How Are Preschool Educators Supporting Language Development During Read-Alouds?

• In Event: Access to Rigorous Literacy Instruction in Early Childhood Education: Unpacking Instructional Moves

Abstract

A wide body of literature indicates that certain types of language interactions between children and adults in the context of storybook reading effectively increase children’s language outcomes (e.g., Biemiller & Boote, 2006). Findings are mixed as to whether these types of interactions are actually occurring during typical preschool read alouds (e.g., Dickinson et al., 2003; Dickinson et al., 2013). Further, there is little evidence regarding how preschool educators in preschool settings that differ by sector (family day care vs. center-based care) and demographics (serving high- or low-income populations) may be making use of read alouds to support children’s language learning. This study investigates these issues of quality and access by analyzing the quality of the language environment during shared book reading in 16 preschool settings.

Participants were sixteen lead educators in 6 family day care (hereafter called home-based educators) and 10 center-based licensed settings working in high- (> $80,000 median household income) or low-income (< $60,000) communities near a large Northeastern city. Ten educators held a bachelor’s or higher and 13 were native English speakers.

Observational videos from each setting were coded in five-minute increments (n = 469 segments) using the Preschool Language Environment Assessment Tool (PLEAT), a tool designed to measure the quality of the language environment in home- and center-based preschool settings (see Table 1).

Each five-minute segment was coded for every indicator (on a Likert scale from 1 (Weak) to 5 (Strong)) and activity setting (e.g., read aloud). This analysis focuses on all segments coded as “Read Aloud”. Weighted Cohen’s Kappa (Tri-diagonal) on 12% of data approached the substantial range (.60)(Landis & Koch, 1977). Percent agreement exact or within 1 was acceptable for a new measure (82%).

Results indicate that read alouds occurred in 11% of coded segments. Six educators did not engage in any read alouds. When educators did read aloud, they scored highest on ELI (3.36 out of 5 (see Table 2)), followed by LM (2.44), and SFV (2.40).

One of the most important findings of the study was that, in contrast to previous studies suggesting that home-based settings are of lower global quality (e.g., Fuller et al., 2004), home-based educators in high-income communities scored similarly to center-based educators in both high-and low-income communities on LM and SFV and outperformed center-based educators in low-income communities on ELI.

Significant differences that did exist in the quality of the language environment between settings seemed to be more related to income level of the community than whether the setting was a home-or center-based setting, suggesting that children are having inequitable read aloud experiences based on the demographics in their community. That said, on average, preschool educators in this study were not providing an overall rich language environment during read alouds—scoring near or below average on ELI, LM, and SFV. Findings can be used to create professional development for all educators focusing on providing support for language development during read alouds—with a specific emphasis on this practice with educators working in communities serving low-income populations.

Author

• Julie Dwyer, Boston University