Home literacy practices for preschoolers: a scoping review.
Mirelly Danglês de Oliveira Ferreira, Brenda Albuquerque Adriano da Silva, Sarah Camila Ferreira de Oliveira Lima and 3 others
Across 29 studies of preschoolers, reading books and shared reading were the most common home literacy activities.
The included studies report associations between these informal practices and children's vocabulary and phonological awareness. Mothers carried out most of the activities.
Key findings
1Informal practices predominated: 16 of 29 studies described both formal and informal practices, 11 described only informal, and 2 described only formal. Reading books was the most cited activity, appearing in 20 of 29 studies (68.96%), followed by shared reading and teaching to write (10 of 29 each, 34.48%).
2The maternal figure predominated in carrying out both formal and informal literacy activities across the included studies.
3The review's synthesis of the included studies reports associations between informal practices (shared reading, storytelling, singing) and children's oral language outcomes, including vocabulary and phonological awareness.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included studies are cross-sectional, so the reported associations between home practices and language outcomes cannot be read as causal. 27 of the 29 studies were conducted in developed countries, limiting generalisability to low- and middle-income settings. The intervention studies identified in the review lacked control groups and random allocation of participants. Some observational studies relied on semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions rather than validated instruments, which the authors note may compromise comparability. This is a scoping review: it maps what has been studied, not the strength or direction of effects. No effect sizes or pooled estimates are reported.
Declared interests
The authors declare no financial support and no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the reported associations between home literacy practices and language outcomes as evidence that a specific activity (e.g., reading books) causes better vocabulary. The review maps what 29 mostly cross-sectional studies described; it does not test whether any practice works, and the included intervention studies lacked control groups and random allocation. A parent who starts reading to their child because of this review is acting on a descriptive map, not on a treatment trial.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →