Investigating the Relationship Between Preschool Teachers' Knowledge and Practice Using Two Measures of Teacher Knowledge

• In Event: 41.056 - Examining the Relationship Between Teachers' Language and Literacy Knowledge and Practice in Early Childhood Classrooms

Abstract

Few studies have been able to effectively link preschool educators’ knowledge about language and literacy to their enacted practice (Schachter et al., 2016). This study investigates the benefits of measuring preschool teachers’ knowledge in two ways: through a traditional survey and stimulated recall interviews. In addition, it seeks to understand how these two approaches are linked to the quality of enacted practice.

Participants were ten female preschool educators (80% White, 20% Latina/Hispanic). Seventy-five percent had more than ten years of experience.

Educators participated in two stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) using 20 minutes of their own practice. Interviews were videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Educators also completed a knowledge survey, responding to statements from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) related to Eliciting Language Interactions (ELI), Modeling Language (ML), and Support for Vocabulary Development (SVD). Overall scores could range from 1 (low knowledge) to 5 (high knowledge)(Chronbach’s α = .90).

The quality of educators’ language interactions with children was coded using the Preschool Language Environment Assessment Tool (PLEAT). One hour of video was coded; five-minute segments were rated 1 (“weak”) to 5 (“strong”) on 17 indicators related to ELI, ML, and SVD (see above). Overall scores could range from 1 to 5 (IRR = 84%).

Educators scored highly on the paper-pencil measure, scoring 4.29, 4.17, 4.52, and 4.33 of a possible 5 on ELI, ML, SVD, and the overall scale, respectively. In contrast, the quality of educators’ practice was relatively low, with overall PLEAT scores below “moderate” (2.65 on average; ELI = 3.91, ML=2.43, and SVD=2.43). There was no relationship between educators’ scores on the paper-pencil measure and the quality of their language interaction practices.

Results from the SRIs suggest that most educators’ possess deep knowledge about the children with whom they work and many discussed language interactions as opportunities for developing socioemotional competencies rather than language per se. Few of the educators discussed any formal knowledge that they draw upon when making decisions about their practice, but several reported past work-related experiences that generally inform their interactions. There did not seem to be an obvious relationship between educators’ performance on the paper-pencil knowledge measure and the knowledge they reported using during the SRI.

Taken together, findings suggest that although teachers may possess the research-based knowledge measured by a paper-pencil measure, they may not be using this knowledge in all domains in their language interactions with children. Rather, they seem to be drawing on other sources of knowledge (e.g., the children in their setting) to inform language interactions, though evidence from the quality ratings of enacted practice suggest this knowledge may not be used effectively to support language development in these preschool settings.

Findings from this study may be useful to professional development providers, preservice educators, and coaches, and researchers about the types of knowledge preschool educators seem to using to make decisions in their language practices with children and what different measurement techniques offer.

Authors

• Julie Dwyer, Boston University

• Rachel E. Schachter, University of Nebraska

• Alessandra Ward-Goldberg, Boston University