Comparing Use of Language-Supportive Strategies During Shared Reading Across Classrooms with Varying Child Language Gains

• In Event: Language as a Learning Tool: Teacher Talk in Early Math and Literacy

Abstract

Background and Purpose
Early language skills are foundational for later academic success (Blesses et al., 2016), yet language-supportive instruction in early childhood (EC) classrooms remains suboptimal (Deshmukh et al., 2019). Shared book reading (SBR) is a key instructional practice that fosters language development through extratextual talk—conversations that extend beyond the book text (Mol et al., 2008). During this talk, teachers use comments and questions to give or seek information and respond to children’s ideas (Barnes et al., 2017; Deshmukh et al., 2022), enabling children to hear and use language in ways linked to learning (Milburn et al., 2014). The content of these interactions is also important, as is linked to language development (Barnes et al., 2017).

Teachers may also scaffold children’s responses using questions or comments that guide understanding within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)—either simplifying (downward scaffolds) or extending (upward scaffolds) learning (Vygotsky, 1986; Deshmukh et al., 2022). However, few studies have examined comments, questions, scaffolding, and talk content together. This study addresses this gap by exploring how these strategies differ in classrooms with higher vs. lower language gains. We asked:
What is the nature and content of teachers’ extratextual comments and questions, and do they differ between higher language gains classrooms (HLGC) and lower language gains classrooms (LLGC)?
How do teachers scaffold during SBR, and does this differ between HLGC and LLGC?

Theoretical Framework
Guided by sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1986), we view language as a tool for co-constructing meaning. In SBR, extratextual talk—through comments, questions, and scaffolding—supports learning by engaging children within their ZPD. Teachers build on children’s ideas using richer syntax and vocabulary, especially for those needing greater support, to promote language development.

Data Collection
We analyzed data from 48 EC classrooms (23 HLGC, 25 LLGC) selected from a larger study (N = 485; Author) based on fall-to-spring gains on the CELF-P2 assessment. One fall SBR session per classroom was randomly selected, as SBR occurred more consistently in fall.
Teacher–child talk was transcribed using SALT (Miller et al., 2019) and coded for comments, questions, scaffolding, and content using established frameworks (Barnes et al., 2017; Deshmukh et al., 2019, 2022). Codes captured type, function (informative or responsive), and scaffolding type (upward or downward). Coding reliability was ensured through training, double coding, and high interrater agreement.

Data Analysis
Due to non-normal distributions, we used Mann-Whitney U tests and controlled for session length (LLGC sessions were longer).

Results
Teachers used more comments (M = 80) than questions (M = 36), with most being informative. Talk content focused on conceptual ideas and behavior, with little emphasis on vocabulary. HLGC teachers used more questions repeating children’s ideas/book text, while LLGC teachers gave more non-corresponding comments. Scaffolding was limited (~9 instances-per-session), evenly split between upward and downward, with no significant group differences.

Scholarly Significance
This study offers a comprehensive analysis of how EC teachers use language-supportive strategies—comments, questions, content, and scaffolding—during SBR, unlike prior research that examines these elements separately. It also introduces a practical coding tool for improving reflective teaching and discourse analysis.

Authors

• Jamlick Bosire, University of Missouri

• Hyejin Kim, The Ohio State University

• Rachel E. Schachter, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Clariebelle Gabas, University of Nebraska - Lincoln