Exploring Unique Contributions of Teachers’ Academic Language to Preschoolers and Kindergarteners' Vocabulary Learning

• In Event: Poster Session 11
  In Poster Session: PS 11 Topic - Language, Communication

Abstract

Rationale
Developing child language, especially academic language (AL), is an essential goal in early childhood education. As children enter school, they will experience more instructional interactions associated with AL features (Schleppegrell, 2004), specifically complex syntax, sophisticated vocabulary, and decontextualized language (Barnes et al., 2016). Young children need experiences with these more challenging language features in order to enter and engage in classroom conversations that may benefit their vocabulary development (Authors et al., 2020). However, we know less about teachers’ AL or whether these key features are related when interacting with children. Further, even though research has shown the connection between each AL feature separately to child vocabulary growth, no research has considered all three features together. This is an important consideration as it is unclear whether the challenging content or the linguistic structures of teachers’ talk is driving the association with child vocabulary growth.

To explore, we address the following questions:

Q1. How are teachers’ complex syntax, sophisticated vocabulary, and decontextualized
language correlated in the fall and spring?

Q2. How are AL features in spring predictive of child vocabulary in spring, net of the effects of other covariates?


Method
Data from prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers’ (N=33; 58% white and 42% minority) and children (N= 488) in high-needs public schools were analyzed. These data are from a larger intervention study in which teachers were trained to implement strategies to increase children’s language development. Language samples were extracted from three instructional settings across the school day in the fall and spring, transcribed, and parsed into communication units (C-unit; Loban, 1976). Subordination Index, measure of clausal density, (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2012) and Sophisticated Vocabulary (Dickinson & Porsche, 2011) were calculated. Decontextualized Language was coded based on prior research (Authors et al., 2012).

Results
Q1. Analyses of relationships between teachers’ aggregate AL features in the fall and spring revealed no correlations in the fall (p<.005, for all); however, in the spring there was a significant correlation between teachers’ sophisticated vocabulary and decontextualized language (r=.460, p=.017). Conversely, a negative relationship emerged between teachers’ complex syntax and decontextualized language (r=-.414, p=.017).

Q2. Multilevel linear regression was used to explore the link between teachers’ syntax, decontextualized language, and sophisticated vocabulary at level 2 and children’s vocabulary (i.e., Spring PPVT score) at level 1. Results revealed that teacher spring syntax uniquely predicted children’s vocabulary learning (B=8.30, p=.017), accounting for teachers’ sophisticated vocabulary (B = 34.34, p = .488) and decontextualized language rate (B=-.655, p=.35).

Discussion
Results indicate that teachers may be aware of increased difficulty in words and content as the school year progresses, prompting teachers, on the one hand, to talk more about concepts and words, but, on the other, to moderate complexity of their syntax. Increased frequency of decontextualized talk may not indicate increased depth. Thus, certain DL types may have differing levels of complexity. The unique relation that emerged between complex syntax and child vocabulary learning may indicate that children are harnessing the structural characteristics, more than the content, of language to learn vocabulary.

Authors

• JeanMarie Farrow, Fairleigh Dickinson University
  Presenting Author

• Barbara A. Wasik, Temple University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Annemarie H Hindman, Temple University
  Non-Presenting Author