.352; larger for at-risk children. Non-EF outcomes (learning-related, behaviour and problem-behaviour measures pooled together): 39 outcomes from 15 studies, g = 0.169 (SE 0.106, 95% CI −0.047 to 0.383, p = .122); the discussion gives g = 0.10 for the same analysis, an inconsistency in the paper; academic outcomes were not pooled on their own. Melby-Lervåg & Hulme 2013 (Developmental Psychology; already in the library): working-memory training gave near but not far transfer (adjacent support). Weakened 2026-10-31 (nightly attacks): Birtwistle, Chernikova, Wünsch & Niklas 2025 (SAGE Open 15(1), DOI 10.1177/21582440241311060; full text, open access): 57 published RCTs and quasi-experiments of EF training (at least 80 minutes) in typically developing children aged 3–14, immediate post-tests only; ages 4–6 (29 studies): near transfer g = 0.25, far transfer g = 0.34 (p = .05), literacy g = 0.40 (df = 4), numeracy g = 0.39 (df = 5), reasoning ns; I² = 84%. Melby-Lervåg & Hulme 2013 (full text, corrected 2026-10-31): working-memory training at all ages, mean 12 hours; immediate word decoding d = 0.13 (95% CI −0.07 to 0.35) and arithmetic d = 0.07 (−0.13 to 0.27), both non-significant; follow-ups 3–8 months later all non-significant (Table 4). The 'no academic gain' side rests on Scionti et al.'s pooled non-EF estimate, which mixes learning-related and behaviour outcomes (full text read 2026-11-05).
Attack record: 1 attack: 1 narrowed · Evidence links: 4 linked sources (3 supports, 1 limits)
3 link(s) from sources in this view.