Improving the Odds: Identifying Language Activities that Support the Language Development of Preschoolers with Poorer Vocabulary Skills

ABSTRACT

The aim of the current study is to determine what language activities Norwegian preschool children took part in, and to examine whether these language activities predict children’s language comprehension. We tested children (n = 134) with language measures at age 4/5 and age 5/6 and interviewed their teachers (n = 71) about the kinds of language activities the children engaged in during that school year. Teachers reported a variety of classroom language activities, ranging from informal language stimulation of everyday situations to more explicit language activities such as book reading, language games, vocabulary training and school preparation groups. Book reading every day significantly predicted children’s language comprehension.

KEYWORDS:

• Language comprehension
• language activities
• preschool
• book reading

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Monica Melby-Lervåg and Arne Lervåg for support and taking part in the design of the study and Joshua F. Lawrence for valuable comments.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The children were screened with a measure consisting of 29 items from the British Picture Vocabulary Scale II (BPVS-II) (Dunn et al., 1997) and 12 items from the subtest picture naming of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-III (Wechsler, 1989). The measure was designed to assess children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary and took on average 5 min per child. The reliability of the screening measure, Cronbach’s alpha, was .67. Although this reliability estimate was lower than desirable, it can be argued that it is sufficient for research purposes. According to several methodologists (e.g. Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Nunnally, 1978), whether a reliability estimate is acceptable or not depends on how the measure is used and what conclusions are drawn based on it. Thus, because the screening measure in this study is not used for diagnostic purposes, an estimate of .67 seems adequate.

Additional information

Funding

The research was funded by the Research Council of Norway [grant number 203335].