Constructivism emerged from Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, which conceptualises learning as an active, individually driven process of meaning construction rather than the passive reception of information [7]. Learners are viewed as active meaning-makers who develop knowledge by engaging with their environment and reorganising existing cognitive structures in light of new experience. Accordingly, instruction should recognise learners’ existing knowledge and individual differences and provide contextualised, exploratory learning opportunities [8][9].

Piaget explained cognitive development as the ongoing adaptation of cognitive schemas through assimilation, in which new experiences are incorporated into existing schemas, and accommodation, in which schemas are modified in response to new experiences [7]. Development thus proceeds through a sequence of qualitatively distinct stages, with children’s comprehension constrained and shaped by the cognitive structures available at each stage. Bruner’s spiral curriculum extended this individually oriented view of cognitive development by proposing that key ideas should be revisited at increasing levels of complexity as learners’ cognitive capacities mature [10].

While Piaget’s theory foregrounds the individual learner’s internal cognitive reorganisation, it offers a comparatively limited account of how social interaction and cultural context shape this process—an issue addressed more directly by sociocultural theory in Section 2.3.

Constructivism, understood here in its Piagetian form, offers an important framework for explaining young children’s comprehension development by viewing comprehension as an active process of meaning construction rather than the passive reception of external information [11][12]. Children develop understanding by continuously adapting their cognitive schemas through assimilation and accommodation when encountering new objects, events, and situations [13][14]. This process helps explain the gradual and stage-related development of comprehension abilities, and also accounts for the diversity of children’s ideas and interpretations as they actively make sense of new evidence and experiences [15][16].

In educational practice, this perspective supports a child-centred approach that encourages children to construct meaning through independent exploration, experimentation, questioning, and multiple forms of expression [17][18]. Activities such as puzzles, drawing, and open-ended play can provide meaningful contexts in which children interpret narrative content, language, and plot development through their own actions on materials and ideas [19]. Empirical evidence specifically linking such exploratory, child-directed play to narrative comprehension outcomes—rather than vocabulary or expressive language alone—remains relatively limited; however, at least one study employing open-ended dramatic play found measurable gains in children’s story comprehension and inferential reasoning about characters’ goals and emotions [20]. Teachers serve primarily as facilitators who design developmentally appropriate environments and materials, allowing children room to discover meaning through their own cognitive activity rather than direct instruction [18][21]. However, the application of Piagetian constructivist principles requires balance. An emphasis on individual discovery may underestimate the role that guided social interaction plays in extending children’s comprehension beyond what independent exploration alone can achieve—a limitation that sociocultural theory addresses directly (see Section 2.3). Excessive reliance on autonomous discovery may also reduce opportunities for systematic instruction, and conventional standardised assessments may not fully capture the depth of children’s meaning construction [22][23].

In the late 1950s, Noam Chomsky challenged behaviorist accounts of language with his concept of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), marking the rise of the generative grammar movement and profoundly reshaping the fields of linguistics and developmental psychology [24]. Chomsky argued that children acquire language rapidly despite input that is often limited and incomplete, precisely because they are innately endowed with a mental mechanism dedicated to language learning [25]. This generative account rests on three interlocking assumptions: the LAD, an innate structure enabling children to infer grammatical rules from the language they hear; Universal Grammar (UG), a set of underlying grammatical principles common to all human languages; and the Poverty of the Stimulus argument, which holds that fragmentary and insufficient input alone cannot account for children’s success in acquiring language [26][27].

In direct contrast to Chomsky’s nativism, Skinner’s behaviorist account rejects the notion of an innate language-specific mechanism, arguing instead that language is learned through imitation, reinforcement, and operant conditioning [28]. On this view, children acquire linguistic rules by listening to adult input, repeatedly attempting and imitating speech, and receiving reinforcing feedback from their environment [29]. Whereas the generative account locates the source of language in internal biological endowment, the behaviorist account locates it entirely in external environmental contingencies.

Occupying a middle ground between these two positions, Bruner’s interactionist account emphasises that language is acquired neither through innate mechanisms alone nor through reinforcement alone, but through structured social interaction. Children acquire language by participating in conventionalised dialogic routines with caregivers—supported by a Language Acquisition Support System (LASS)—and through scaffolding, whereby adults calibrate their linguistic input to the child’s current level of competence [30][31]. This account thus reframes language acquisition as a fundamentally social and communicative achievement, rather than as either a purely biological unfolding or a purely conditioned response.

Although none of these theorists elaborated a unified developmental timeline, subsequent research has generally divided children’s language development into the following stages: the pre-linguistic stage (0 - 12 months), characterized by sound imitation and responsiveness to intonation; the one-word stage (12 - 18 months), during which children begin to convey meaning through single words; the telegraphic speech stage (18 - 30 months), marked by the emergence of basic grammatical structures within phrases; and the systematic language stage (after 30 months), in which syntax becomes increasingly complex and rule-governed language use is progressively established [32][33].

From a generative perspective, comprehension develops as children internalise grammatical structures that allow them to process semantics and syntax, thereby achieving deeper levels of cognitive processing [34]. Language here functions as a biologically-endowed medium through which meaning-construction and logical reasoning abilities progressively unfold, largely independent of the specific quality of environmental input. However, because this account locates the primary mechanism within innate biology, it tends to downplay the role of social interaction and context in shaping comprehension [35]; empirical support for a universal grammatical structure across languages remains contested, and the framework offers limited explanatory power for individual differences, such as language impairment [36].

From a behaviorist perspective, comprehension is instead explained as a product of accumulated linguistic experience: repeated exposure and reinforced practice allow children to progressively master vocabulary and sentence structures, which in turn support comprehension of everyday communicative contexts [29]. Its emphasis on observable input-output patterns provides a straightforward account of early vocabulary growth and rote language routines. Yet this account struggles to explain the rapid emergence of novel, grammatically well-formed utterances that children have never directly heard or been reinforced for producing, and by focusing narrowly on external stimuli, it underestimates children’s active, rule-generating cognitive contributions to comprehension development.

From an interactionist perspective, comprehension is not merely a byproduct of mastering linguistic structure or of reinforced practice, but is actively co-constructed through interaction: children learn to question, explain, reason, and narrate through joint engagement with more competent others [37]. This account foregrounds the social and communicative functions of language as drivers of comprehension development, and correspondingly emphasises structured formats and scaffolding as key mechanisms. Its main limitation lies in the relatively abstract nature of constructs such as LASS, which remain difficult to operationalise empirically, and in a degree of underspecification regarding the internal cognitive mechanisms by which children convert interactive experience into comprehension gains.

Taken together, these three accounts converge in treating language as a core tool for cognitive and comprehension development in young children [38], while diverging sharply in their explanation of its underlying mechanism—innate structure, environmental reinforcement, or social interaction, respectively. In practice, this suggests that educators should provide rich linguistic input and meaningful interactive opportunities—such as storytelling, role-play, and question-and-answer activities. Dialogic storytelling techniques, in particular, have been shown to improve preschoolers’ narrative comprehension and their ability to answer inferential questions about story events, distinct from their effects on expressive vocabulary size [39][40].

This review treats sociocultural theory as a distinct framework rather than a “social” variant of constructivism. Whereas Piagetian constructivism (Section 2.1) emphasises an “individual-to-social” trajectory driven by internal cognitive reorganisation, Vygotsky’s theory reverses this emphasis, positing that higher-order cognitive functions originate in social interaction and are only subsequently internalised—a “social-to-individual” trajectory that marks the key point of divergence between the two perspectives [41][42].

In the 1920s, the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky proposed Sociocultural Theory, emphasizing the critical role of social interaction and cultural context in individual cognitive development [42]. In contrast to Piaget’s emphasis on individual subjective construction, Vygotsky maintained that cognitive development first occurs at the social level—under the guidance of others—before being gradually internalized as an individual psychological process, highlighting a developmental trajectory that proceeds “from the social to the individual” [43]. Its core tenets comprise the following: the social origin of higher psychological functions—Vygotsky argued that higher psychological functions such as language, logic, and memory originate in social interaction and are acquired by children through communication with adults or more experienced peers; tool and symbol mediation—language is regarded as the most important psychological tool, serving as the bridge between social interaction and cognitive development [44]; and internalization—through repeated interaction and communication, external social exchanges are gradually transformed into internal cognitive processes and modes of understanding within the individual.

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) constitutes a central concept within Vygotsky’s theory: it refers to the range of tasks that a child cannot yet accomplish independently but can complete with guidance from an adult or a more capable peer, lying between the child’s actual developmental level—that which can be achieved independently—and potential developmental level—that which can be achieved with support [45]. Effective instruction should target the ZPD, promoting deeper comprehension and cognitive development by providing appropriate challenges and scaffolding [46].

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes that cognitive development is a socially constructed process in which language, culture, and social interaction play a determining role [47]. From this perspective, comprehension in young children does not form in isolation but rather results from interaction with more experienced others—such as adults, teachers, or peers—and is gradually internalized through the mediation of sociocultural tools [48]. The concept of the ZPD indicates that children’s potential developmental capacity can be stimulated through appropriate social interaction and support: adults employ scaffolding strategies such as guided questioning, moderate prompting, and modeling to help children progressively shift from reliance on external regulation to self-regulation, and from dependence on external support to the independent construction of comprehension [49]. Language is regarded as the core tool of cognitive development—through linguistic exchange with adults or peers, children not only acquire knowledge but also learn how to organize thought, express viewpoints, and understand others, thereby achieving the construction of meaning [50]. Activities such as picture-book reading, role-play, and group discussion represent typical instructional approaches that promote comprehension through sociocultural interaction [51]. Moreover, sociocultural context profoundly influences both the content and manner of children’s comprehension, as educational values, modes of communication, and styles of linguistic expression across different cultural backgrounds shape how children interpret information, engage in learning, and express their own understanding.

Building on these insights, sociocultural theory offers important guidance for instructional practice: teachers should cultivate collaborative and supportive interactive environments through questioning, prompting, and feedback, attend to children’s cultural backgrounds and social experiences, and provide instructional support appropriate to their developmental stage. Dialogic reading interventions, in which adults pose open-ended questions and expand on children’s responses during shared book reading, have demonstrated significant effects on preschoolers’ story comprehension and inferential understanding, as measured by post-reading comprehension questions—effects that are distinguishable from, though often co-occurring with, gains in expressive vocabulary [52][53]. At the same time, the theory has certain limitations: it remains relatively macro-level and abstract, lacking concrete operationalizable classroom strategies; it may overemphasize external support while underestimating children’s capacity for autonomous learning; and it offers limited explanation for individual differences in children’s responses to similar social interactions. Therefore, applying sociocultural theory to comprehension instruction requires flexible adaptation in light of specific instructional contexts and individual differences among children.

Schema theory was first proposed by Frederic Bartlett in 1932 and was further systematized in the 1970s by scholars such as David Rumelhart. This theory emphasizes that comprehension is an actively constructive process in which individuals process and interpret new information based on existing knowledge structures, namely “schemas” [54]. A schema refers to a mental framework or cognitive structure formed through past experience, which organizes knowledge about objects, events, or situations [55]. “Schema activation” occurs when the brain automatically retrieves and applies relevant schemas to interpret new information; conversely, when new information cannot be accommodated by existing schemas, schema adjustment and reconstruction occur through two mechanisms: assimilation (incorporating new information into existing schemas) and accommodation (modifying existing schemas to fit new information) [56]. An individual’s prior knowledge determines how new information is interpreted: comprehension proceeds more smoothly when content aligns with children’s existing schemas, whereas unfamiliar content requires teachers to provide sufficient background knowledge to facilitate schema construction [57].

Information processing theory emerged in the 1950s, inspired by developments in computer science, with representative scholars including Atkinson and Shiffrin and Alan Baddeley. This theory draws an analogy between human cognitive processes and computer systems, emphasizing the entire process by which the brain receives, encodes, stores, processes, and retrieves information [58]. Its core concepts include: sensory registers, through which information first enters via sensory channels and remains only briefly; short-term/working memory, where information is temporarily stored and processed within a limited capacity; long-term memory, into which effectively encoded and rehearsed information can be transferred for long-term retention; and control processes, including strategies such as attention, rehearsal, encoding, and retrieval, which regulate the flow of information across these stages [59]. In the comprehension process, attention determines which information is received, working memory temporarily processes it, encoding strategies influence whether information is transferred to long-term memory, and retrieval serves as the critical step in recalling relevant knowledge.

Although the two theories differ in focus—schema theory concerns how existing knowledge structures endow new information with meaning, whereas information processing theory concerns the specific mechanisms by which information flows, is stored, and is retrieved—together they constitute the “cognitive processing perspective.” Both theories emphasize that comprehension is an active process built upon individuals’ existing cognitive resources, whether knowledge structures or processing capacities, rather than a passive reception of information.

From the perspective of schema theory, young children’s comprehension of external information is essentially a process of interaction between new information and existing schemas. As children accumulate experience, they gradually establish cognitive schemas concerning people, events, and objects, which they draw upon to interpret new language, stories, or situations. This mechanism is particularly evident in picture book reading, where children rely on life experience and existing schemas to comprehend plotlines, characters’ behavior, and even to infer story outcomes [60]. When content exceeds children’s existing schematic range, teachers can provide background explanations, illustrate meanings through images, or connect new content to prior experience—for instance, activating relevant schemas through questioning before reading (e.g., “Have you ever been to a hospital? What does a doctor do?”)—thereby facilitating schema construction and comprehension [61].

From the perspective of information processing theory, young children’s comprehension involves multiple cognitive mechanisms, including attention, memory, encoding, and retrieval. Children selectively focus on meaningful content via the attentional system, with attentional concentration directly affecting comprehension efficiency; because preschoolers’ attention spans are still developing, multisensory stimuli help capture their attention and support subsequent processing [62].

Preschool children’s working-memory capacity is markedly smaller than that of older children and adults, and continues to develop across early childhood [63]. Given this constrained capacity, cognitive load during comprehension is shaped jointly by task demands, language complexity, and prior knowledge. Tasks that require children to track multiple story elements, hold several pieces of information in mind simultaneously, or follow non-sequential event structures place greater demands on limited working-memory resources. Similarly, language that includes long or syntactically complex sentences, embedded clauses, or unfamiliar vocabulary requires children to sustain partial linguistic input in memory while continuing to process incoming information, which is more demanding for preschoolers than for older learners given their narrower memory span [64]. By contrast, prior knowledge can help offset this load: when new content connects readily to children’s existing schemas, less working-memory capacity is needed for basic comprehension, leaving more cognitive resources available for deeper processing such as inference-making [65]. Building on this, brief, rhythmic, and repetitive language structures help prevent cognitive overload precisely because they reduce the amount of information children must hold and process concurrently, keeping task demands within the bounds of their still-developing working-memory capacity. The depth of comprehension further depends on whether information is successfully encoded into long-term memory and connected with existing knowledge, with repeated presentation and activation of prior experience aiding this integration. As metacognitive abilities develop, children become increasingly capable of monitoring their own comprehension, which teachers can support through questioning, guided retelling, and encouragement of verbal expression. Taken together, schema theory explains the mechanism by which children construct meaning by “interpreting the unknown through the known,” while information processing theory reveals the specific pathways through which information flows, is processed, and is stored—together illuminating, from complementary angles, the cognitive processes underlying comprehension development in young children.

Building on these explanatory insights, the cognitive processing perspective carries important educational implications: schema theory supports connecting new content to children’s existing experiences through pre-reading activation and interdisciplinary integration, while information processing theory emphasizes managing information volume and pace through multimodal teaching, repetition, and structured retelling to avoid cognitive overload. At the same time, both theories present notable limitations: schema theory’s abstract and difficult-to-measure concept of “schema” may overlook creativity and critical thinking, and makes it hard to distinguish schema deficits from limitations in cognitive ability itself; information processing theory, meanwhile, overemphasizes rational, mechanistic processing while neglecting social, cultural, and emotional factors, and offers limited explanatory power for nonverbal or intuitive comprehension. Therefore, despite providing relatively clear internal mechanisms and actionable intervention strategies, the cognitive processing perspective should be integrated with sociocultural and constructivist theories to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of comprehension development in young children.

The five theories discussed above illuminate the underlying mechanisms of young children’s comprehension development from distinct perspectives. Although each theory maintains a unique focus, they collectively exhibit a complementary and mutually reinforcing relationship. To present the core tenets of each theory and their respective contributions to comprehension development research more clearly, these are summarized in Table 1 below.

As shown inTable 1, although the five theories differ in emphasis—ranging from the agency underlying knowledge construction and the foundational role of language input, to the mediating function of social interaction and the mechanistic nature of cognitive processing—they are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they jointly constitute a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding young children’s comprehension development, thereby providing multidimensional theoretical support for educational practice.

Table 1. Comparison of theoretical perspectives on children’s comprehension development: core focus, contributions, and limitations.

While the five theories reviewed above emphasize distinct dimensions, they do not function independently in actual teaching contexts but instead interact dynamically across different stages of the same activity. In shared book reading, for instance, schema activation, language input, social scaffolding, and cognitive load management are not parallel, discrete strategies but components of an integrated, sequentially linked process: schema activation reduces the processing burden for language input, social scaffolding calibrates linguistic complexity in real time to align with children’s working memory capacity, and this process culminates in the internalization of social interaction into individual cognition via guided retelling.

This dynamic interplay among theories indicates that effective comprehension instruction cannot rely on any single theoretical lens; rather, it requires teachers to draw flexibly on multiple perspectives simultaneously, translating their combined insights into concrete instructional strategies suited to real classroom conditions.

Guided by theoretical perspectives such as schema theory, information processing theory, constructivist theory, language acquisition theory, and sociocultural theory, instructional approaches to fostering young children’s comprehension have become increasingly diversified. These theories collectively support establishing instructional philosophies, setting pedagogical objectives, and organizing teaching activities that advance child-centered comprehension instruction aligned with children’s cognitive and developmental characteristics. Teachers should translate this theoretical guidance into concrete instructional behaviors and classroom designs, flexibly employing a range of strategies to accommodate children’s varying comprehension styles and developmental needs, thereby genuinely enhancing instructional effectiveness.

However, the effective deployment of diversified strategies must ultimately be grounded in an understanding of children’s individual and cultural differences. Sociocultural theory emphasizes the differences among children in terms of cultural experience, highlighting that comprehension development does not follow a single, uniform standard. Teachers need to attend to each child’s distinctive performance across different dimensions and implement differentiated instruction accordingly, using diverse channels of expression and perception—such as picture-book reading, storytelling, role-play, drawing, and games—to promote individualized development.

Contemporary education also stresses cultural diversity, recognizing that comprehension is shaped by sociocultural context; teachers should utilize culturally representative learning resources and create diverse contextual settings to help children construct cognitive frameworks of understanding, respect, and inclusiveness in cross-cultural environments, thereby broadening their global perspective and socio-emotional competence to adapt more effectively to a pluralistic society and promote holistic development.