Article

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy

2017, Vol. 17(1) 3–25
The very hungry ! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:

caterpillar turned into a sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468798415598354
journals.sagepub.com/home/ecl
butterfly: Children’s and
parents’ enjoyment of
different book genres
Sarah-Jane L Robertson and Elaine Reese
University of Otago, New Zealand

Abstract
This study aimed to examine which genres parents are reading to children and for
themselves. Furthermore, it aimed to examine mothers’ and fathers’ shared reading
strategies for different book genres in relation to children’s language and literacy devel-
opment. Parents shared a narrative and an expository book with their preschool-aged
children. Parents then completed measures of book enjoyment, book exposure and
book genre preference. Children completed a battery of language and literacy measures
tapping into expressive and receptive language, letter naming fluency, phonological
awareness and narrative skills. Parents reported that they most frequently shared nar-
rative picture books at home; however, they reported that their children enjoyed the
expository book more than the narrative book in this study. Parents’ book-reading
strategies were related to children’s language and literacy, with higher level strategies
positively related and lower level strategies negatively related to children’s language and
literacy. This pattern was the same for the narrative and expository book. These results
suggest that the most important task is to find books that motivate both parents and
children to engage in and enjoy reading interactions.

Keywords
Storybook reading, book genre, language and literacy development

Introduction
Many of the skills children need to be ready for school can be developed in
home activities (Harris and Schroeder, 2012). School readiness encompasses a

Corresponding author:
Sarah-Jane Robertson, Department of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054,
New Zealand.
Email: sarah-jane@psy.otago.ac.nz
4 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

wide range of skills and behaviours, such as early literacy, numeracy, attention
skills and behavioural regulation (Duncan et al., 2007; McClelland et al.,
2007), all of which provide children with the tools to learn at school.
Shared picturebook reading between parent and child provides a platform
where children can learn valuable school-readiness skills (Bus et al., 1995;
Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994). Shared reading plays a special role in
children’s vocabulary learning and story understanding (e.g. Bus et al.,
1995; Frijters et al., 2000; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002; Sénéchal et al.,
2008; Sonnenschein and Munsterman, 2002; Whitehurst et al., 1988; see
Reese, in press, for a review).
Despite the importance of shared book reading in the development of
school-readiness skills, past research has not carefully delineated the genre
of the picturebook being shared and having these effects. Instead, this research
is based on global estimates of the quantity of parent–child book reading
(Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002) or utilises experimental research based primar-
ily on narrative texts (Whitehurst et al., 1988). Only a few studies have
contrasted the contributions of different book genres – narrative and exposi-
tory – to children’s oral language and literacy development. The current study
first examines which genres of books parents and children actually share in
the home. The second focus is on the role of book genre in shared book-
reading interactions and in the development of children’s oral language and
literacy skills.

Quantity and quality of shared book reading

Numerous studies have examined the quantity and quality of shared book
reading in relation to children’s development. The quantity of shared book
reading is an important factor, particularly for children’s vocabulary develop-
ment (Bus et al., 1995; Farrant and Zubrick, 2011; Scarborough and
Dobrich, 1994; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002; Sénéchal et al., 1996, 1998).
The quality of shared book reading is also important, with the use of extra-
textual book-reading strategies linked to the development of specific oral
language and early literacy skills. Haden et al. (1996) found that children
whose mothers used a naturally occurring higher level ‘comprehender’ style
of book reading, in which mothers made predictions and inferences about
motivations and causality, had higher receptive vocabulary and story compre-
hension than children exposed to a ‘collaborator’ or ‘describer’ style. The
‘collaborator’ style, which changes with children’s development, was linked
to word recognition and decoding skills. Children of ‘describers’, a lower level
Robertson and Reese 5

style that frequently uses descriptions and labels and places few demands on
the child, had significantly lower receptive vocabulary, word recognition and
story comprehension. Furthermore, Hindman et al. (2014) found that par-
ents’ use of meaning-related utterances about a story’s text is positively linked
to children’s oral language skills, once again suggesting a link between specific
book-reading strategies and the development of children’s language. These
styles have also been found across European cultures (see Reese et al., 2003),
although the positive links to children’s language and literacy depend some-
what on children’s initial skill level (Reese and Cox, 1999). Dialogic reading
interventions, in which the parent is encouraged to increase interaction via
open-ended questions and feedback, have also been shown to benefit young
children’s expressive vocabulary (for a review see Mol et al., 2008).

Role of genre
The aforementioned studies provide evidence for the importance of the quan-
tity and quality of book reading; however, they are primarily conducted with
narrative texts. Genre influences many aspects of a book, including layout and
text. For example, narrative books follow a sequenced plot and focus on the
development of characters and conflict (Torr and Clugston, 1999), whereas
expository books provide factual information and often contain technical
definitions (Duke, 2000).
Past research shows that mothers and preschool-aged children interact
more during the reading of an expository book than a narrative book.
Mothers asked more cognitively demanding questions and used more
high-demand strategies while sharing an expository book, resulting in
increased child participation (Pellegrini et al., 1990; Price et al., 2009;
Torr and Clugston, 1999). Anderson et al. (2004) examined mothers’
and fathers’ book-reading strategies for both narrative and expository
books. Dyads interacted more overall in the expository book compared to
the narrative book. Fathers used certain strategies (e.g. confirmations) more
often; these gender differences were exacerbated for the expository book.
It would be beneficial, however, to examine whether this increased use of
strategies translates into benefits for children’s language and literacy devel-
opment. Anderson et al. (2012) extended this research to examine the
relationship between parents’ talk during narrative and expository genres
and children’s early literacy. They did not, however, find any significant
relation between the questions parents asked during book reading of
either genre and children’s letter and print recognition outcomes. Previous
6 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

research (e.g. Bus et al., 1995; see Reese, in press for a review) has shown
that shared book reading plays a larger role in language and narrative out-
comes than print, which could account for the absence of a link to these
print-based skills.
The structural differences between narrative and expository genres may
account for the differences in extratextual talk (Pellegrini, 1991). Narrative
books tell a story; interrupting to provide extratextual utterances may break
the flow of the narrative (Nyhout and O’Neill, 2013). Therefore, during
naturally occurring book-reading interactions, parents may choose not to
provide as many extratextual utterances during their reading. Expository
texts tend not to tell a story; as Duke (2000) defined, they often contain
facts. Therefore, parents must utilise a variety of strategies to hold the
child’s attention (Pellegrini, 1991; Pellegrini et al., 1990), resulting in
greater interaction. Studies of other genres provide further evidence that dif-
ferences in parent–child interactions can depend on the structure of the book.
For example, alphabet books, where print is made salient, may elicit more
print references from parents (Lachner et al., 2008; Stadler and McEvoy,
2003; Van Kleeck, 1998) compared to typical interactions during narrative
picturebooks (e.g. Anderson et al., 2004; Hindman et al., 2014;
Sonnenschein and Munsterman, 2002; Stadler and McEvoy, 2003).
Because we know that interactive reading is beneficial for children’s oral
language development, these differences in interaction by genre could ulti-
mately be vital for children’s language learning and literacy skills. For exam-
ple, the increased print discussion elicited by alphabet books (Lachner et al.,
2008; Stadler and McEvoy, 2003; Van Kleeck, 1998) may aid children’s devel-
opment of letter naming and phonological awareness (Justice et al., 2010;
Yopp and Yopp, 2000). Parents’ pauses before the final word in a sentence
when reading rhyming books may help children retain those words (Read
et al., 2014). In contrast, poetry books may elicit a performance-oriented,
non-interrupting book-reading style (Reese et al., 2003) which could benefit
language development for children with higher initial vocabulary (Reese and
Cox, 1999). Because different genres appear to facilitate different skills, it is
important for parents to read a wide range of genres. Yet a link between the
range of genres parents read and their children’s language and literacy devel-
opment has not been established.
Examining the quality of parents’ reading of different genres is not inform-
ative, however, unless parents and children are actually sharing these different
genres. Therefore, assessing the range of genres that parents and children
typically read is an important first step. There is a relative lack of expository
Robertson and Reese 7

books available in primary school classrooms (Duke, 2000), so the home

therefore becomes an important setting for children to be exposed to a variety
of book genres. But Price et al. (2009) found that a majority of the last ten
books parents and children shared at home were non-rhyming narrative pic-
turebooks (50%), with only 14% of the shared books being expository, 14%
rhyming, 11% alphabet books and 10% counting books. Non-rhyming pic-
turebooks were still the most common choice of many parent–child dyads.

Affective nature of shared book reading

Children’s interest in shared book reading may be one factor that motivates
the range of genres read. A child’s interest in shared book-reading interactions
may increase the quantity of such interactions (Baker et al., 2001, 1997;
Storch Bracken and Fischel, 2008). Likewise, it is possible that forcing a
child to read a genre they do not enjoy may decrease their motivation to
engage in reading interactions altogether (Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994).
Children who are not interested in one genre may be motivated to read
another one (Caswell and Duke, 1998).
Because it is predominantly parents who choose books for their young
children, parents’ own interest in a particular genre may influence the choices
they make regarding which books to share with their children. While there is
scant research on parents’ own reading habits, Scales and Rhee (2001) found
differences in parents’ reading habits to be a function of gender, with more
mothers than fathers liking the Bible and magazines, and more fathers than
mothers liking technical manuals and reports. A father who enjoys reading
technical manuals and reports may not be as motivated to share a narrative
picturebook with his child as a mother who enjoys reading novels. This pat-
tern suggests that there are differences in parental reading preferences as a
function of parent gender and warrants further exploration.

Present study
The present study had two main aims. First, we wished to explore which
genres parents actually read to their children and for themselves, and which
genres parents and children enjoy reading. The second aim, as an extension of
Anderson et al. (2012), was to examine whether the book-reading strategies
that parents and children use when reading narrative and expository texts
differentially relate to a broad range of children’s language and literacy
skills. Previous research examining this link has mainly focused on narrative
8 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

book-reading strategies. It is vital that we understand the role of other genres

if parents and children are indeed sharing them.
Mothers and fathers shared a narrative and an expository book in the home
with their preschool-aged children. The readings were coded for parents’ and
children’s use of extratextual book-reading strategies. Following the book-
reading interaction, children attended a laboratory where they completed a
battery of language and literacy measures tapping into expressive and recep-
tive language, letter naming fluency (LNF), phonological awareness and nar-
rative skills. Parents then completed print exposure checklists, as a measure of
quantity of book reading, and exploratory measures of children’s and parents’
interest in book reading, the genres read in the home, and parents’ own
preferred genre. Because our measures of genre preference and enjoyment
were exploratory, we had no specific hypotheses in this regard.
Based on Anderson et al. (2004), we hypothesised that parents would
make more extratextual utterances in the expository than in the narrative
book. Our middle-class New Zealand European sample was similar to the
samples of Haden et al. (1996) and Reese et al. (2003); as in these previous
studies, we predicted that lower level strategies would be negatively related to
children’s language and literacy, and higher level strategies would be positively
related to language and literacy. These relations were expected to be similar
regardless of parent and child gender, and across both genres.

Method
Participants
We recruited 51 participants from local preschools and via notices in the
public library in a small city in New Zealand. Three children had turned
five at the time of testing and started primary school, and two parents com-
pleted the book-reading session but declined to participate further. Two add-
itional dyads were tested but excluded, one because the child was bilingual,
and the other because they shared both books before recording their inter-
action. The final sample consisted of 44 parents and their three- to
five-year-old children (M ¼ 3;11; SD ¼ 6 months). In an initial phone conver-
sation, the parent who identified as the primary reader with the child,
defined as the parent who most often shared books with him or her, was
invited to participate. Participants comprised seven mother–daughter, 21
mother–son, eight father–daughter, and eight father–son dyads. All children
spoke English as their first language. Thirty-six children were identified as
European New Zealander, seven children identified as ‘other’ and information
Robertson and Reese 9

regarding ethnicity was not provided for one child. Parental education was
rated using a six-point scale (one ¼ primary school education, six ¼ post-
graduate degree). Mothers had an average education rating of 4.7 (SD ¼ 1.1),
and fathers had an average rating of 4.6 (SD ¼ 1.4), which both correspond to
having some tertiary education but no tertiary degree on average.

Procedure
Parent–child shared book reading. The narrative book Hemi’s Pet (DeHamel, 1985)
and expository book What is a Fish? (Tu’akoi, 2007) were chosen for the study.
Two families had read Hemi’s Pet, so the sequel Hemi and the Shortie Pyjamas
(DeHamel, 1996) was used instead in these dyads. These are readily available
New Zealand books of approximately equal length (39 propositions in Hemi’s
Pet, 42 in What is a Fish? and 44 in Hemi and the Shortie Pyjamas). The parent read
the books to the child at home as they typically would, with the order of
reading the narrative and expository books counterbalanced. Parents audio-
taped book-reading sessions with a small digital voice recorder at their pre-
ferred time. We did not videotape the interactions because we wanted the
reading to be as natural as possible, and to occur at the time parents would
typically read to their children. Three dyads chose to do the reading inter-
action in the morning, 24 dyads in the afternoon (i.e. between 12 and 5 pm)
and 19 dyads at dinner/bedtime (after 5 pm).
All book-reading sessions were transcribed, and coding of parents’ and
children’s extratextual utterances took place from the transcripts. The
coding scheme was adapted from Anderson et al. (2004) and Reese et al.
(2003). We coded for both function and content. In order to assess function,
parent utterances were first classified as either requests, in which the parent asks
the child to provide information, or provides in which the parent gives the
information. Each utterance was then coded for content using one of the
categories in Appendix 1. Overall reliability of two independent coders on
25% of the transcripts was 84% (Cohen’s kappa ¼ .83) for the parent strate-
gies in the narrative book reading and 95% (Cohen’s kappa ¼ .83) for the
child strategies in the narrative book reading. Reliability for the expository
book was 83% (Cohen’s kappa ¼ .81) for parents and 95% (Cohen’s
kappa ¼ .87) for children. One coder coded the remaining transcripts.

Language and literacy measures. All language and literacy measures were admin-
istered in a visit to a family lab at the university an average of 3.7 days after the
parent–child book-reading sessions. Children’s receptive and expressive
10 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

language was measured using the Test of Early Language Development (TELD-
3; Hresko et al., 1999). The test was adapted for a New Zealand sample by
replacing Americanised words (e.g. janitor) with words more appropriate for
New Zealand children (e.g. cleaner). Three age-appropriate subtests of the
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) were administered.
DIBELS LNF (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2007b) is a measure of print
awareness and alphabet knowledge. DIBELS Word Parts (Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2007c) is a measure of phonological awareness that
assesses a child’s ability to separate words into their parts. DIBELS PreK First
Sounds Fluency (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2007a) is a measure of
phonological awareness that assesses a child’s ability to say the initial phon-
emes of words.
The story comprehension and story retelling tasks were those used in Reese
et al. (2010). An experimenter read an unfamiliar text, Peter’s Chair (Keats,
1967), to the child. Five questions focusing on identifying characters and plot
episodes were administered at the completion of the story. None of the first
ten participants correctly answered a sixth question involving inferential cap-
abilities, so it was eliminated from the task. Children could receive a total
score of five points, with one point given for each correct answer. The pri-
mary researcher scored children’s answers at the time of administration. Later,
a second coder scored 25% of participants’ answers independently from
audiotape for reliability. Inter-rater reliability was 98%. The main scorer
went on to score the remaining tests at administration.
Following the story comprehension task, the researcher took an Elmo or
Big Bird puppet out of a bag and told children that the puppet was asleep and
did not hear the story. Children were asked on each page to ‘Tell (puppet) the
story’ or ‘Tell (puppet) about this page.’ If the child did not respond they were
prompted with ‘You tell (puppet) the story.’ A maximum of two prompts were
given per page. Children were able to say as much as they wanted about each
page. General encouragement was given, and responses were confirmed but
not elaborated upon.
Story retellings were audiotaped and later transcribed and coded using a
scheme adapted from Reese (1995; see Reese et al., 2010). The text of Peter’s
Chair was parsed into 41 propositions. Children’s retellings were compared to
the 41 propositions of the original text. Children received one point for
recalling the basic gist of a proposition (story recall). Only those statements
initially coded for story recall were then coded for story quality. Children
received one point for each unique use of descriptors, qualifiers, internal
states, temporal terms (e.g. finally but not and or then), causal terms, character
Robertson and Reese 11

introduction, dialogue or verbatim utterances (i.e. near perfect reproduction

of the text proposition). Children could not receive points for both dialogue
and verbatim for the same proposition. Two coders independently coded
25% of the story retellings. Reliability on the accuracy of story recall
coding was 88% and on story quality coding it was 94% (Cohen’s
kappa ¼ .88). The main coder went on to code the remaining transcripts.
Similar to Trionfi and Reese (2009), we then divided the narrative quality
score by the story recall score to create a narrative score. The narrative score
controls for children’s talkativeness by assessing the rate of story quality per
proposition recalled.

Book-reading questionnaire. The parent who read the book rated their child’s and
their own enjoyment of both experimental books on a five-point scale
(1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ very much). Parents were also asked to list the last five
books they read with their child and the five books they read together most
often. These were classified into one of four genre categories: narrative
(e.g. The Tiger Who Came to Tea), expository (e.g. First Encyclopaedia), poetry
(e.g. The NickleNackle Tree) and rhyming (e.g. Hairy Maclary). There was an unclas-
sifiable category for titles where the genre was unknown (e.g. Animals). One
dyad did not provide the last five books read as they said they read four plus a
day. Two dyads did not provide the five books read most often, with one dyad
stating that they did not repeat books. The breadth of genres was calculated
out of four. If only one genre was included the participant received a score of
one; if all four genres were included the participant received a score of four.
Breadth was calculated separately for the last five books read and five books
read most often. Finally, parents also indicated whether they preferred narra-
tive or expository books in their own reading.

Book exposure checklists. Based on Sénéchal et al. (1996) we developed a

Children’s Title Checklist (CTC) and Children’s Author Checklist (CAC) for
the New Zealand context. These checklists assess the quantity of book reading,
which is related to children’s skills in previous research (Bus et al., 1995;
Farrant and Zubrick, 2011; Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994; Sénéchal and
LeFevre, 2002; Sénéchal et al., 1996, 1998). The checklists comprised actual
titles and authors of books aimed at the 3–5-year-old age group and plausible
foils to correct for guessing.
The title checklist comprised 40 actual book titles and 20 foil titles, the
same number as in Sénéchal et al. (1996). Titles included classic books
(e.g. The Very Hungry Caterpillar) and contemporary books (e.g. The Three Fishing
12 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

Brothers Gruff). The foil titles were adapted from Sénéchal et al. (1996) as well
as titles we created. The author checklist comprised 30 authors and 15 foils
and was shorter than Sénéchal et al.’s (1996), which comprised 40 authors
and 20 foils. It included classic authors (e.g. A. A. Milne) and more modern
authors (e.g. Katharine Holabird). The foils were selected from those used by
Sénéchal et al. (1996).
The number of real titles and authors and the number of foils parents chose
were converted into a percentage of the total number of titles and authors. The
percentage of foils parents chose was subtracted from the percentage of real
titles and authors to obtain a percentage score for each checklist, with higher
scores indicating greater parental exposure to children’s books and presum-
ably a greater quantity of shared book reading.

Results
Each of the book-reading codes was converted to a proportion of total talk for
analyses, in line with previous research that has examined the proportional
use of each strategy to correct for parental talkativeness (e.g. Haden et al.,
1996). All categories that comprised 15% or less of total talk were eliminated
from the analyses. Child book-related initiations and utterances were com-
bined into a single child book-related variable because book-related talk made
up a majority of child talk. We also included a total talk variable for parent and
child.
Analyses were performed on the remaining categories of parents’ descrip-
tions, predictions and inferences, print talk and total talk; and children’s book-
related utterances and total talk. In prior research, descriptions are considered
to be low in demand, predictions/inferences moderate and print talk higher
(Reese, 1995). Consistent with past research (Haden et al., 1996), parents
who made fewer than ten extratextual utterances about a book were excluded
from the analyses of that book because they may be focusing on their child’s
listening skills or utilising a non-interrupting style. The analyses of the nar-
rative book were therefore performed using 22 mothers and 12 fathers, and
the analyses of the expository book were performed on 25 mothers and 16
fathers. Descriptive statistics for parents’ and children’s book-reading strate-
gies are provided in Table 1; descriptive statistics for children’s language and
literacy are provided in Table 2.
Preliminary analyses were conducted on all variables as a function of child
gender, parent gender and parental education. Arcsine transformations were
computed on all proportional variables prior to use in repeated-measures
Robertson and Reese 13

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of book-reading strategies.

Narrative Expository
M (SD) M (SD)

Parent talk
Description .26 (.11) .33 (.14)
Predictions/inferences .10 (.08) .03 (.04)
Print talk .04 (.06) .03 (.04)
Parent total talk 41.9 (35.7) 69.5 (46.3)
Child talk
Child book related .91 (.13) .89 (.17)
Child total talk 19.2 (20.0) 37.5 (24.6)
Note: Content categories are presented as proportions of total talk.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of language and literacy measures.

Measure Range M (SD)

TELD receptive 74–149 116.25 (16.56)

TELD expressive 76–131 102.11 (11.81)
DIBELS letter naming 0–48 11.7 0 (15.46)
DIBELS word parts 0–18 6.73 (6.19)
DIBELS first sound fluency 0–24 6.14 (8.06)
Story comprehension 0–5 1.88 (1.52)
Narrative score 0.00–1.00 0.21 (0.24)

analyses; skewed variables were transformed prior to use in correlational

analyses.
There was no significant effect of parent gender for any parent or child
strategies or total talk, and no significant interaction between book genre and
parent gender for any parent or child strategies or total talk (all ps > .05). All
further analyses of book-reading strategies were therefore conducted across
both genders.
Maternal education correlated significantly with mothers’ expository pre-
diction/inferences (r ¼.32, p ¼ .041), LNF (r ¼.30, p ¼ .048), CTC (r ¼.37,
p ¼ .014) and CAC (r ¼.35, p ¼ .020), so this was controlled for in analyses
involving these variables. Children’s age was controlled for in all analyses.
14 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

Book genre analyses

Reported genres. Our first aim was to explore which genres parents were actu-
ally reading to their children. On average, across the last five books parents
reported reading with children and the five books read most often, 72%
(SD ¼ 23%) were narrative, 12% expository (SD ¼ 16%), 10% rhyming
books (SD ¼ 13%) and 2% poetry books (SD ¼ 5%). The remaining 4%
were unclassifiable. Thus, the overwhelming majority of books children
were exposed to were narratives; however, parents and children were still
sharing a range of genres.

Breadth of genres. We assessed whether sharing a wider range of genres correl-

ates with the quality of book-reading interactions, and with children’s lan-
guage and literacy. Analyses of the last five books read revealed 37% of parents
read only one genre, 47% read two genres, 14% read three genres and 2%
read four genres. For the five books read most often, 38% read only one
genre, 45% read two genres, 14% read three genres and 2% read four genres.
Parents who reported a greater breadth of genres for the five books read
most often used more total talk for the narrative book (r ¼.41, p ¼ .03).
Children whose parents read a greater breadth of genres for the five books
read most often also used more total talk for the narrative book (r ¼.48,
p ¼ .01). Parents who reported a greater breadth of genres for the last five
books read used more print talk for the expository book (r ¼.33, p ¼ .04).
There were no significant correlations between breadth of genres and chil-
dren’s language and literacy after controlling for children’s age (all ps > .05).
Overall, sharing a wider range of genres did not directly relate to children’s
language and literacy skills; however, dyads who shared a wider range of
genres talked more during the narrative text and used proportionally more
high-level strategies during the expository text.

Enjoyment of genres. We also examined which genres parents reported that they
and their children enjoyed more, and what genres parents enjoyed in their
own reading. Analyses of enjoyment of the books used in the current study
showed that there was a significant difference by genre in children’s reported
enjoyment of the books (t(42) ¼ –2.1, p ¼ .043), but not for parents’ enjoy-
ment (p ¼ .419). Parents reported that children enjoyed the expository book
significantly more (M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼.97) than they enjoyed the narrative book
(M ¼ 3.5, SD ¼.14).
In terms of parents’ own reading, most of the parents (59%) reported
preferring narrative books, with only 23% preferring expository and 18%
Robertson and Reese 15

reporting no preference in their own reading. Parents’ preferred genre was

significantly associated with gender (2(2) ¼ 11.5, p ¼ .003), with more
mothers than fathers preferring narrative in their own reading and more
fathers than mothers preferring expository texts.

Book-reading strategy analyses

The quantity of book reading, as assessed by the CTC and CACs, was not
significantly correlated with children’s language and literacy; thus, the focus
of the current study is on the quality of book reading. Our second aim was to
examine which book-reading strategies parents actually use in their book
reading, and whether this pattern was similar for narrative and expository
books. From Table 1, it is apparent that parents used descriptions most often,
predictions and inferences moderately often and relatively little print talk. This
pattern was similar for both the narrative and expository books. Repeated
measures analyses were conducted and these confirmed there were no signifi-
cant genre differences in parents’ and children’s book-reading strategies.
Finally, we examined whether the book-reading strategies parents and chil-
dren used during narrative and expository book reading correlated with chil-
dren’s language and literacy. Children’s letter naming and narrative scores
were positively skewed, so logarithmic transformation was performed on
these scores for all analyses. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for
children’s language and literacy; correlations between parents’ and children’s
book-reading strategies and children’s language and literacy measures are
presented in Table 3. Again, child age was covaried in all analyses, and mater-
nal education was covaried in analyses involving expository predictions/
inferences and LNF. For the narrative book, children whose parents used
more predictions and inferences had higher letter name knowledge and
better story comprehension skills. For the expository book, parents who
used more descriptions had children with lower expressive language.
Children who made proportionally more book-related utterances about the
expository text had poorer phonological awareness skills, and children with
greater total talk about the narrative book had higher LNF. There were no
significant links between parents’ print talk or total talk in either genre and
children’s language and literacy skills.
The overall pattern across genres was for children’s skills to be poorer when
parents used lower level, descriptive strategies, and for children’s skills to be
better when parents used higher level, prediction/inference strategies during
book reading.
16 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

Table 3. Partial correlations between parents’ book-reading strategies and children’s language
and literacy measures, controlling for children’s age.

Children’s language and literacy

Vocab Vocab Letter Phonological Story Narrative

Strategies receptive expressive naming awareness comprehension score

Narrative
Parent strategies
Desc .02 .01 .12 .22 .03 .04
P/I .23 .14 .37* .09 .38* .21
Pr .19 .20 .28 .06 .01 .03
Parent total talk .17 .19 .25 .16 .05 .05
Child strategies
BR .11 .05 .29 .14 .15 .10
Child total talk .23 .24 .37* .02 .08 .06

Expository
Parent strategies
Desc .07 .33* .03 .21 .01 .23
P/I .00 .31 .02 .06 .11 .14
Pr .06 .09 .19 .13 .09 .15
Parent total talk .02 .14 .24 .21 .14 .02
Child strategies
BR .10 .10 .29 .33* .04 .20
Child total talk .08 .17 .26 .10 .05 .05
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
BR: Child Book Related; Desc: Description; P/I: Prediction/Inferences; Pr: Print Talk.

Discussion
The focus of the current study was on the genres of books that parents and
children share and whether the sharing of these genres differentially relates to
children’s language and literacy development. Similar to Price et al. (2009),
we found that primarily narrative books were shared in the home, with other
genres also being shared, albeit less frequently. In the current study, parents
reported that children enjoyed the expository book more than the narrative
book. Parents’ own reading also differed by genre, with more mothers than
fathers preferring narrative in their own reading and more fathers than
mothers preferring expository texts. Because parents and children are reading
Robertson and Reese 17

and enjoying a range of different genres, it is therefore important to under-

stand the relation between the reading of these genres and children’s language
and literacy development.
The current study found no parent gender or book genre effects for parents’
or children’s use of book-reading strategies when examining mothers’ and
fathers’ reading of a narrative and an expository book with their preschool
children. Consistent with our hypotheses, parents’ book-reading strategies
were related to children’s language and literacy. Similar to previous research
(e.g. Haden et al., 1996; Hindman et al., 2014), parents’ higher level stra-
tegies (e.g. predictions and inferences) were positively linked to children’s
language and literacy, and their lower level strategies (e.g. descriptions) were
negatively linked to children’s language and literacy. The current study
extended these findings to an expository book. We note that parents’ predic-
tions/inferences were linked to children’s story comprehension only when
reading the narrative book. This specificity makes sense, given that expository
books by their nature are not in narrative form. Children may still be learning
information and causal linkages via expository texts but will not benefit in
terms of narrative structure as a result of sharing these books.

The importance of sharing a wide range of genres

Notably, and in line with past research, parents’ print talk during shared book
reading of a narrative and expository text did not correlate significantly with
any child language or literacy skill (see Reese, in press, for a review). Clearly,
typical picturebook reading is not a forum for children to learn about print,
unless parents are instructed to talk about print in specific ways (e.g. Justice
and Ezell, 2000). When reading alphabet books, however, parents increase
their discussion of print (Lachner et al., 2008; Stadler and McEvoy, 2003;
Van Kleeck, 1998), which may aid children’s development of letter naming
and phonological awareness (Justice et al., 2010; Yopp and Yopp, 2000).
Findings such as these demonstrate the importance of sharing a wide range
of book genres to promote children’s language and literacy development.
Furthermore, parents reported that children in the current study actually
enjoyed the expository text more than the narrative text, so parents might
want to broaden their children’s book diet by including more expository texts.
In our study, parents reported reading expository texts with their preschoolers
only 12% of the time. When children are more interested in shared book-
reading interactions, parents may engage in book-reading interactions more
often (Baker et al., 1997, 2001; Storch Bracken and Fischel, 2008).
18 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

An increased quantity of book reading could in turn enhance children’s lan-

guage and literacy skills (Bus et al., 1995; Scarborough and Dobrich, 1994;
Sonnenschein and Munsterman, 2002; but see Frijters et al., 2000). It is
important to remember that these findings are based on only one book
from each genre. The expository book used in this study was a contemporary,
aesthetically pleasing book, so the results may not generalise to older or less
engaging expository books without pictures. These findings do demonstrate
the potential of appealing expository books in terms of encouraging enjoyable
and educational interactions between parents and children.
A final reason for sharing a wide range of genres is that some parents
may prefer reading non-narrative genres. In the current study of 44
families, a substantial percentage of fathers (36%) indicated they were
the primary reader in a household with a preschool child. More fathers
than mothers preferred expository texts in their own reading. It is possible
that a father who primarily reads expository books may enjoy reading
expository picturebooks more than narrative picturebooks with his chil-
dren. Conversely, more mothers than fathers preferred narrative texts in
their own reading, and a mother who primarily reads novels may enjoy
reading narrative picturebooks rather than expository picturebooks with her
children. In future research, it will be important to test directly the link
between parents’ own reading preferences and their book preferences with
their children.
To sum up, sharing a wide range of genres is important because it may
foster parent–child book-sharing. Each genre may bring somewhat different
benefits for children’s language and literacy development.

Which genre is being shared in the home?

One important finding of the current research is that when parents shared a
wider range of genres, they also were more interactive during reading the
narrative book and used proportionally more print talk during reading the
expository book. Perhaps parents who share a wider range of genres are
incorporating strategies usually used in other genres: e.g. print talk, which
is usually elicited when reading alphabet books (Lachner et al., 2008; Stadler
and McEvoy, 2003; Van Kleeck, 1998). Because we know that interactive
reading is beneficial for children’s oral language development, these differ-
ences in interaction could ultimately be vital for children’s language learning
and potentially their literacy.
Robertson and Reese 19

Despite evidence that parents share more than one genre, 72% of the books
shared were narrative, suggesting that parents still focus on this genre when
choosing books to share with their children. Given the wide range of books
available today, what are the reasons for this decision? Perhaps parents are
afraid that other genres do not afford the language and literacy benefits estab-
lished for narrative books. The current study has shown that this is not the
case, with both narrative and expository books linked to benefits for children’s
language and literacy, coupled with previous research that other genres (e.g.
alphabet books) are also beneficial for children’s language and literacy (Justice
et al., 2010). New research needs to be conducted on the potential of reading
rhyming and poetry books, particularly for children’s phonological awareness.
Another reason why parents may be primarily choosing narrative books is
that they believe narrative books are more exciting. Picturebooks, by defin-
ition, are made up of many elements which unite to be aesthetically pleasing
(Sipe, 2001) while the thought of reading a non-fiction expository text may
conjure up images of reading encyclopaedias and dictionaries. This is no
longer the case. Nowadays there are many brightly coloured, pleasant exposi-
tory texts available, such as the book used in the current study.

Limitations and future research

The main limitation of this study is that the results are based on only one book
of each genre. Replication is needed with more than one book from each
genre to examine whether these results are specific to the books used. The
expository book used in this study had a novel structure in that it built up
children’s expectations about what a fish is and perhaps captured children’s
attention more than a book which simply lists facts about a topic. The results
of this study should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.
Furthermore, the genre breadth measure was exploratory and needs further
adaptation, because it did not capture the dyads who did not repeat books or
who read too many to list. The development of title checklists assessing famil-
iarity with different genres would be beneficial to get a clearer picture of
children’s exposure to different genres.
Future experimental research is therefore needed using a wide range of
books and genres. Future research is also needed on whether dialogic reading
interventions, which have mainly included narrative books, would work
equally well with expository and rhyming books. Future research could also
explore the relationship between the enjoyment of books and their aesthetic
20 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

quality, and also which parent is selecting the books that are shared with chil-
dren in the family, and whether parents’ own genre preferences impact on this
choice.

Conclusion
Mothers and fathers reported that they primarily share narrative books in the
home with their preschoolers, perhaps because parents think that expository
texts do not provide the same benefits as narrative books, or that their children
will not enjoy expository books. However, in the current study, this was not
the case. Parents reported that children enjoyed an expository book even more
than a narrative book, and parents’ reading of both expository and narrative
books was linked to benefits for children’s language and literacy. Reading an
expository text does not have to be an arduous task like looking through an
encyclopaedia; there is a wide range of aesthetically pleasing books available in
both genres, whether that be through pictures, text quality or other aesthetic
qualities. Parents should take advantage of this plethora to capitalise on their
own and their children’s interests in a wide range of genres. Reading from a
range of genres will help foster all the skills children need to prepare for
schooling, because each genre appears to afford specific benefits for children’s
language and literacy development.

Acknowledgements
This article was part of a Master’s Thesis by the first author at the University of Otago.
Thanks to the kindergartens and associations that helped recruit participants, Dunedin
Public Library and the University Book Shop for their help in creating measures. We
would also like to thank Sarah Divers, Virginia Ball, Tia Neha and Dr Helena McAnally
for their assistance in every step of this project. Most importantly we would like to
acknowledge the parents and children who participated in this study. Without their
participation this study would not have been possible. This manuscript has not been
published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal. My co-
author and I do not have any interests that may be interpreted as influencing the
results. This project was reviewed and approved by the University of Otago Human
Ethics Committee.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Robertson and Reese 21

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

References
Anderson J, Anderson A, Lynch J, et al. (2004) Examining the effects of gender
and genre on interactions in shared book reading. Reading Research and Instruction
43: 1–20.
Anderson A, Anderson J, Lynch J, et al. (2012) Extra-textual talk in shared
book reading: A focus on questioning. Early Child Development and Care 182:
1139–1154.
Baker L, Mackler K, Sonnenschein S, et al. (2001) Parents’ interactions with
their first-grade children during storybook reading and relations with subsequent
home reading activity and reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology 39:
415–438.
Baker L, Scher D and Mackler K (1997) Home and family influences on motivations
for reading. Educational Psychologist 32: 69–82.
Bus AG, van Ijzendoorn MH and Pellegrini AD (1995) Joint book reading makes for
success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research 65: 1–21.
Caswell LJ and Duke NK (1998) Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy development.
Language Arts 75: 108–117.
DeHamel J (1985) Hemi’s Pet. New Zealand: Reed Methuen.
DeHamel J (1996) Hemi and the Shortie Pyjamas. New Zealand: Puffin Books.
Duke NK (2000) 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first
grade. Reading Research Quarterly 35: 202–224.
Duncan GJ, Dowsett CJ, Claessens A, et al. (2007) School readiness and later achieve-
ment. Developmental Psychology 43: 1428–1446.
Dynamic Measurement Group (2007a) DIBELSÕ First Sound Fluency. Eugene,
Oregon, USA.
Dynamic Measurement Group (2007b) DIBELSÕ Letter Naming Fluency. Eugene,
Oregon, USA.
Dynamic Measurement Group (2007c) DIBELSÕ Word Parts. Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Farrant BM and Zubrick SR (2011) Early vocabulary development: The
importance of joint attention and parent-child book reading. First Language 32:
343–364.
Frijters JC, Barron RW and Brunello M (2000) Direct and mediated influences of
home literacy and literacy interest on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written
language skill. Journal of Educational Psychology 92: 466–477.
22 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

Haden CA, Reese E and Fivush R (1996) Mothers’ extratextual comments during
storybook reading: Stylistic differences over time and across texts. Discourse Processes
21: 135–169.
Harris YR and Schroeder VM (2012) What the Berenstain Bears can tell us about
school readiness: Maternal story grammar style and preschool narrative recall.
Journal of Early Childhood Research 10: 176–195.
Hindman AH, Skibbe LE and Foster TD (2014) Exploring the variety of parental talk
during shared book reading and its contributions to preschool language and lit-
eracy: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort. Reading
and Writing 27: 287–313.
Hresko WP, Reid DK and Hammill DD (1999) Test of Early Language Development –
3rd Edition (TELD-3). USA: Pro-ED.
Justice LM and Ezell HK (2000) Enhancing children’s print and word awareness
through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
9: 257–269.
Justice LM, McGinty AS, Piasta SB, et al. (2010) Print-focused read-alouds in pre-
school classrooms: Intervention effectiveness and moderators of child outcomes.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 41: 504–520.
Keats EJ (1967) Peter’s Chair. New York: Harper Trophy.
Lachner W, Zevenbergen A and Zevenbergen J (2008) Parent and child references to
letters during alphabet book reading: Relations to child age and letter name know-
ledge. Early Education and Development 19: 541–559.
McClelland MM, Cameron CE, Connor CM, et al. (2007) Links between behavioural
regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental
Psychology 43: 947–959.
Mol SE, Bus AG, de Jong MT, et al. (2008) Added value of dialogic parent-child book
readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development 19: 7–26.
Nyhout A and O’Neill DK (2013) Mothers’ complex talk when sharing books with
their toddlers: Book genre matters. First Language 33: 115–131.
Pellegrini AD (1991) A critique of the concept of at risk as applied to emergent
literacy. Language Arts 68: 380–385.
Pellegrini AD, Perlmutter JC, Galda L, et al. (1990) Joint reading between black Head
Start children and their mothers. Child Development 61: 443–453.
Price LH, Van Kleeck A and Huberty CJ (2009) Talk during book sharing between
parents and preschool children: A comparison between storybook and expository
book conditions. Reading Research Quarterly 44: 171–194.
Read K, Macauley M and Furay E (2014) The Seuss boost: Rhyme helps children
retain words from shared storybook reading. First Language 34: 354–371.
Reese E (1995) Predicting children’s literacy from mother-child conversations.
Cognitive Development 10: 381–405.
Reese E (2015) What good is a picturebook? Developing children’s oral language and
literacy through shared picturebook reading. In: Kümmerling-Meibauer B,
Robertson and Reese 23

Meibauer J, Nächtigaller K, et al. (eds) Learning from Picturebooks: Perspectives from Child
Development and Literacy Studies. New York: Routledge Press, pp. 194–208.
Reese E and Cox A (1999) Quality of adult book reading affects children’s emergent
literacy. Developmental Psychology 35: 20–28.
Reese E, Cox A, Harte D, et al. (2003) Diversity in adults’ styles of reading books to
children. In: Van Kleeck A, Stahl SA and Bauer EB (eds) On Reading Books to Children:
Parents and Teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 37–57.
Reese E, Leyva D, Sparks A, et al. (2010) Maternal elaborative reminiscing increases
low-income children’s narrative skills relative to dialogic reading. Early Education and
Development 21: 318–342.
Scales AM and Rhee O (2001) Adult reading habits and patterns. Reading Psychology 22:
175–203.
Scarborough HS and Dobrich W (1994) On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers.
Developmental Review 14: 245–302.
Sénéchal M and LeFevre J-A (2002) Parental involvement in the development of
children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73:
445–460.
Sénéchal M, LeFevre J-A, Hudson E, et al. (1996) Knowledge of storybooks as
a predictor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology 88:
520–536.
Sénéchal M, LeFevre J-A, Thomas EM, et al. (1998) Differential effects of home
literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading
Research Quarterly 33: 96–116.
Sénéchal M, Pagan S, Lever R, et al. (2008) Relations among the frequency of shared
reading and 4-year-old children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax compre-
hension, and narrative skills. Early Education and Development 19: 27–44.
Sipe LR (2001) Picturebooks as aesthetic objects. Literacy, Teaching and Learning 6: 23–42.
Sonnenschein S and Munsterman K (2002) The influence of home-based reading
interactions on 5-year olds’ reading motivations and early literacy development.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17: 318–337.
Stadler MA and McEvoy MA (2003) The effect of text genre on parent use of joint
book reading strategies to promote phonological awareness. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 18: 502–512.
Storch Bracken S and Fischel JE (2008) Family reading behavior and early literacy
skills in preschool children from low income backgrounds. Early Education and
Development 19: 45–67.
Torr J and Clugston L (1999) A comparison between informational and narrative
picture books as a context for reasoning between caregivers and 4-year old chil-
dren. Early Child Development and Care 159: 25–41.
Trionfi G and Reese E (2009) A good story: Children with imaginary companions
create richer narratives. Child Development 80: 1301–1313.
Tu’akoi F (2007) What Is a Fish? Auckland, New Zealand: Scholastic.
24 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 17(1)

Van Kleeck A (1998) Preliteracy domains and stages: Laying the foundations for
beginning reading. Journal of Children’s Communication Development 20: 33–51.
Whitehurst GJ, Falco FL, Lonigan CJ, et al. (1988) Accelerating language development
through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology 24: 552–559.
Yopp RH and Yopp HK (2000) Sharing informational text with young children.
The Reading Teacher 53: 410–423.

Appendix 1. Coding scheme of parent book reading strategies

Strategy Description Example

Descriptions Name or label an item, picture ‘That’s an axolotl’

description, summary or
repetition of text without the
addition of new information
Predictions and Predict what is going to happen
inferences in the story, integrate or make
links between story events or
draw a conclusion. Infer
motives or causality or infer
the thoughts or utterances a
character may make
Relating to self Connect an object or concept in
the book to the child’s own
world including references to
previous discussions and to
previous knowledge
Relating to the world Connect an object or concept in
the book to general world
knowledge including
definitions
Print talk Discussion focusing on sounds of
words or punctuation
Evaluations Emotion related utterance.
Parent evaluates or asks the
child to evaluate an item in the
book or the book itself
Confirmation Confirming the child’s utterance
or repeating it with a question
intonation
‘She’s got a red ribbon in her
hair’
‘What do you think is going to
happen?’
‘Is that true?’
‘She’s saying come in Rata take a
seat’
‘That’s like the Guinea Pigs from
kindy’
‘We’ve just talked about that
haven’t we?’
‘How many legs does a budgie
have?’
‘Do you know what they call a
whole family of fish?’
‘That’s a question mark’
‘So that must be asking us a
question.’
‘Yum’
‘Did you like that story?’
‘Yes’
‘Mmm hmmm’
‘You reckon it’s cold?’
(continued)
Robertson and Reese 25

Strategy Description Example

Correction Correcting the child’s utterance ‘No these two’

Clarification Requests or provides the cor- ‘A what?’
rect pronunciation of a word
or requests the child to
repeat an utterance the
parent could not hear or
understand
Metacomment Higher level abstract comments ‘This is confusing’
about the text, answering the ‘I didn’t know that’
text or expressions of a lack
of knowledge
Other Book related – utterances not ‘The pages are stuck’
related to the text but are ‘Let’s read the next book’
about the reading of the book ‘Shove over, make room’
Non-book related – utterances
not related to the reading of
the book
Child book related Child interrupts the reading of ‘Why is he doing that?’
initiated the text and requires the
parent to respond
Child book related Utterance about the book or a ‘Yes’
topic of conversation that the ‘That’s a rabbit’ in answer
parent has initiated that does to a question
not interrupt the reading of
the text or in which the child
answers the text
Child non-book related Not related to reading of the ‘I’ll draw it’
book