1. Introduction and problem

Between ages 3 and 6—kindergarten, preschool, CENDI, early childhood school—a package of three artefacts has been installed as if it counted as emergent literacy. The first is a dialogic-reading chatbot that asks PEER/CROWD questions: a conversational agent that formulates prompt, evaluate, expand, repeat or completion, recall, open-ended, wh- and distancing prompts and declares that the child “already read dialogically.” The second is a generator of personalised stories or picturebooks from a prompt: a model that produces text and image under textual instruction and presents the artefact as if it were a literacy experience with a book. The third is an app that marks letter naming, decoding or e-book comprehension as “correct/incorrect”: a pipeline that scores answers and delivers the dashboard as if it were print awareness and a relation to the book as a cultural object. All three are visible and cheap in coordination time. They allow centres to exhibit that they “already do emergent literacy with artificial intelligence.” The leap—from accumulating chatbot answers, receiving a generated story or obtaining a letter/comprehension score to claiming that emergent literacy exists—is authorised neither by evidence on dialogic chatbots or generated stories nor by what emergent-literacy pedagogy measures when there is situated practice of shared picturebook reading, print awareness, print referencing, symbolic writing play and adult mediation in the book corner.

The thesis of this article is restrictive. A dialogic-reading chatbot that asks PEER/CROWD questions, a generator of personalised stories from a prompt, or an app that marks letter naming, decoding or e-book comprehension as “correct/incorrect” do not constitute emergent literacy in early childhood education. At this stage, emergent literacy is situated practice of shared reading with an adult, print awareness in context, writing play and mediation—the infant’s relation to printed text and to the book as a cultural object, cultivated in the book corner and in shared-picturebook routines—not a chatbot response score nor a generated story that replaces the picturebook and the adult. Yuan et al. (2025) report shared book reading with an AI chatbot in Chinese kindergarten (N = 144 typical readers + 142 poor readers) with autonomy-support versus controlling instructional style: a finding on differential language ability by style, not on situated print-awareness craft. Cheng et al. (2024) show that a dialogic chatbot improves comprehension mainly among kindergarteners with higher language skills (N = 148; 2×2 dialogic/non-dialogic × chatbot/human): a finding of conditioned comprehension, not of mediated shared reading as book culture. Xiao et al. (2025) compare parent-led versus AI-guided dialogic reading in an e-book context (RCT N = 67; ages 5–8; transfer marked because the sample includes 7–8): AI-led outperforms on comprehension; parent-led shows greater affective engagement and story-relevant vocalisations. That does not authorise translating “a dialogic chatbot is installed” or “a story was generated” into “emergent literacy exists.” It authorises asking what was measured: often vocabulary, comprehension or behavioural engagement, not the reiterated practice when a four-year-old points to the title, follows writing direction with a finger, plays at “writing” a list or sits with an adult in the book corner.

The problem is aggravated by five category confusions that product sheets do not mention and that this article separates rigorously. First: emergent literacy is not orality or narration—a construct already treated in the series (ia-lenguaje-oral-narracion-educacion-inicial); although shared reading and language touch, here the object is the relation to print and the book, not oral discourse development. Second: it is not AI literacy for students—knowing how to use models, prompts or chatbots as a digital competence. Third: it is not numeracy. Fourth: it is not pedagogical documentation. Fifth: it is not music education. This article does not recycle papers on music, motor development, artistic creativity, interactions, executive functions, SEL, STEM, free play, documentation, numeracy, orality, formative assessment, UDL, participation, planning or teacher education. The question is one of emergent literacy: what counts as such when an early childhood centre “does AI and reading.”

There is, moreover, a coordination economy that explains why the package sells so quickly. A chatbot turn log, a PDF of a generated story and a dashboard of “correct letters” are legible in a supervision meeting: they fit a slide, are photographed, are compared across rooms. Emergent literacy—the child who holds a picturebook, asks about a letter in their name, imitates writing on a pad in the corner—is slower to exhibit and harder to reduce to a score.

The contributions are three: to reconstruct the state of the art that separates emergent literacy (shared reading; print awareness; print referencing; writing play; mediation in the corner) from the PEER/CROWD chatbot, the prompt-based story and letter/comprehension scoring; to examine three families of empirical cases; and to offer four tests for deciding when a kindergarten may claim that emergent literacy exists, and not only a conversational agent, a generator or a scoring app.

2. State of the art: from situated emergent-literacy practice to the artefact on display

It is useful to separate four strata that the market of “AI for literacy in early childhood” usually mixes. The first is the construct of emergent literacy at ages 3–6 as practice of relating to printed text and the book in everyday contexts of shared reading and the book corner (Dong et al., 2024; Nan & Tian, 2025; Parpucu & Ezmeci, 2023; Diprossimo & Cain, 2025; NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021). The second is the pedagogical craft that cultivates it—shared picturebook reading, print awareness, print referencing, symbolic writing play, adult mediation in the book corner—(Dong et al., 2024; Nan & Tian, 2025; NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021, 2023). The third is evidence on dialogic-reading chatbots, AI story generation, agent-guided e-books and mappings of AI in ECE (Yuan et al., 2025; Cheng et al., 2024; Xiao et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2026; Cho & Yim, 2024; Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026; Nikolopoulou, 2025). The fourth is the rights, systems and developmentally appropriate practice framework that treats the 3–6 infant as a subject of situated literacy practice, not as a chatbot respondent nor as a consumer of a generated story that replaces the picturebook and the adult (UNESCO, 2021; Miao & Holmes, 2023; European Commission, 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

In the construct and craft stratum, Dong et al. (2024) examine effects of dialogic-reading elements—questions, feedback, expansion—on children’s language development: a finding that anchors PEER/CROWD in recent evidence as a framework of mediated craft, not as automation of an agent. Status: empirical finding on dialogic elements and language; pedagogical inference, marked as such: the craft a kindergarten may call emergent literacy includes human dialogic mediation around the book, not mere reproduction of prompts by a chatbot. Nan and Tian (2025) offer a systematic review and meta-synthesis of challenges and facilitators of parent–child shared book reading: time, mediation, access to books. Status: synthesis finding on the family craft of shared book reading. Inference: emergent literacy is played out under conditions of time and access, not in a conversational agent. Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) meta-analyse the impact of shared book reading on phonological awareness: a finding that shared book reading is associated with phonological awareness. Restrictive inference: the meta-analysis speaks of the craft of the shared book; it does not authorise declaring emergent literacy by a letter-app score. Diprossimo and Cain (2025) examine individual differences in word learning from print versus digital shared book reading: the medium (paper/screen) is not the construct; mediation is. NAEYC (2022) requires developmentally appropriate practice and includes print-rich environments and shared reading; OECD (2021) anchors ECEC quality in meaningful everyday interactions; OECD (2023) requires that digitalisation empower without replacing those interactions. Inference: a chatbot does not hold the picturebook with the child. An adult who points to the title, names writing direction, invites “reading” an image and protects the book corner does.

In the artefact stratum, Yuan et al. (2025) report an SBR chatbot with autonomy-support versus controlling instructional styles (N = 144 typical + 142 poor readers, kindergarten): typical readers improve more with AS; poor readers with CS. Status: empirical finding of language ability under chatbot. Restrictive inference: language-ability score ≠ emergent literacy (print awareness + situated shared reading). Cheng et al. (2024) saturate the ceiling of the dialogic chatbot (N = 148): comprehension gains concentrated among those who already have higher language skills. Xiao et al. (2025) show, with 5–8 transfer, that AI-led can outperform on comprehension while parent-led sustains affective engagement. Zhang et al. (2026) report AI-assisted dialogic reading at home (quasi-experimental N = 108 preschool; 15 weeks): gains in bilingual expressive vocabulary and engagement. Cho and Yim (2024) compare traditional versus AI-generated stories (N = 15; ages 3–6; 8 sessions/3 weeks): both conditions improve vocabulary; no significant between-group differences. Inference: generating a story ≠ emergent literacy. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) map affordances and promises/challenges of AI in ECE without equating them to print awareness or a mediated book corner.

In the systems stratum, UNESCO (2021) requires human oversight and AI ethics. Miao and Holmes (2023) set pedagogical validation and age thresholds for generative AI—a direct framework for the prompt-based story generator. The European Commission (2022) and the U.S. Department of Education (2023) subordinate AI to the educator’s professional judgement. Framework inference: a kindergarten may use tools under supervision; it may not declare emergent literacy merely because a chatbot, a generator or a scoring app was deployed.

3. Review method

A critical narrative review was conducted, not a primary meta-analysis. The purpose was not to estimate a homogeneous effect size of the dialogic chatbot or the generated story, but to articulate an argument of pedagogical category with verified sources. Inclusion criteria: (a) 2021–2026, with transfer explicitly marked when the sample or level does not equal kindergarten ages 3–6; (b) emergent literacy, shared reading, print awareness, dialogic chatbot, story generation, agent-guided e-book or AI in early childhood education; (c) relevance to kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or ages 3–6; (d) peer-reviewed journal, DOI or report from NAEYC, UNESCO, OECD, the European Commission or a department of education; (e) verifiable DOI or editorial page. Axes already used in this series were excluded as central objects—music, motor/FMS, visual artistic creativity, CLASS/serve-and-return interactions, pedagogical documentation, SEL as substitute programme, executive functions, STEM/robotics, generic free play, numeracy, orality/narration, generative tutoring, gaps, privacy, UDL, academic formative assessment, generic family–school programmes, continuous training, participation and planning—although some appear as category boundaries.

The search was executed on 28 August 2026 (slot 17:02 America/Mexico_City) on DOI pages, Crossref, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Frontiers, JAIR, OECD iLibrary, UNESDOC, NAEYC and editorial sites. Each source was verified against at least one of those pages. Empirical finding, conceptual or normative framework, and pedagogical inference marked as such were distinguished. Priority was given to the distinction emergent literacy / orality-narration / AI literacy / numeracy / documentation / music, and to the caution not to translate vocabulary, comprehension or engagement scores reported in chatbot or e-book studies into pedagogy of print awareness and the book corner. No N, d, r, AUC or DOI was invented; when a sample includes ages outside 3–6 (e.g. Xiao et al., 2025: 5–8), transfer is marked.

4. Case 1. A dialogic chatbot, a story generator or a letter/comprehension scoring app do not constitute emergent literacy

Yuan, Dong, Jin, Mo and Zheng (2025) publish in Language and Education the comparison that best names the ceiling of the first artefact when it is presented as emergent literacy. They report shared book reading with AI chatbots in Chinese kindergarten: N = 144 typical readers and N = 142 poor readers; autonomy-support versus controlling instructional style. Typical readers improve more with autonomy-support; poor readers with controlling style. Status of the evidence. Empirical finding of language ability under SBR chatbot by style and reader profile. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: this is the gesture a centre copies when it “does literacy with AI that asks PEER/CROWD-style questions.” The digital picturebook opens, the agent asks, turns and scores accumulate. What exists is a technical ceiling of model-mediated conversational interaction. Emergent literacy, in Nan and Tian (2025), Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) and NAEYC (2022), requires situated shared reading, print awareness and adult mediation around the book as object; not a log of correct chatbot answers. A child may “improve in language ability” according to the study and, at the same time, never have pointed to the title, explored writing direction or played at writing in the corner.

Cheng et al. (2024) saturate the portrait of the dialogic chatbot in Journal of Experimental Child Psychology: N = 148 kindergarteners; 2×2 design (dialogic/non-dialogic × chatbot/human); the dialogic chatbot improves comprehension mainly among those who already have higher language skills. Status: empirical finding of comprehension conditioned on linguistic profile. Inference, marked as such: the chatbot is not the craft of shared reading with an adult. It may raise a comprehension score in a subgroup; it does not sign picturebook culture or classroom print awareness. Xiao, Zou, Lin, Li and Yang (2025) reinforce the affective contrast in an e-book RCT (N = 67; ages 5–8; transfer marked because the sample includes 7–8): AI-guided outperforms on comprehension; parent-led shows greater affective engagement and story-relevant vocalisations. Inference: the agent-guided e-book does not replace the affective bond of shared reading. Zhang, Albashtawi and Mahfoodh (2026) name the domestic face of AI-assisted dialogic reading: quasi-experimental N = 108 preschool; 15 weeks AI-DR versus traditional DR; gains in bilingual expressive vocabulary and behavioural/cognitive engagement. Status: finding of vocabulary and engagement at home. Restrictive inference: a home vocabulary finding ≠ a declaration that the kindergarten “already does emergent literacy with a chatbot.”

Cho and Yim (2024) name the second artefact—the story generator—when it is treated as literacy. In Communication Sciences & Disorders they work with N = 15 children aged 3–6; 8 sessions over 3 weeks; traditional versus AI-generated stories; both conditions improve receptive and expressive vocabulary; no significant between-group differences. Status: empirical finding of a small sample in the kindergarten age range, with lexical-effect equivalence between traditional and AI stories. Inference: generating a personalised story from a prompt does not constitute emergent literacy. An illustrated PDF may be material; literacy begins when an adult and a child share the book-object, point to print and reiterate the practice. The app that marks letter naming or e-book comprehension as “correct/incorrect” inherits the same substitution grammar that Yuan et al. (2025) and Cheng et al. (2024) illustrate in the chatbot: converting the relation to text into a binary verdict. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) confirm the growth of AI in ECE without evidence that a chatbot, a prompt-based story or a letter scorer replaces the craft. Miao and Holmes (2023) place generative AI under pedagogical validation and age thresholds. Inference: a kindergarten that delivers “high comprehension according to the chatbot” or “personalised story ready” has done measurement or generation.

The three artefacts share the same substitution grammar. The chatbot replaces adult mediation of the picturebook with a question script. The generator replaces the cultural book-object with a prompt output. The scoring app replaces print awareness in context with a correct/incorrect verdict. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: emergent literacy is not declared by the product catalogue; it is declared by reiterated practice with the book and the adult. Yuan et al. (2025), Cheng et al. (2024), Zhang et al. (2026), Cho and Yim (2024) and Xiao et al. (2025) authorise saying that there was a conversational, lexical or e-book intervention; not signing situated print awareness or symbolic writing play in the corner.

5. Case 2. What the kindergarten does when emergent literacy exists: shared reading, print awareness and mediation

Dong, Chow, Mo, Miao and Zheng (2024) situate dialogic-reading elements—questions, feedback, expansion—as a revisable empirical object in Journal of Research in Reading: effects on children’s language development; a framework that allows PEER/CROWD to be anchored in recent evidence without treating the chatbot as a substitute for the adult. Status: empirical finding on dialogic elements and language. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: this is the craft an early childhood centre may call emergent literacy when those elements occur in human shared reading around the picturebook, together with print awareness and writing play. Literacy is not a score of agent answers: it is growing mastery of relating to the book, noticing print, pointing, “reading” images with intention and playing at writing in meaningful contexts. A chatbot that asks without shared practice of the book-object may celebrate a correct turn and, at the same time, empty the corner of mediation. A letter app may label “correct phoneme” and never have captured whether the adult referenced the title, the cover or writing direction.

Nan and Tian (2025) saturate the craft from challenges and facilitators of parent–child shared reading: a meta-synthesis that highlights time, mediation and access to books. Status: synthesis finding on shared book reading as situated practice. Inference: when emergent literacy exists in early childhood, there is protected time, access to picturebooks and mediation; not a feed of chatbot alerts. Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) meta-analyse shared book reading and phonological awareness: a finding that the craft of the shared book is associated with phonological awareness. Inference: the meta-analysis does not authorise declaring literacy by a letter-naming dashboard. Diprossimo and Cain (2025) show individual differences in word learning from print versus digital shared reading: the medium is not the construct; mediation is. NAEYC (2022) anchors print-rich environments and shared reading in developmentally appropriate practice. OECD (2021) anchors quality in everyday interactions; OECD (2023) requires subordinated digitalisation. Inference: mediation in the book corner means noticing the quality of shared reading, print referencing, the affective safety of the adult–child dyad and the opportunity to reiterate writing play; pedagogical observation of emergent literacy is professional reading, not a log of chatbot turns or e-book engagement labels. A dashboard does not point to the title. An adult who holds the picturebook, names print and observes transfer among shared reading, writing play and the corner does.

Print awareness and print referencing do not deny play: they orient it toward text as a cultural object. Nan and Tian (2025) underline facilitators of access and mediation; Diprossimo and Cain (2025) underline that paper or screen do not replace interaction quality. It is useful to specify what counts as mediation in the early childhood emergent-literacy craft, without inventing data the sources do not report. Mediation, in the sense of NAEYC (2022) and OECD (2021), is adult presence that organises, models, invites and expands: the adult initiates or sustains picturebook reading; points to the title and asks about a letter in the name; follows writing direction with a finger; offers a pad and a marker to play at “writing” a list; protects book-corner time against the hurry of the score.

Symbolic writing play completes the picture. It is not school calligraphy nor premature decoding scored by an app: it is rehearsal of writer roles—signing a drawing, “noting” an order in market play, copying letters of the name—in the presence of an adult who recognises the intention. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: an app that marks letter naming correct/incorrect may train an isolated item; it does not sign writing play as cultural practice. Dong et al. (2024) anchor dialogicity in human elements of question, feedback and expansion; those elements, in the kindergarten, live in shared reading and the corner, not in the autonomy of the agent. Print referencing—pointing to the title, the cover, a letter in the name, writing direction—is the minimal gesture that distinguishes emergent literacy from “having heard a story” (Parpucu & Ezmeci, 2023; Nan & Tian, 2025; Diprossimo & Cain, 2025; NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2023).

6. Case 3. Emergent literacy is not orality/narration, nor AI literacy, nor numeracy

The first category boundary is orality/narration. Oral language and narration development may coexist in a centre and was already treated in the series (ia-lenguaje-oral-narracion-educacion-inicial); it does not, by itself, constitute emergent literacy as a relation to printed text and the book. Status: pedagogical inference marked as such, anchored in Nan and Tian (2025), Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) and NAEYC (2022) as a shared-book-reading and print construct. This article does not make orality the central object: it names it to forbid the equivalence. A dialogic chatbot that raises vocabulary or comprehension (Yuan et al., 2025; Cheng et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2026) may touch language; it does not thereby sign print awareness or writing play. Confusing “the linguistic score improved with the chatbot” with “emergent literacy exists” is the category error the market exploits.

The second boundary is AI literacy for students. Knowing how to use models, write prompts or “talk to an agent” is another construct—digital competence or school AI literacy—; it is not emergent literacy at ages 3–6. Inference: teaching an infant to “ask the chatbot” is not cultivating print awareness. The third boundary is numeracy. Counting pages or pointing to numbers in a picturebook may overlap empirically; it does not convert literacy into an evaluation of quantity. This article does not recycle the numeracy paper: it uses it only as a boundary. The fourth boundary is pedagogical documentation. Recording readings or photographing the corner does not, by itself, constitute literacy practice. The fifth boundary is music education. Song and book may coexist in routines; they do not reduce to each other. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) map AI in ECE; Miao and Holmes (2023) set limits for generative AI. Inference: the only AI use coherent with ages 3–6 remains on the side of the adult who organises shared reading, print awareness and the corner—as support for picturebook repertoire preparation or deferred professional feedback—subject to pedagogical validation. It does not enter as an autonomous PEER/CROWD chatbot, a generator that replaces the picturebook or a scorer that declares letters/comprehension fulfilled.

Cho and Yim (2024) reinforce the generator boundary: no significant differences between traditional and AI stories on vocabulary (N = 15; ages 3–6). Inference: prompt-based personalisation does not authorise declaring emergent literacy. Xiao et al. (2025), with 5–8 transfer, show that parent-led affective engagement is not reducible to the AI-led comprehension score. Inference: emergent literacy includes the affective bond of the shared book; it is not exhausted by an agent-guided e-book.

7. Inferential framework: four tests for claiming that emergent literacy exists, not an artefact

The framework that follows is pedagogical inference of this article, anchored in the cases and verified instruments. It is not a new international standard. It distinguishes four tests. If a kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or early childhood school does not pass them, it cannot declare that a dialogic-reading chatbot that asks PEER/CROWD questions, a generator of personalised stories from a prompt, or an app that marks letter naming / decoding / e-book comprehension as “correct/incorrect” constitute emergent literacy.

7.1. Test of situated practice of shared reading, print awareness and writing play, not of the chatbot score. Nan and Tian (2025), Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) and Dong et al. (2024) define the craft as mediated practice around the book. Yuan et al. (2025) and Cheng et al. (2024) estimate language ability or comprehension under chatbot. Inference: evidence of emergent literacy is verified in whether the child practised shared reading, print awareness and writing play in context. If the centre’s “evidence” is a dashboard of correct turns or a letter “correct/incorrect,” the centre has done scoring, not emergent literacy.

7.2. Test of the picturebook, the book corner and print referencing, not of the story generator. NAEYC (2022) situates print-rich environments and shared reading. Miao and Holmes (2023) require pedagogical validation of generative AI. Cho and Yim (2024) show that AI and traditional stories may improve vocabulary equally with no significant differences. Inference: producing a story from a prompt does not demonstrate that mediated shared reading or reiterated print awareness occurred. A PDF may narrate; it does not sign the practice.

7.3. Test of adult mediation and pedagogical observation of literacy, not of the autonomous agent-guided e-book. OECD (2021, 2023) require meaningful interactions and subordinated digitalisation. Xiao et al. (2025) contrast AI-led (comprehension) and parent-led (affective engagement); Zhang et al. (2026) report vocabulary and engagement in domestic AI-DR. Inference: “high comprehension” or “cognitive engagement” may raise a threshold without raising mediation quality in the corner. Pedagogical observation reads print referencing and writing play; the dashboard counts a label.

7.4. Test of category distinction and professional judgement, not of the product catalogue. Emergent literacy ≠ orality/narration, AI literacy, numeracy, documentation or music. Diprossimo and Cain (2025) prevent confusing digital/print medium with the construct of mediation. UNESCO (2021), Miao and Holmes (2023), the European Commission (2022), the U.S. Department of Education (2023), NAEYC (2022) and OECD (2021, 2023) require human oversight, pedagogical validation and not replacing professional judgement. Inference: a centre cannot treat the infant as a chatbot respondent or as a consumer of a generated story. Emergent literacy is not fulfilled by better scoring of agent answers. It is fulfilled by practising shared picturebook reading, print awareness, print referencing and symbolic writing play with adults who mediate in the book corner.

The framework admits the digital when it is subordinated to teacher preparation of picturebook repertoire and to validated professional observation (Diprossimo & Cain, 2025, as digital shared reading subordinated to mediation; Xiao et al., 2025, and Zhang et al., 2026, as subordinated AI-DR, not as declared literacy). It rejects declaring emergent literacy by autonomous PEER/CROWD chatbot, prompt-based story or letter/comprehension scoring (Yuan et al., 2025; Cheng et al., 2024; Cho & Yim, 2024; Miao & Holmes, 2023).

The four tests are read together. Passing only the first—shared reading occurred—without mediation or category distinction is not enough. Passing only the fourth—the centre distinguishes constructs—without situated practice is not enough either.

8. Discussion

Three tensions organise the discussion. The first is between exhibiting a measurement or generation artefact of reading and exercising emergent literacy. It is a finding that SBR chatbots differentiate effects by instructional style and reader profile (Yuan et al., 2025); that the dialogic chatbot raises comprehension mainly among kindergarteners with higher language skills (Cheng et al., 2024); that AI-led may outperform on comprehension while parent-led sustains affective engagement (Xiao et al., 2025; 5–8 transfer); that domestic AI-DR improves bilingual expressive vocabulary (Zhang et al., 2026); and that AI and traditional stories improve vocabulary with no significant differences (Cho & Yim, 2024; N = 15; ages 3–6). It is a framework that emergent literacy at 3–6 is played out in shared reading, print awareness and mediation (Dong et al., 2024; Nan & Tian, 2025; Parpucu & Ezmeci, 2023; Diprossimo & Cain, 2025; NAEYC, 2022). It is not a finding that chatbot, generator or scoring app produce the craft the corner requires. The three artefacts measure, generate or label what engineering knows how to deliver and declare what only mediated practice would authorise.

The second is between automated assessment of comprehension/letters and everyday book pedagogy. Yuan et al. (2025) and Cheng et al. (2024) objectify language ability or comprehension via chatbot; letter-naming apps objectify isolated items. Inference: insisting that the kindergarten “already has emergent literacy” because the model classifies correct answers is inverted pedagogy. An evaluative proxy is made to stand for practice of shared reading, print awareness and writing play. The infant becomes a respondent; the adult, a supervisor of the classifier.

The third is between generated story and integral literacy craft. Miao and Holmes (2023) set generative-AI limits; Nikolopoulou (2025) balances child-centred promises and challenges; Cho and Yim (2024) show lexical equivalence without pedagogical superiority of the AI story. Inference: fragmenting emergent literacy into a PDF produced by prompt and selling it as “literacy with AI” confuses textual product with situated practice. The only AI use coherent with ages 3–6 remains on the side of the adult who organises the corner and observes the relation to print, subject to UNESCO, the European Commission and the U.S. Department of Education. An autonomous chatbot or a generator because the system needs a product is not that use.

Additional pedagogical inference, marked as such: the artefact series—PEER/CROWD chatbot, story generator and letter/comprehension scoring app—shares the same visibility economy. Each produces an output legible for coordination: a turn log, a story, a hit count. OECD (2021) and NAEYC (2022) require, instead, that emergent-literacy development be verified in everyday classroom life. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) show growth of the AI-in-ECE field; that growth does not authorise the equivalence. Miao and Holmes (2023), UNESCO (2021), the European Commission (2022) and the U.S. Department of Education (2023) agree on subordinating AI to professional judgement.

A cross-reading of the cases reinforces the restrictive thesis without inventing effects the sources do not report. Yuan et al. (2025) and Cheng et al. (2024) show that a linguistic or comprehension score can be raised with a chatbot; they do not show that the kindergarten exercised print awareness and writing play. Zhang et al. (2026) show vocabulary and engagement at home with AI-DR; they do not authorise declaring institutional emergent literacy by chatbot. Xiao et al. (2025) show that the parent-led affective bond is not reducible to the AI-led score. Cho and Yim (2024) show that generating a story does not outperform the traditional one on vocabulary in their sample. Dong et al. (2024), Nan and Tian (2025), Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) and Diprossimo and Cain (2025) show that mediated shared reading is the terrain of emergent literacy. The discussion does not deny that a chatbot may improve a score: it denies that that score is the construct. If the centre exhibits a PEER/CROWD log, a prompt-generated picturebook or a letter dashboard, it has documented an artefact; if it can describe with observation who read with whom, what of print was referenced and what writing play occurred, it may begin to speak of emergent literacy (UNESCO, 2021; Miao & Holmes, 2023; European Commission, 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

9. Limits

This review is narrative. It does not apply PRISMA nor estimate primary combined effects. Yuan et al. (2025) validate SBR chatbot and instructional styles (N = 144 + 142), not everyday print-awareness pedagogy in CENDI. Cheng et al. (2024) validate dialogic chatbot and comprehension (N = 148), not a trial of mediated book corner versus autonomous scoring. Xiao et al. (2025) are an RCT N = 67 with a 5–8 sample: transfer marked; they do not equal the exclusive 3–6 band. Zhang et al. (2026) are quasi-experimental N = 108 at home: vocabulary and engagement, not an institutional declaration of emergent literacy. Cho and Yim (2024) are N = 15 with 8 sessions: small sample, no significant between-group differences. Dong et al. (2024) examine dialogic elements and language, not AI as a primary literacy variable. Nan and Tian (2025) and Parpucu and Ezmeci (2023) are syntheses/meta-analyses of shared book reading, not of chatbots. Diprossimo and Cain (2025) contrast print/digital shared reading: mediation, not letter scorer. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) map AI in ECE, not emergent literacy as primary variable. NAEYC, UNESCO and OECD are framework sources. No Latin American AI trials were located that compare adult-mediated shared reading against an autonomous PEER/CROWD chatbot or letter-scoring app in CENDI. The inferences in section 7 are hypotheses of pedagogical category, not implementation evidence.

10. Conclusions

A dialogic-reading chatbot that asks PEER/CROWD questions, a generator of personalised stories from a prompt, or an app that marks letter naming, decoding or e-book comprehension as “correct/incorrect” do not constitute emergent literacy in an early childhood education centre. Verified evidence does not authorise that declaration. Yuan et al. (2025) show instructional-style effects in SBR chatbot (N = 144 typical + 142 poor readers)—language ability, not print-awareness craft. Cheng et al. (2024) show comprehension gains concentrated among kindergarteners with higher language skills (N = 148)—chatbot ≠ adult shared reading. Xiao et al. (2025) contrast AI-led and parent-led in e-book (N = 67; 5–8; transfer)—comprehension versus affective engagement. Zhang et al. (2026) improve bilingual expressive vocabulary with AI-DR at home (N = 108)—not institutional literacy by chatbot. Cho and Yim (2024) find equivalent lexical gains between traditional and AI stories (N = 15; ages 3–6; no significant differences)—generating a story ≠ emergent literacy. By contrast, when emergent literacy exists in early childhood, there is situated practice: human dialogic elements (Dong et al., 2024); challenges and facilitators of shared reading (Nan & Tian, 2025); shared book reading associated with phonological awareness (Parpucu & Ezmeci, 2023); mediation above paper/screen medium (Diprossimo & Cain, 2025); print-rich environments and developmentally appropriate practice (NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021, 2023). Emergent literacy is distinguished from orality/narration, AI literacy, numeracy, pedagogical documentation and music. Current guidelines require human oversight, pedagogical validation and not replacing professional judgement (UNESCO, 2021; Miao & Holmes, 2023; European Commission, 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2023; Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026; Nikolopoulou, 2025).

Where the sources do not measure a kindergarten, this article does not claim it. Where they measure dialogic chatbot, generated story or agent-guided e-book, it does not translate them into pedagogical emergent literacy. Accompanying girls and boys aged three to six in literacy is to exercise practice of shared picturebook reading, print awareness, print referencing, symbolic writing play and adult mediation in the book corner. The rest is chatbot response score, prompt-based story and algorithmic classification of letters or comprehension. It is not emergent literacy in early childhood education, and it must not be presented as what it is not.

Editorial Laboratory of NEXTECH.IA / Ingeniero Mitre.

References

  1. Chen, J. J. (2024). A scoping study on AI affordances in early childhood education: Mapping the global landscape, identifying research gaps, and charting future research directions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 81, 701–740. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.16882
  2. Cheng, X., Yin, L., Lin, C., Shi, Z., Zheng, H., Zhu, L., Liu, X., y Chen, K. (2024). Chatbot dialogic reading boosts comprehension for Chinese kindergarteners with higher language skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 240, 105842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105842
  3. Cho, J., y Yim, D. (2024). The impact of personalized book reading activities using AI-generated stories on vocabulary acquisition in preschool children. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 29(4), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.240041
  4. Diprossimo, L., y Cain, K. (2025). Individual differences in word learning from print and digital shared book reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 260, 106345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2025.106345
  5. Dong, Y., Chow, B. W.-Y., Mo, J., Miao, X., y Zheng, H. (2024). Effects of dialogic reading elements on children’s language development. Journal of Research in Reading, 47(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12447
  6. European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/153756
  7. Ljungcrantz, L. (2026). The interaction of AI and early childhood education. A state-of-the-art review 2020–2024. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54, 3565–3581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02079-3
  8. Miao, F., y Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
  9. NAEYC. (2022). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (4.ª ed.). NAEYC. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/books/dap-fourth-edition
  10. Nan, J., y Tian, Y. (2025). Parent–child shared book reading challenges and facilitators: A systematic review and meta synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1635956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1635956
  11. Nikolopoulou, K. (2025). Child-centered integration of generative AI in early learning: Balancing promises and challenges. AI, Brain and Child. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44436-025-00023-1
  12. OECD. (2021). Starting Strong VI: Supporting meaningful interactions in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en
  13. OECD. (2023). Empowering young children in the digital age (Starting Strong). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en
  14. Parpucu, N., y Ezmeci, F. (2023). The impact of shared book reading on children’s phonological awareness skills: A meta-analysis. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 40(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2245383
  15. Su, J., y Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049
  16. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  17. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
  18. Xiao, F., Zou, E. W., Lin, J., Li, Z., y Yang, D. (2025). Parent-led vs. AI-guided dialogic reading: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in children’s e-book context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 1784–1813. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13615
  19. Yuan, C., Dong, Y., Jin, R., Mo, J., y Zheng, H. (2025). Shared book reading with AI chatbots: Comparison of the effects of instructional style on children’s language abilities between typical and poor readers. Language and Education, 40(1), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2025.2501081
  20. Zhang, D., Albashtawi, A. H., y Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2026). AI-assisted dialogic reading at home: Enhancing bilingual expressive vocabulary and engagement among Chinese pre-schoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 196(5-6), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2026.2667895