The quality of universal language supporting provision in maintained nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England: Identifying strengths and areas for development

Abstract

Background: Oral language competence provides children with an essential foundation for academic achievement and emotional well-being, yet many children enter school with delayed language and those living in economically disadvantaged areas are at disproportionate risk of experiencing language difficulties. A tiered system, offering high-quality language teaching for all children in early years classrooms, is widely acknowledged as an appropriate means of supporting language learning need. An understanding of the current quality of language supporting practices in English early years settings is essential to inform teaching practice and professional development, but evidence is limited. Methods: This study employed the Communication Supporting Classroom Observation tool in 39 nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England to identify strengths of practice and key areas for development. Results: Observations revealed well-equipped physical learning environments and responsive teaching practices, but few structured opportunities for language learning and development. Variation in quality was observed across the nursery session. Conclusions: Findings suggest a need for adaptive professional development programmes supporting the more consistent use of structured language learning opportunities, the enhanced use of interaction promoting strategies and the provision of more complex and contingent language models. Further investigation of language supporting practice at a fine-grained level is desirable.

Keywords

oral language early years education social disadvantage language learning environments speech language and communication needs quality first teaching nursery classrooms

I Introduction

Well-developed oral language provides a foundation for academic achievement (Beitchman et al., 1996), predicts reading and writing success (Pace et al., 2019; Roulstone et al., 2011) and supports learning across the curriculum (Oracy APPG, 2021). Oral language competence is also associated with healthy social and emotional outcomes both at school (Cohen and Mendez, 2009) and in adulthood (Law et al., 2013). Despite its importance, many children entering school have delayed language, with those in economically disadvantaged areas experiencing disproportionate delays compared with their peers in more affluent areas (Law et al., 2011). This uneven distribution may have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic (Oracy APPG, 2021), making effective oral language support a pressing priority.

Children's language development is influenced by their home and school language learning environments (Hoff, 2006) and language trajectories are particularly malleable in early childhood (Bornstein et al., 2016). Thus, alongside family interventions, a graduated approach offering high-quality language learning environments to all children in early years educational settings as the first tier in addressing language learning needs is widely supported (Bercow, 2008; Ebbels et al., 2019). Such provision should enhance all children's language development (Schmerse et al., 2018) and facilitate the equitable and accurate identification of those requiring additional language support (Dockrell et al., 2012). As educational settings in disadvantaged areas are likely to serve a higher proportion of children with language difficulties, high-quality provision in these settings should be prioritised.

Understanding the quality of language provision in early years education settings is essential to the effective operation of the graduated approach. Through this understanding, strengths of practice can be identified, and the professional development (PD) needs of educators (e.g. teachers, teaching assistants and early years practitioners) ascertained, so that they can be appropriately supported to optimise language supporting provision in their settings. However, little is known about the quality of universal language provision for English pre-schoolers in socially disadvantaged areas as, while studies have documented the general quality of educational provision (Mathers and Smees, 2014; Melhuish and Gardiner, 2019), few have adopted a specific language focus. Furthermore, few studies have examined variation in quality during sessions, something which can have implications for how provision is structured and observed. This study aims to address these gaps by documenting the nature of language provision in nursery classrooms in disadvantaged areas of England across the course of a three-hour session.

1 Early childhood education in England

In England, primary education typically commences in the September following a child's fourth birthday. Prior to this, parents in England can select from a range of non-compulsory, early childhood education settings. Maintained settings are funded and controlled by local education authorities and include stand-alone nursery schools and nursery classes attached to maintained primary schools. Nursery classes can also be attached to academised schools which receive funding from central government and are run by academy trusts. Other settings, including day nurseries and playgroups, operate within the private/voluntary/independent (PVI) sector. Educator qualifications in England have nine levels and maintained and academised settings must be led by a teacher qualified at level 6 (the equivalent of degree level), whereas PVI settings require managers to hold level 3 qualifications (equivalent to advanced level qualifications typically required for entry to university). Starting ages vary, but 94% of three- and four-year-old children are registered for the annual entitlement to government funded early education (National Statistics, 2023), a rate which reflects the potential for universal provision to influence child outcomes across the population. Children from disadvantaged areas are more likely to attend maintained settings than their more affluent peers (Gambaro et al., 2015) and academisation was intended to support the attainment of pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Hutchings and Francis, 2018), thus an understanding of practices to support language development in these settings is particularly desirable.

2 High-quality language supporting provision

To develop language competence, children need repeated exposure to high-quality, conceptually challenging language input in the context of responsive interactions with more knowledgeable conversational partners (Chapman, 2000; Justice, 2004). Thus, language supporting provision encourages children's language development across three interconnected dimensions – the interactive, the linguistic and the conceptual (Rowe and Snow, 2020).

Children's language growth is supported by rich language models. Specifically, educator language use has been associated with children's complex language use (Justice et al., 2013), and lexical (McLeod et al., 2019) and syntactic (Huttenlocher et al., 2002) development. Educators can model language by providing children with labels, making comments, expanding children's utterances (Justice et al., 2018) and using varied and sophisticated vocabulary (McLeod et al., 2019).

As well as supporting the breadth of children's vocabulary through language modelling, educators can support the depth of children's word knowledge with vocabulary supporting strategies such as using gesture and objects (Justice, 2004), using synonyms, explaining word meanings and making links to children's experiences (McLeod et al., 2019). Word learning is likely to increase when support is offered repeatedly across contexts (Justice, 2004). Word learning is an important element of broader conceptual development, which can be supported through opportunities to problem solve, the encouragement of higher order thinking and the use of complex language (Bulotsky Shearer et al., 2020; Hamre, 2014). Such cognitive facilitation has been associated with language gains (Barnes et al., 2017; Hamre, 2014) and the use of abstract and decontextualised language by teachers supports these features in child language (Lohse et al., 2022; Tompkins et al., 2013).

Linguistic and conceptual information is likely to be more impactful on children's language when it is offered responsively (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002; Hindman et al., 2022), particularly for less verbal children (Gosse et al., 2014) and those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Feldman, 2019). Extended back-and-forth interactions support this contingency (Cabell et al., 2015; Hamre, 2014), allowing educators to tailor their feedback to offer appropriate linguistic and conceptual support in response to children's contributions (Justice et al., 2018). Such interactions have been associated with improved language outcomes (Duncan et al., 2022; Romeo et al., 2018), thus educators in high-quality classrooms will seek to initiate and sustain frequent rich and supportive adult-child conversations in order to maximise opportunities to scaffold children's language development.

Educators can seek to establish these rich interactions by utilising ‘child-oriented strategies’ (e.g. making eye contact) to gain children's interest and attention (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002), ‘interaction promoting’ strategies (e.g. open questions) to elicit child speech (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002) and ‘language developing’ strategies (e.g. expanding and extending children's contributions to provide more advanced language models and conceptual information and to encourage further interaction) (Justice et al., 2018). These approaches have been associated with increased language productivity (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002; Massey et al., 2008) and improved vocabulary development (Cabell et al., 2015; Hindman et al., 2022).

Specific contexts provide rich opportunities for language learning because they elicit the types of adult-child interactions shown to promote language growth (Dockrell et al., 2012; Justice, 2004). Interactive book reading, which engages children in extended dialogue around a text, has been associated with improved vocabulary outcomes (Cabell et al., 2019; Mol et al., 2009), narrative comprehension (Grolig et al., 2020) and narrative production (Pesco and Gagné, 2017). Adult-child interactions in small groups increases the likelihood of establishing ‘joint attention’ (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017), supports individualised attention (Wasik, 2008) and provides opportunities for educators to match content to children's developmental levels (Camilli et al., 2010). These features support children's verbal contributions (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002). Furthermore, peer interactions can support children's language development (Mashburn et al., 2009). Thus, the provision of such opportunities is a marker of high-quality practice.

While the physical environment is unlikely to impact directly on children's language (Cutler et al., 2022) some suggest it mediates teacher and child language (Justice, 2004) and thus provides a foundation for language learning (Connor, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2009). This could be particularly important for those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who may have access to fewer language supporting materials than children from more affluent backgrounds (Neuman and Celano, 2001). The physical environment should therefore be conducive to language learning and provide appropriate stimulation in the form of books and resources (Dockrell et al., 2015).

3 Measuring language supporting provision

Evidence-based observational tools can provide insight into the quality of language provision, supporting understanding of where improvement efforts might most usefully be focussed. Current tools document environmental features, learning opportunities and interactions at various levels of classroom practice and at varying degrees of specificity. At their broadest, tools evaluate practice at a ‘systems-level’, that is across educators and multiple domains (Justice et al., 2018). Although systems-level scores have been associated with children's language outcomes (Howes et al., 2008; Pinto et al., 2013), associations are inconsistent and modest (Justice et al., 2018; Soliday Hong et al., 2019). In contrast, domain-specific measures focus explicitly on language support and include language specific items from systems-level tools (Brunsek et al., 2017; Schmerse et al., 2018), tools specifically designed to capture classroom language support (Dockrell et al., 2015; Phillips et al., 2018) and fine-grained analysis of specific elements of practice (e.g. book reading) (Cabell et al., 2015; Weadman et al., 2022). Domain-specific measures have been more closely associated with children's language outcomes (Connor, 2013) and can support educators to identify areas for the development of language supporting practices (Dunst, 2015). One such measure is the Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool (the ‘CSCOT’) (Dockrell et al., 2012) an evidence-based, language-specific observational tool which profiles language support in typical classroom practice over a one-hour observation period. The CSCOT was primarily designed to capture practice in the linguistic and interactive domains, although includes some strategies which relate to conceptual support. Educators reportedly find the CSCOT useful in evaluating and adapting their practice (Law et al., 2019). To date it has been utilised in English classrooms serving school-aged children (Dockrell et al., 2015; Law et al., 2019) and in other countries (e.g. Badar et al., 2022) but not in English settings serving pre-school children. Applying the CSCOT in nursery classrooms provides an opportunity to develop quality oral language pedagogy in these contexts.

4 Existing evidence

Studies considering the systems-level quality of nursery provision in England have indicated that language support is good (as defined by the tools employed) (Lera et al., 1996; Melhuish and Gardiner, 2019) but, to our knowledge, no studies have utilised a language-specific tool in English nurseries meaning that detailed information about language support in these contexts is limited. Studies in other countries do however suggest that provision could be less than optimal, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas (Neuman et al., 2018). Educators are reported to offer limited language models (Sawyer et al., 2018) and few expansions of children's language (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002). Interactions are reportedly infrequent and brief (Cabell et al., 2015) with a focus on adult speech (Sawyer et al., 2018). This may arise from the reported infrequency of interaction promoting strategies (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002; Hindman et al., 2019). Support for conceptual development appears limited with educator talk reported to be basic (Franco et al., 2019), predominantly literal (Chen and Liang, 2017) and contextualised (Franco et al., 2019). Educators are also reported to use few prompts for higher level thinking (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002) and explicit vocabulary instruction is reportedly rare (Phillips et al., 2018).

Many studies report variation in quality between classrooms and educators (Hindman et al., 2022; Phillips et al., 2018; Turnbull et al., 2009), suggesting that some educators are better equipped to offer language support than others. Variations have also emerged within classrooms, with a reported decline in the number of adult words, conversational turns and instructional, organisational and emotional support across the day (Duncan et al., 2020; Thorpe et al., 2020). These fluctuations are important to understand as the consistency of quality language provision has implications for the amount of high-quality language exposure that children receive, and for when and how quality should be measured. Capturing classroom quality at different times during teaching sessions can support this understanding.

Variation was also observed in studies collecting language-specific data in classrooms serving older children in England. Employing the CSCOT in classrooms serving children four to seven years of age, Dockrell et al. (2015) and Law et al. (2019) reported well-equipped physical environments but few structured opportunities for language learning. Furthermore, while there were strengths in terms of acknowledging learners’ needs, there was less evidence of language developing and interaction promoting strategies (e.g. advanced language models; open questions). However, provision varied across age groups, suggesting that contextual factors such as curricula demands, staffing requirements and children's learning needs, impact on provision (Law et al., 2019). Thus, it is essential that investigations are undertaken in specific contexts of interest, particularly given the importance of PD being tailored to meet need (Cordingley et al., 2015).

5 The current study

The current study aimed to document the quality of universal language provision in English nursery classes and schools in economically disadvantaged areas, with a view to supporting preschool educators, and those involved in educator PD, to enhance language provision in preschool classrooms serving children most likely to need language support. An accessible, evidence-based, language specific tool (the CSCOT) was employed to observe typical classroom practice across three consecutive one-hour observation periods to address the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1. What are the strengths and areas for development of language supporting provision in the sample preschool classrooms?

RQ2. Does the quality of language supporting provision vary across the three consecutive one-hour observation periods?

In accordance with the CSCOT guidance, RQ1 was addressed with reference to the first hour of observation. It was hypothesised that, in line with previous research, the physical environment would be well-equipped but that there would be few structured opportunities for language learning. Furthermore, it was predicted that, while educators would frequently employ child-oriented strategies, language models would be limited, opportunities for back-and-forth interactions would be few and support for children's conceptual development would be minimal. RQ2 was addressed by comparing scores across the three consecutive one-hour observations. It was expected that the frequency of language supporting strategies would reduce across this three hour period (Duncan et al., 2020; Thorpe et al., 2020).

II Method

1 Context for study

Observations were undertaken as part of the baseline measures of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted to evaluate the impact of Talking Time^©, a universal intervention and professional development programme designed to support children's language development in areas of significant economic disadvantage in two regions of England, London and the north-east (see Dockrell et al., 2023).

2 Sample

Thirty-nine classrooms participated (n = 20 in London; n = 19 in north east England). The majority were nursery classes attached to maintained (n = 35) and academy run (n = 2) primary schools. Two were maintained nursery schools. Classrooms were recruited from areas in the lowest quintile of deprivation based on their Income Deprivation Affecting Children (IDACI, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2015) rank (mean IDACI z-score −1.66, SD = 0.56). Children were 3–4 years of age in their final year of nursery. The mean age of children whose parents/carers consented to the RCT child-level assessments (n = 876) was 44 months (SD = 4) and 54% were monolingual. Data collected through standardised tests at the RCT level indicated differences between participating children and normative samples in verbal and non-verbal domains, with participants performing on average a year below the average level expected for their age (Dockrell et al., 2020). Classroom sizes ranged from 7 to 56 (M = 27.64, SD = 11.2) and were typically led by one class teacher supported by an average of 2.44 support staff (SD = 0.51). Lead teachers were invited to provide demographic information by way of confidential questionnaire. Thirty-one responded, all of whom were educated to degree level and whose years of experience ranged from 0 to 30 + years (see Supplemental materials for details). Demographic information was not collected from support staff.

3 Measurement tool

The CSCOT was employed to profile the quality of the oral language environment across three domains:

Language Learning Environments (‘LL-Environments’) concerning the physical environment.

Language Learning Opportunities (‘LL-Opportunities’) concerning structured opportunities for language learning, for example, interactive book reading.

Language Learning Interactions (‘LL-Interactions’) concerning language supporting strategies, for example, open questions.

The CSCOT is designed to be used over a one-hour observation period aligned with the first hour of the teaching day. Items in the LL-Environments sub-scale are recorded as ‘present’ or ‘not present’ and occurrences of items in the other sub-scales are recorded up to a maximum of five on the basis that opportunities and strategies observed at this rate during a single hour can be considered securely embedded in practice within observed classrooms. The CSCOT can be applied consistently between expert observers (inter-rater reliability LL-Environment ≥ 83%; LL-Opportunities ≥ 71%; and LL-interactions > 84%) (Dockrell et al., 2015). Its validity is demonstrated by its capacity to capture distinct profiles of provision between year groups and schools (Dockrell et al., 2015) and across studies (Law et al., 2019).

4 Procedures

Observations were undertaken by the first author prior to randomisation of classrooms in the RCT. Prior to the observations, the first author undertook rigorous training (see Supplemental materials) and participated in three joint reliability observations. The reliability observations were conducted in three separate nursery classrooms, none of which were involved in the RCT. The first author and an expert early years observer independently completed the LL-Environment sub-scale on arrival in the classrooms, insofar as the items allowed. On commencement of the reliability observation period, observers moved around the classrooms together to ensure that the same practice was observed, completing the remaining CSCOT items and scales independently. 100% exact agreement (Cohen's ĸ = 1) was achieved in respect of both the LL-Environment and the LL-Opportunities sub-scales of the CSCOT across all three one-hour observations. For the LL-Interaction sub-scale exact agreement ranged from 75% to 85% (Cohen's ĸ = 0.59–0.69).

Observations took place in October/November 2019 and were conducted during morning sessions in 37 classrooms and, due to timetabling constraints, afternoon sessions in two classrooms. These sessions did not include lunchtime but snack times occurring during ongoing provision were observed. Three consecutive one-hour observations were undertaken during the same nursery session in each classroom. Notes were taken, and scoring was recorded before the conclusion of each visit.

5 Analysis

RQ1 was addressed with reference to hour 1 of the observation period. In line with prior studies, LL-Environments sub-scale proportion scores were calculated based on the number of items scored present relative to the total number of items and LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions sub-scale proportion scores based on the number of observed occurrences relative to the maximum number of occurrences (N = 5). Paired sample t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run to compare scores across sub-scales. To account for potential scoring differences across sub-scales and in alignment with the design of the CSCOT as a profiling tool, specificities of practice within each sub-scale were also considered. LL-environments items were considered in terms of the percentage of classrooms in which they were observed, and proportion scores for individual LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions items were calculated. T-tests were run to compare the relative frequency of occurrence of individual LL-Opportunities. To support interpretation, LL-interactions were mapped to the linguistic, conceptual and interactive language input dimensions on the basis of best fit. To address RQ2, t-tests were used to compare the frequency of LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions across the three separate hours.

III Results

1 Research question 1: Strengths and areas for development

LL-Environment sub-scale scores (M = 0.67, SD = 0.13) were significantly higher than for LL-Opportunities (M = 0.22, SD = 0.12, t₃₈= 16.97, p < 0.001, d = 2.72) and LL-Interactions sub-scales (M = 0.54, SD = 0.12, t₃₈= 5.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.89). LL-Opportunities sub-scale scores were significantly lower than the LL-Interactions (t₃₈= −20.781, p < 0.001, d = −3.33) and LL-Environments sub-scales.

Findings in respect of individual LL-Environments items are provided in the Supplemental materials. Frequencies of each LL-Opportunity are detailed in Table 1. Structured adult-child conversations were observed significantly more frequently (LLO1 t₃₈= 4.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.73; LLO2 t₃₈= 4.35, p < 0.001, d = 0.696; LLO4 t₃₈= 7.94, p < 0.001, d = 1.271; LLO5 t₃₈= 3.25, p = 0.002, d = 0.52) and conversations between children were observed significantly less frequently than all other LL-Opportunities (LLO1 t₃₈= −5.64, p < 0.001, d = −0.902; LLO2 t₃₈= −4.68, p < 0.001, d = −0.75; LLO3 t₃₈= −7.94, p < 0.001, d = −1.27; LLO5 t₃₈= −5.88, p < 0.001, d = −0.94). Individual LL-Interactions are presented in Table 2. There was a strong and significant correlation between the occurrence of LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions (r = 0.68, p < 0.001).

Table 1.
LL-Opportunities^a in descending order of average frequency.

LL-Opportunity  Mean proportion score (SD)

LL-Opportunity 3: Structured conversations with adults 0.46 (0.35)

LL-Opportunity 5: Inclusion of all children in groups 0.26 (0.25)

LL-0pportunity 1: Educator supported small group activities 0.19 (0.20)

LL-Opportunity 2: Interactive book reading 0.16 (0.18)

LL-Opportunity 4: Structured conversations between peers 0.02 (0.05)

LL-Opportunity	Mean proportion score (SD)
LL-Opportunity 3: Structured conversations with adults	0.46 (0.35)
LL-Opportunity 5: Inclusion of all children in groups	0.26 (0.25)
LL-0pportunity 1: Educator supported small group activities	0.19 (0.20)
LL-Opportunity 2: Interactive book reading	0.16 (0.18)
LL-Opportunity 4: Structured conversations between peers	0.02 (0.05)

Structured opportunities for language learning as defined in section 2 of the CSCOT (Dockrell et al., 2012).

Table 2.

LL-Interactions^a by domain in descending order of average frequency.

LL-Interaction	Mean proportion score (SD)
Interactive
Using children's names	0.99 (0.03)
Confirming child utterances	0.99 (0.03)
Imitating child utterances	0.92 (0.19)
Positioned at child level	0.89 (0.22)
Using gesture/signing	0.81 (0.29)
Pausing	0.56 (0.33)
Open questioning	0.49 (0.41)
Encourages children to use new words	0.49 (0.37)
Providing children with choices	0.26 (0.24)
Encouraging turn taking.	0.25 (0.30)
Using a slow pace	0.21 (0.27)
Praising children's listening skills	0.09 (0.17)
Praising children's non-verbal communication	0.04 (0.10)
Linguistic
Labelling	0.92 (0.18)
Commenting on immediate events	0.86 (0.27)
Modelling language children are not producing yet	0.56 (0.40)
Extending child utterances	0.52 (0.32)
Providing a script for an activity	0.14 (0.18)
Conceptual
Using symbols, pictures and props to reinforce language	0.50 (0.31)
Using contrasts that highlight differences in lexical items and in syntactic structures	0.38 (0.29)

Language Learning Interactions as defined in section 3 of the CSCOT (Dockrell et al., 2012).

2 Research question 2: Variation over time

Mean proportion scores (MPS) for the LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions sub-scales for each hour are set out in Table 3. Item level proportion scores across the three hours and for the total observation period can be found in the Supplemental materials. Significantly more LL-Opportunities were observed in hour one than in hours two (Z = −2.551, p = 0.011) and three (t = 3.601, p < 0.001, d = .58). Although fewer opportunities occurred in hour 3 than hour 2, these differences were not statistically significant (Z = −1.458, p = 0.145).

Table 3.
LL-Opportunity and LL-Interaction proportion scores by hour of observation period.

Sub-scale Hour Mean score SD

LL-Opportunities 1 0.22 0.12

2 0.17 0.12

3 0.14 0.12

LL-Interactions 1 0.54 0.12

2 0.47 0.12

3 0.41 0.16

Sub-scale	Hour	Mean score	SD
LL-Opportunities	1	0.22	0.12
	2	0.17	0.12
	3	0.14	0.12
LL-Interactions	1	0.54	0.12
	2	0.47	0.12
	3	0.41	0.16

Similarly, significantly more LL-Interactions were observed during hour 1 (M = 0.54, SD = 0.12) compared with hours 2 (M = 0.47, SD = 0.12) (t₍₃₈₎= 4.582, p < 0.001, d = 0.73) and 3 (M = 0.41, SD = 0.16) (t₍₃₈₎= 7.262, p < 0.001, d = 1.16). LL-Interactions were also significantly more frequent in in hour 2 than hour 3 (t₍₃₈₎= 3.069, p = 0.004, d = 0.49), indicating that the quality of language learning provision reduced over the course of the observation.

IV Discussion

Children require access to high-quality language provision across the linguistic, interactive and conceptual domains to support their language competence (Rowe and Snow, 2020) and environments and opportunities should be designed to maximise the quality of this provision. This is especially important for children at greater risk of language delays associated with social disadvantage. This study employed the CSCOT to document the nature of language support offered across 39 nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England and is the first to adopt a specific focus on the quality of classroom level language provision in English nurseries and to consider whether this practice varied across observed sessions. It was predicted that the physical environment would be well equipped, that there would be few structured opportunities for language learning and that, while educators would respond sensitively to children, they would utilise fewer strategies to extend children's language.

In line with predictions and previous research using the CSCOT in classrooms serving older children (Dockrell et al., 2015; Law et al., 2019), LL-Environment proportion scores were highest, highlighting provision in the physical environment as a relative strength of practice. This may be particularly important for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be less likely to have access to language learning resources in their homes and communities (Neuman and Celano, 2001). Low scoring items (e.g. displays featuring children's work) could be explained by the conduct of the observations early in the new school year when there was likely insufficient time to create children's work for display. Two areas of provision which might easily be addressed were the absence of bilingual/multilingual texts and non-fiction texts outside of the designated book area. The presence of such texts could increase the cultural and practical relevance of texts to children, which in turn could encourage access to literacy (Axelrod and Gillanders, 2015; Dowhower and Beagle, 1998). Bilingual/multilingual texts could be particularly relevant in these classrooms where significant numbers of children spoke other languages.

Proportion scores for LL-Interactions were higher than proportion scores for LL-opportunities. This was expected and is arguably desirable given that structured opportunities for language learning provide the supportive context within which a variety of language learning interactions can occur. In terms of the nature of LL-interactions, support in the linguistic domain was offered in the form of regular comments and the frequent provision of labels for actions, objects and abstractions (MPS = 0.86 and 0.92 respectively). Contingent linguistic models, for example, modelling language children were not yet producing and extending children's utterances, were less frequent (MPS = 0.56 and 0.52 respectively), and more extended linguistic models (e.g. scripting) were rare (MPS = 0.14). The use of these strategies might be considered limited in relation to the number of children in observed classrooms and, given that contingency is an important element of language support (Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002; Rowe and Snow, 2020), increased use of child-dependent language models is desirable.

In the interactive domain, educators consistently employed child-oriented approaches (e.g. using children's names, confirming and repeating utterances) (MPS = 0.92–0.99). The consistent use of such strategies is important, particularly for children with low language levels (Gosse et al., 2014) and from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Feldman, 2019). Gesture, symbols, pictures and props can also be utilised to foster joint attention. Gesture was frequently observed (MPS = 0.81), whereas symbols, pictures and props (which can support the development of children's lexical awareness (Justice, 2004)) were observed less often (MPS = 0.50), perhaps reflecting the need for increased planning for the use of props. Timing of adult speech is also important for engaging children, yet use of a slow pace was infrequently observed (MPS = 0.21) and support for non-verbal communication and praise for listening skills represent a further form of responsiveness which was almost never observed (MPS = 0.04 and 0.09 respectively), and which might be encouraged in future PD.

Strategies explicitly encouraging children to make verbal contributions are also key in the interactive domain. Asking open questions, encouraging children to use new words and pausing were less commonly observed than child-oriented approaches (MPS 0.49–0.56). More supportive interaction promoting strategies, such as providing children with language choices (e.g. ‘Would you like the red boat or the blue boat?’) and encouragement of turn taking, which can offer increased scaffolding for child speech and interaction, were even less frequent (MPS 0.26 and 0.25 respectively). This aligns with findings that high-support strategies are rarely utilised by educators (Pentimonti et al., 2017) and could indicate that educators struggle to adapt their support for children with lower language levels. Overall, interaction promoting strategies were observed less frequently than language modelling strategies. This aligns with findings that educator talk dominates in classrooms (Sawyer et al., 2018) although could reflect educators providing children with language models before encouraging them to produce language. While this may be beneficial for children with lower language levels (Ard and Beverly, 2004; Grolig et al., 2019), multiple studies have emphasised the importance of supporting all children to use language (Cabell et al., 2015; Girolametto and Weitzman, 2002; Justice et al., 2018) regardless of age or existing language level.

Findings in the conceptual domain were limited in the current study. Although some strategies specified in the CSCOT can be employed to support conceptual development (e.g. comments, open questions), no record was made of the purpose for which these strategies were employed thus the degree of conceptual challenge offered cannot be reported. Two strategies which clearly relate to conceptual support, highlighting difference in lexical items and using props, were utilised by educators (MPS = 0.38 and 0.50 respectively) indicating that some support for conceptual development was offered. However, a more detailed understanding is desirable given the importance of such support for children's language development (Gosse et al., 2014; Hamre, 2014; Rowe and Snow, 2020).

Thus, while many LL-Interactions occurred, and educators were adept at responding sensitively to children and modelling simple language, there were notable gaps in contingent and sophisticated language models and more supportive interaction promoting strategies. Furthermore, the lack of data on the contexts in which interactions occurred means that children may well be differentially exposed to LL-interactions unless they are embedded across activities in which all children engage at some point over the session.

Indeed, regular structured opportunities for language learning, such as learning in educator-supported small groups and interactive book reading, are key to ensuring sufficient exposure (Justice, 2004). However, educator-supported small groups were inconsistently utilised (MPS = 0.19), suggesting that not all children will receive the necessary exposure to support their oral language skills. Given their importance as a context for language development (Wasik, 2008), understanding barriers to their use, and specifically considering how educators might run these groups with limited staffing, is important. Interactive book reading was also infrequent (MPS = 0.16) mirroring studies in other countries (Phillips et al., 2018). Evidence suggesting that interactive book reading supports children's vocabulary (Mol et al., 2009) and comprehension (Grolig et al., 2019) makes this an important area for development. Although the CSCOT does not distinguish between small group and whole group book reading, field notes indicated that most reading was whole class, offering limited opportunities for staff to personalise sessions to meet the needs of diverse language learners. Small group reading may be more supportive of children's verbal participation, understanding and recall (Morrow and Smith, 1990), thus, increasing the incidence of this practice is important in addressing children's language learning needs, especially in areas of social disadvantage. A higher dosage of interactive book reading may be needed if positive effects on children's language are to be realised and sustained over time (Noble et al., 2019).

Structured conversations between adults and children occurred more frequently, although the MPS of 0.46 equates to a capped average of just 2.3 conversations per hour. Given the influence of extended back-and-forth interactions on children's language (Duncan et al., 2022; Romeo et al., 2018) increasing their frequency is key. The impact of children's language levels on the occurrence of these back-and-forth interactions should be considered as educators may need specific support to initiate and sustain interactions with children with poorer oracy skills. Indeed, interactions between young children with limited language were very rarely observed.

In line with previous findings (Phillips et al., 2018), large standard deviations reflected variation across classrooms. Understanding the reasons for these differences is important. Some educators may be more skilled at supporting language than others, indicating the need for adaptive PD and the potential for PD based on communities of practice or peer mentoring (Tschantz and Vail, 2000). Measures evaluating quality at the level of the individual educator could be utilised to consider this further. Variation in structural features is also important to consider. Observed classrooms had different adult-child ratios and the experience, training and qualification levels of staff varied (although these data were only collected for lead teachers). Furthermore, the influence of more distal factors such as school leadership was not investigated. Understanding how such features impact on the quality of language support is important to informing recommendations for action.

Variation may also have arisen from differences in routines across classrooms as the quality of language support is impacted by group size and activity type (Thorpe et al., 2020; Turnbull et al., 2009). Thus, evaluating the quality of ‘barometer events’ (Thorpe et al., 2020), that is specific activities which have the potential to be language supporting and which can be easily compared across classrooms, could be a useful alternative or supplemental means of assessing relative quality and identifying areas for development. Tools such as the Emergent Literacy and Language Early Childhood Checklist (Weadman et al., 2022), which assesses the quality of interactive book reading, could support this.

Finally, variation could have resulted from educators adapting language support to meet the differing needs of children in their classrooms (Connor, 2013; Thorpe et al., 2020). The bi-directional nature of language (Justice et al., 2013) and the need for language support to be well adapted to individual children (Neugebauer et al., 2021), makes the relationship between the language used by children and teachers an important aspect to consider when evaluating quality, particularly in light of the findings of Deshmukh et al. (2022) which suggest that educators select strategies to provide differential scaffolding to different child responses.

As predicted, variation also occurred across the nursery session, with the frequency of LL-Opportunities and LL-Interactions reducing as sessions progressed. These findings reflect those of Thorpe et al. (2020) and Duncan et al. (2020) which indicate a reduction in language support across the school day. Potential explanations for these findings are increasing tiredness of staff and children, and the more frequent occurrence of small group sessions earlier in the session. The latter proposition is supported by the strong and significant correlation between LL-Interactions and LL-Opportunities sub-scale scores, but further investigation is necessary. Meanwhile, educators might consider how they could increase LL-Opportunities and LL-interactions across the whole teaching session. Tier 2 targeted interventions might also be timetabled towards the end of sessions, when children potentially stand to benefit less from universal provision.

1 Limitations

Despite the uniqueness of the data presented the study is subject to various limitations. The findings relate to a single observation at the beginning of the school year, so time of year differences are not captured. Multiple observations could increase the representativeness of these data. Observations at different times of day would be advantageous given evidence of fluctuation revealed by this study. Although rigorous training was undertaken and high interrater reliability was established, observations were conducted by a single observer. While this provides consistency in scoring, findings could be subject to observer bias. The sample was representative of areas of social disadvantage in London and the northeast, but findings may not generalise to other contexts. Furthermore, more detailed demographic information for support staff and children would support a deeper understanding of variation across classrooms and inform recommendations for development. Limitations of the tool employed should also be noted. The CSCOT was designed as a profiling tool for use by educators and could be more suited to profiling individual classrooms than generalising across them (Dockrell et al., 2015). While the CSCOT captures the frequency of language learning opportunities it does not document their duration limiting its capacity to establish what proportion of classroom time is allocated to language support and how this relates to wider quality. Further, to date CSCOT scores have not been associated with improved child language outcomes which is arguably the ‘gold standard’ for quality measures. Finally, despite the large number of classrooms there was insufficient data to perform a factor analysis, and the underlying factor structure of the CSCOT could not be investigated or confirmed. This means that analysis and conclusions are based on a theoretical framework, albeit one supported by an extensive literature review. Potential limitations also apply to the use of the IDACI rating to identify disadvantaged areas as it captures income deprivation with limited accuracy, missing around 27% of children from low-income backgrounds and inaccurately classifying 32% of children as coming from a ‘low-income’ background (Jerrim, 2021). IDACI rankings taken from the school postcode rather than individual home addresses mean that the level of economic deprivation experienced by the children in the classrooms may have been over or underestimated. Finally, this study was undertaken in the English cultural context and the impact of culture on practice and expectations for high-quality have not been interrogated.

V Conclusion

The CSCOT has provided rich information about language supporting provision across 39 nursery classrooms in disadvantaged areas of England. Strengths of practice have been identified. Physical environments were well equipped, and educators were adept at responding sensitively to children, frequently employing strategies to engage children's attention. Educators supported language learning through the consistent use of simple language modelling approaches such as labelling and commenting. However, the relative lack of more structured LL-opportunities, such as small group interactive book reading, indicates that these exposures may not be consistent for all children. A further challenge for practice is reflected by the limited occurrence and length of conversations between adults and children, and between peers. PD should build on the existing strengths of individual educator's practice to support the enhanced use of interaction promoting strategies, such as using a range of prompts and a slower pace, as well as the provision of more complex and contingent language models, which may in turn support an increase in extended interactions.

The CSCOT has an important role as an accessible tool for educators, however it might usefully be supplemented by fine-grained investigations of specific aspects of practice. This would allow for reliable comparisons across classrooms, support our understanding of how language support varies by activity type and duration, and advance our understanding of key aspects of high-quality language provision including the content of the linguistic model, support for conceptual development and educator adaptation to individual learner need. Nonetheless the CSCOT was designed with a view to empowering educators, and PD based on this premise seems more likely to result in the high-quality language supporting provision so many children need.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-clt-10.1177_02656590241252044 - Supplemental material for The quality of universal language supporting provision in maintained nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England: Identifying strengths and areas for development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-clt-10.1177_02656590241252044 for The quality of universal language supporting provision in maintained nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England: Identifying strengths and areas for development by Keeley Dobinson, Sandra Mathers, Claire Forrest, Jenna Charlton and Julie Dockrell in Child Language Teaching and Therapy

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Professor James Law who was instrumental in conception and conduct of the randomised controlled trial with which this work is associated and whose commitment to supporting children with speech, language and communication needs was unwavering. We would also like to thank the settings, practitioners, children and families whose involvement made this work possible and Catherine Phillips for her knowledge, guidance and support with the observation process.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Nuffield Foundation (grant number EDO/43391).

ORCID iD

Keeley Dobinson

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ard

Beverly

(2004) Preschool word learning during joint book reading: effect of adult questions and comments. Communication Disorders Quarterly 26(1): 17–28.

Axelrod

Gillanders

(2015) Using culturally relevant literature for Latino children in the early childhood classroom. In: Clark

Flores

Smith

(eds) Multicultural literature for Latino bilingual children: Their words, their worlds. Lanham: Rowman Littlefield, pp. 101–120.

Badar

Clegg

Spencer

(2022) Increasing teachers’ use of communication-supporting strategies: findings from an exploratory study using the Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool (CSCOT) in primary schools in Brunei. Support for Learning 37(2): 180–208.

Barnes

Dickinson

Grifenhagen

(2017) The role of teachers’ comments during book reading in children's vocabulary growth. The Journal of Educational Research 110(5): 515–527.

Beitchman

Wilson

Brownlie

, et al.

(1996) Long-Term consistency in speech/language profiles: I. Developmental and academic outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 35(6): 804–814.

Bercow

(2008) The Bercow Report : a review of services for children and young people (0–19) with speech, language and communication needs. DCSF. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8405/7/7771-dcsf-bercow_Redacted.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

Bornstein

Hahn

C-S

Putnick

(2016) Stability of core language skill across the first decade of life in children at biological and social risk. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 57(12): 1434–1443.

Brunsek

Perlman

Falenchuk

, et al. (2017) The relationship between the early childhood environment rating scale and its revised form and child outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one 12(6): e0178512–e0178512.

Bulotsky Shearer

Bichay-Awadalla

Bailey

, et al. (2020) Teacher–child interaction quality buffers negative associations between challenging behaviors in preschool classroom contexts and language and literacy skills. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 40(3): 159–171.

10.

Cabell

Justice

McGinty

, et al. (2015) Teacher–child conversations in preschool classrooms: contributions to children's vocabulary development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 30: 80–92.

11.

Cabell

Zucker

DeCoster

, et al. (2019) Prekindergarten interactive book Reading quality and children's language and literacy development: classroom organization as a moderator. Early Education and Development 30(1): 1–18.

12.

Camilli

Vargas

Ryan

, et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record 112(3): 579–620.

13.

Chapman

(2000) Children's language learning: an interactionist perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41(1): 33–54.

14.

Chen

Liang

(2017) Teachers’ literal and inferential questions and children’s responses: a study of teacher–child linguistic interactions during whole-group instruction in Hong Kong kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal 45(5): 671–683.

15.

Cohen

Mendez

(2009) Emotion regulation, language ability, and the stability of preschool children's peer play behavior. Early Education and Development 20(6): 1016–1037.

16.

Connor

(2013) Commentary on two classroom observation systems: moving toward a shared understanding of effective teaching. School Psychology Quarterly 28(4): 342–346.

17.

Cordingley

Higgins

Greany

, et al. (2015) Developing great teaching: lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. Available at: https://tdtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DGT-Full-report.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

18.

Cutler

Schachter

Gabas

, et al. (2022) Patterns of classroom organization in classrooms where children exhibit higher and lower language gains. Early Education and Development 35(5): 1128–1146.

19.

Deshmukh

Pentimonti

Zucker

, et al. (2022) Teachers’ use of scaffolds within conversations during shared book Reading. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools 53(1): 150–166.

20.

Dockrell

Bakopoulou

Law

, et al. (2012) Communication supporting classroom observation tool. The Communication Trust. Available at: https://speechandlanguage.org.uk/media/3208/tct_bcrp_csc_update.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

21.

Dockrell

Bakopoulou

Law

, et al. (2015) Capturing communication supporting classrooms: the development of a tool and feasibility study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 31(3): 271–286.

22.

Dockrell

Law

Mathers

, et al. (2020) Report to the Nuffield foundation: empowering staff to enhance oral language in the early years EDO/43391 (unpublished).

23.

Dockrell

Law

Mathers

, et al. (2023) Empowering staff to enhance oral language in the early years: Cluster randomised trial final report. Accessed at https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dockrell-Talking-Time-final-report.pdf.

24.

Dowhower

Beagle

(1998) The print environment in kindergartens: a study of conventional and holistic teachers and their classrooms in three settings. Reading Research and Instruction 37(3): 161–190.

25.

Duncan

Anderson

King

, et al. (2022) Predictors of preschool language environments and their relations to children's vocabulary. Infant and Child Development 32(1): e2381.

26.

Duncan

King

Finders

, et al. (2020) Prekindergarten classroom language environments and children’s vocabulary skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 194: 104829–104829.

27.

Dunst

(2015) Improving the design and implementation of in-service professional development in early childhood intervention. Infants and Young Children 28(3): 210–219.

28.

Ebbels

McCartney

Slonims

, et al. (2019) Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. International Journal of Langauge and Communication Disorders 54(1): 3–19.

29.

Feldman

(2019) The importance of language-learning environments to child language outcomes. Pediatrics 144(4): e20192157.

30.

Franco

Bryant

Gillanders

, et al. (2019) Examining linguistic interactions of dual language learners using the Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn). Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48: 50–61.

31.

Gambaro

Stewart

Waldfogel

(2015) A question of quality: do children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive lower quality early childhood education and care? British Educational Research Journal 41(4): 553–574.

32.

Girolametto

Weitzman

(2002) Responsiveness of child care providers in interactions with toddlers and preschoolers. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools 33(4): 268–281.

33.

Gosse

McGinty

Mashburn

, et al. (2014) The role of relational and instructional classroom supports in the language development of at-risk preschoolers. Early Education and Development 25(1): 110–133.

34.

Grolig

Cohrdes

Tiffin-Richards

, et al. (2019) Effects of preschoolers’ storybook exposure and literacy environments on lower level and higher level language skills. Reading & Writing 32(4): 1061–1084.

35.

Grolig

Cohrdes

Tiffin-Richards

, et al. (2020) Narrative dialogic reading with wordless picture books: a cluster-randomized intervention study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 51: 191–203.

36.

Hamre

(2014) Teachers’ daily interactions with children: an essential ingredient in effective early childhood programs. Child Development Perspectives 8(4): 223–230.

37.

Hassinger-Das

Toub

Hirsh-Pasek

, et al. (2017) A matter of principle: applying language science to the classroom and beyond. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 3(1): 5–18.

38.

Hindman

Farrow

Wasik

(2022) Teacher–child conversations in preschool: insights into how teacher feedback supports language development. Topics in Language Disorders 42(4): 336–359.

39.

Hindman

Wasik

Bradley

(2019) How classroom conversations unfold: exploring teacher-child exchanges during shared book reading. Early Education and Development 30(4): 478–495.

40.

Hoff

(2006) How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 26(1): 55–88.

41.

Howes

Burchinal

Pianta

, et al. (2008) Ready to learn? Children's pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23(1): 27–50.

42.

Hutchings

Francis

(2018) Chain Effects 2018: The impact of academy chains on low-income pupils. The Sutton Trust. Accessed at https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Chain-Effects-2018.pdf.

43.

Huttenlocher

Vasilyeva

Cymerman

, et al. (2002) Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45(3): 337–374.

44.

Jerrim

(2021) Measuring Disadvantage. The Sutton Trust. Available at https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Measuring-Disadvantage.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

45.

Justice

(2004) Creating language-rich preschool classroom environments. Teaching Exceptional Children 37(2): 36–44.

46.

Justice

Jiang

Strasser

(2018) Linguistic environment of preschool classrooms: what dimensions support children’s language growth? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42: 79–92.

47.

Justice

McGinty

Zucker

, et al. (2013) Bi-directional dynamics underlie the complexity of talk in teacher–child play-based conversations in classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28(3): 496–508.

48.

Law

McBean

Rush

(2011) Communication skills in a population of primary school-aged children raised in an area of pronounced social disadvantage. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 46(6): 657–664.

49.

Law

Rush

Parsons

, et al. (2013) The relationship between gender, receptive vocabulary, and literacy from school entry through to adulthood. International Journal of Speech Language Pathology 15(4): 407–415.

50.

Law

Tulip

Stringer

, et al. (2019) Teachers observing classroom communication: an application of the communicating supporting classroom observation tool for children aged 4–7 years. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 35(3): 203–220.

51.

Lera

M-J

Owen

Moss

(1996) Quality of educational settings for four-year-old children in England. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 4(2): 21–32.

52.

Lohse

Hildebrandt

(2022) Hypotheses in adult-child interactions stimulate children's reasoning and verbalizations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 58: 254–263.

53.

Mashburn

Justice

Downer

, et al. (2009) Peer effects on children’s language achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development 80(3): 686–702.

54.

Massey

Pence

Justice

, et al. (2008) Educators’ use of cognitively challenging questions in economically disadvantaged preschool classroom contexts. Early Education and Development 19(2): 340–360.

55.

Mathers

Smees

(2014) Quality and Inequality. London: Nuffield Foundation. Available at: https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Quality_inequality_childcare_mathers_29_05_14.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

56.

McLeod

Kaiser

Hardy

(2019) The relation between teacher vocabulary use in play and child vocabulary outcomes. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 39(2): 103–116.

57.

Melhuish

Gardiner

(2019) Structural factors and policy change as related to the quality of early childhood education and care for 3–4 year olds in the UK. Frontiers in Education 4: 1–15.

58.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2015) Income Deprivation Index Affecting Children. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015. Accessed on 21.03.23.

59.

Mol

Bus

de Jong

(2009) Interactive book reading in early education: a tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research 79(2): 979–1007.

60.

Morrow

Smith

(1990) The effects of group size on interactive storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly 25(3): 213–231.

61.

National statistics (2023) Education provision: children under 5 years of age. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/education-provision-children-under-5 Accessed on 29.09.23.

62.

Neugebauer

Coyne

McCoach

, et al. (2021) Reframing adherence: active ingredients and impromptu interactions that support vocabulary implementation effectiveness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 56: 52–64.

63.

Neuman

Celano

(2001) Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: an ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8–26.

64.

Neuman

Kaefer

Pinkham

(2018) A double dose of disadvantage: language experiences for low-income children in home and school. Journal of Educational Psychology 110(1): 102–118.

65.

Noble

Sala

Peter

, et al. (2019) The impact of shared book reading on children's language skills: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 28: 100290.

66.

Oracy APPG (2021) Speak for change: Final report and recommendations from the Oracy All-Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry. Available at: https://oracy.inparliament.uk/sites/oracy.inparliament.uk/files/2021-04/Oracy_APPG_FinalReport_28_04%20%284%29.pdf. Accessed on 21.03.23.

67.

Pace

Alper

Burchinal

, et al. (2019) Measuring success: within and cross-domain predictors of academic and social trajectories in elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 46: 112–125.

68.

Pentimonti

Justice

Yeomans-Maldonado

, et al. (2017) Teachers’ use of high- and low-support scaffolding strategies to differentiate language instruction in high-risk/economically disadvantaged settings. Journal of Early Intervention 39(2): 125–146.

69.

Pesco

Gagné

(2017) Scaffolding narrative skills: a meta-analysis of instruction in early childhood settings. Early Education and Development 28(7): 773–793.

70.

Phillips

Zhao

Weekley

(2018) Teacher language in the preschool classroom: initial validation of a classroom environment observation tool. Early Education and Development 29(3): 379–397.

71.

Pinto

Pessanha

Aguiar

(2013) Effects of home environment and center-based child care quality on children's language, communication, and literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28(1): 94–101.

72.

Romeo

Leonard

Robinson

, et al. (2018) Beyond the 30-million-word gap: children’s conversational exposure is associated with language-related brain function. Psychological Science 29(5): 700–710.

73.

Roulstone

Law

Rush

, et al. (2011) Investigating the role of language in children's early educational outcomes. Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181549/DFE-RR134.pdf Accessed on 21.03.23.

74.

Rowe

Snow

(2020) Analyzing input quality along three dimensions: interactive, linguistic, and conceptual. Journal of Child Language 47(1): 5–21.

75.

Sawyer

Atkins-Burnett

Sandilos

, et al. (2018) Variations in classroom language environments of preschool children who are low income and linguistically diverse. Early Education and Development 29(3): 398–416.

76.

Schmerse

Anders

Flöter

, et al. (2018) Differential effects of home and preschool learning environments on early language development. British Educational Research Journal 44(2): 338–357.

77.

Soliday Hong

Sabol

Burchinal

, et al. (2019) ECE Quality indicators and child outcomes: analyses of six large child care studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49: 202–217.

78.

Thorpe

Rankin

Beatton

, et al. (2020) The when and what of measuring ECE quality: analysis of variation in the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) across the ECE day. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 53: 274–286.

79.

Tompkins

Zucker

Justice

, et al. (2013) Inferential talk during teacher–child interactions in small-group play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28(2): 424–436.

80.

Tschantz

Vail

(2000) Effects of peer coaching on the rate of responsive teacher statements during a child-directed period in an inclusive preschool setting. Teacher Education and Special Education 23(3): 189–201.

81.

Turnbull

Anthony

Justice

, et al. (2009) Preschoolers’ exposure to language stimulation in classrooms serving at-risk children: the contribution of group size and activity context. Early Education and Development 20(1): 53–79.

82.

Wasik

(2008) When fewer is more: small groups in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal 35(6): 515–521.

83.

Weadman

Serry

Snow

(2022) The development and psychometric properties of a shared book reading observational tool: the emergent literacy and language early childhood checklist for teachers (ELLECCT). First Language 42(4): 552–578.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

The quality of universal language supporting provision in maintained nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England: Identifying strengths and areas for development

Abstract

Keywords

I Introduction

1 Early childhood education in England

2 High-quality language supporting provision

3 Measuring language supporting provision

4 Existing evidence

5 The current study

II Method

1 Context for study

2 Sample

3 Measurement tool

4 Procedures

5 Analysis

III Results

1 Research question 1: Strengths and areas for development

Table 3. LL-Opportunity and LL-Interaction proportion scores by hour of observation period. Sub-scale Hour Mean score SD LL-Opportunities 1 0.22 0.12 2 0.17 0.12 3 0.14 0.12 LL-Interactions 1 0.54 0.12 2 0.47 0.12 3 0.41 0.16

1 Limitations

V Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-clt-10.1177_02656590241252044 - Supplemental material for The quality of universal language supporting provision in maintained nursery classrooms in economically disadvantaged areas of England: Identifying strengths and areas for development

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Supplemental material

References

Supplementary Material

Table 3.
LL-Opportunity and LL-Interaction proportion scores by hour of observation period.

Sub-scale Hour Mean score SD

LL-Opportunities 1 0.22 0.12

2 0.17 0.12

3 0.14 0.12

LL-Interactions 1 0.54 0.12

2 0.47 0.12

3 0.41 0.16