Aspects of teachers’ language and communication support in Swedish preschools after a second phase of implementation

ABSTRACT

The aim was to investigate the staff’s language support towards children in Swedish preschools after eight weeks of structured language support. This study took place after an initial study of six weeks’ language support. To identify support of Language Learning Environment, Opportunities and Interactions an observation-tool was used. Structured collegial discussions took place about language support strategies. The staff often engaged the children in structured conversations with adults and peers but seldom facilitated interactive book reading. The interactions were now more focused on general learner needs than on advanced language learning such as introducing new complex syntactic and semantic constructions. The staff’s reflections showed that the discussions about the Language Environment items were intertwined with ideas about how to use these items to increase language opportunities and interactions. Accordingly, the staff’s work with language support towards the children had further developed after two phases of professional language support.

KEYWORDS:

• Language
• preschool children
• collegial reflections
• language support
• observation tool

Introduction

Structured language and communication supporting activities varies considerably between preschools in Sweden. This leads to that children in Sweden get very different language and communication experiences at preschool, depending on which preschool they attend (Nordberg & Jacobsson, 2019; Swedish School Inspectorate, 2018). However, unambiguous research shows that that early language support from adults promote a positive reading and writing development later in the children’s lives (e.g. Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Dockrell & Connelly, 2009; Fricke, Bowyer-Crane, Haley, Hulme, & Snowling, 2013; Hagen, 2018; Justice, 2004; Lervåg, Hulme, & Melby-Lervåg, 2018; National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), 2008; Puranik & Lonigan, 2012; Snowling & Hulme, 2011). Furthermore, children’s development of language is crucial in order to succeed in the classroom and the playground (Justice, 2004; Mashburn, Justice, Downer, & Pianta, 2009) and in specific academic tasks such as the acquisition of subject-specific vocabulary (Nagy & Townsend, 2012) and of both reading and writing (Cabell, Justice, McGinty, DeCoster, & Forston, 2015; Whorrall & Cabell, 2016).

In a previous study by Nordberg (2019) the aim was to investigate if the children’s language development could be supported from the staff at Swedish preschools in the ‘Tambour situation’ (the transition time at the preschool’s reception area) and that study was completed during the spring term (between February and April, 2019). This present study was performed in the same preschool groups and in the same location, but during the following autumn term (between September and November, 2019), with a focus to see how and if the teachers’ language support still was there. The language support were explored by observing the Language Learning Environment, that is the way the room is adapted to stimulate language development, the Language Learning Opportunities, with focus focus on adults giving the children various opportunities for language learning and, finally the dimension of Language Learning Interactions, that is about interactions between child–teacher and between child–child in the preschool context.

The support of the children’s Language Learning Environment and Language Learning Interactions were, in both studies, observed in 9 preschool groups (1–5 years). Initial observations were video-taped and followed by the staff’s critical review of their language practice and support. The language support was analysed by using the Communication Supporting Observation Tool (Dockrell, Bakopoulou, Law, Spencer, & Lindsay, 2012, 2015), a tool based on evidence-based elements supporting language development, including both receptive and expressive language. In this present study the observations were video-taped after eight weeks. For more detailed information about the procedure of the study see Nordberg (2019).

A finding from the previous study was that the dimensions of Language Learning Environment dimension scored higher than the Language Learning Interactions. Another finding was the diversity of reflections from the staff on how the observations could be used as flexible measures to develop the preschool practices and how they could find areas for specific actions to improve and support the children’s language development. In this present study the dimension of Language Learning Opportunities was added to explore, besides exploring the other two dimensions of Language Learning Environment and Language Learning Interactions.

The focus of this study was on extending the analysis from the first study. This was done by continuing to use structured observations and reflections in order to find out if the staff’s structured way of working with observations can maintain their research-based language supportive work towards the children.

The present study had these aims.

1. to explore whether implemented structured observations and collegial discussions and reflections on how to support children’s language development in preschool are maintained after a second implementation phase

2. to investigate if and how the language learning environments, opportunities and interactions were further developed via structured observations carried out by the preschool teachers.

Method

Descriptive characteristics of the staff and the preschool groups are presented in Table 1. The Communication Supporting Observation Tool (Dockrell et al., 2012, 2015) was used (earlier described in the introduction section). This tool includes guidance on what language supportive item to observe. The scores ranged from 0 (not recorded) to 1 (maximum possible numbers of occurrences), where items were rated on the basis of a maximum of five occurrences. The staff were providede with both electronic versions of the observation tool. The tool is available from theCommunicationTrust (http://www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk/resources/resources/resources-for-practitioners/communication-supporting-classroom-observation-tool/); Swedish translation (Waldmann, Dockrell, & Sullivan, 2016). Reliability, validity and usefulness of the observation tool was explored by Dockrell et al. (2012; 2015) in a feasibilty study in a preschool context.

Table 1. Overview of the observed preschool groups.

‘Tambours’	Number of children	Age of children	Staff (number of adults)
Tambour 1	6	1–3 years	2
Tambour 2	6	3–5 years	2
Tambour 3	9	3–5 years	2
Tambour 4	10	1–3 years	2
Tambour 5	10	3–5 years	2
Tambour 6	7	1–3 years	3
Tambour 7	6	1–2.5 years	2
Tambour 8	10	1–3 years	2
Tambour 9	12	2.5–5 years	2

The scores from the observations were calculated as differences between observed Physical Language Learning Environment, Opportunities and Interaction support items before and after the staff’s collegial discussions. The reflections about how and if the observed Language Learning Environment, Opportunities and Interactions items had increased or changed were added as a complement to the quantitaive scores of the observations. Accordingly, this study adopted a mixed-method design with quantitative data derived from using the observation tool when analysing the video observations and addition of supplementary qualitative reflections and thoughts from the preschool staff. Thus, the mixed method of triangulation was applied with concurrent data collection and analysis (Caruth, 2013; Creswell, 2009; Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003).

Information was given to the participants that their participation was voluntary before they took part in the study. Furthermore, the data derived in this study is only used for scientific purposes and anonymized so that no individual person could be identified (Swedish Research Council, 2017). Reserach in a preschool context is considered as a sensitive environment (e.g. Larsson, Williams, & Zetterqvist, 2016, 2019) and this study took place in preschools, that is in a sensitive environment. Yet, it was not the children who were the focus, but the language support of the preschool staff. Ethical issues is of great importance for researchers in preschool (Larsson et al., 2019), therefore the national ethical regulations were discussed during the planning stages and also prior to the data collection.

Results

The results from the observations of the Language Learning Environment items are shown as differences before and after the staff’s collegial reflections and discussions (Tables 2 and 3). The Language Learning Opportunities dimension scores are presented in Table 4 and the results from the Language Learning Interactions are presented in Table 5. Improvement of language support from the staff is illustrated with bold figures which are indicating that the language support items were introduced after collegial discussions. Items observed both before and after the staff’s collegial discussions are indicated with * in the tables.

Table 2. Differences between observed Physical Language Learning Environment support items before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Items	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9
Open space	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)
Defined learning areas	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)
Labelled learning areas: pictures/words	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	−1	0 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)
Quiet areas	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Children’s work displayed/ labelled	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	−1	1 (0)	0 (1)*
Comments on displayed items	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	−1	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Book specific areas	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	1 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Literacy specific areas	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Transition times with appropriate noise levels	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	−1

Notes: Bold figures = items introduced after collegial discussions. Figures in the parenthesis = times the items occurred before collegial discussions.

*Indicate that items were observed both before and after the staff’s collegial discussions. −1 means that the item occurred before but not after collegial discussions.

Table 3. Differences between observed Physical Language Learning Environment support items before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Items	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9
Noise levels, hear with ease	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
There is good light	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Majority learning resources labelled pictures/words	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	1 (0)
Free play items reached by the children	0 (1)*	0 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)
Appropriate range of books is available	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)
Interesting books available in other learning areas	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	1 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)
Quality natural toys, available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	−1	0 (0)
Musical instruments, noise makers available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Role play area is available	0 (0)	0 (0)	−1	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)

Notes: Bold figures = items introduced after collegial discussions. Figures in the parenthesis = times the items occurred before collegial discussions.

*Indicate that items were observed both before and after the staff’s collegial discussions. −1 means that the item occurred before but not after collegial discussions.

Table 4. Differences between observed Language Learning Opportunities before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Items	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9
Small group facilitated by an adult takes place	0 (0-0)	0 (3-3)	2	2	0 (5-5)*	0 (3-3)	0 (5-5)*	0 (2-2)	0 (5-5)*
Children have opportunities to engage in interactive book reading facilitated by an adult (for example: asking predictive questions, joining in with repetitions, story packs etc.).	−2	2	−1	0 (0-0)	−1	−1	5	−1	5
Children have opportunities to engage in structured conversations with teachers and other adults.	−1	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	3	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (3-3)	1
Children have opportunities to engage in structured conversations with peers (Talking partners).	2	3	0 (5-5)*	−1	3	3	0 (5-5)*	1	0 (5-5)*
Attempts are made to actively include all children in small group activities.	0 (1-1)	3	−1	0 (4-4)	0 (5-5)*	3	−3	2	−4

Notes: Bold figures = the interactions occurred the most often after collegial discussions. Figures in the parenthesis = times the interactions occurring before collegial discussions.

*Indicate items that were observed the most often both before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Table 5. Differences between observed Language Learning Interactions items before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Items	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8	Group 9
Supporting listening skills	0 (0-0)	0 (4-4)	3	−2	0 (5-5)*	1	1	2	1
Encouraging use of new words	1	3	1	1	0 (5-5)*	1	0 (0-0)	1	0 (0-0)
Praising non-verbal communication	0 (0-0)	1	0 (0-0)	−1	4	0 (5-5)*	1	−1	2
Encouraging turn-taking	5	0 (0-0)	0 (3-3)	−1	1	1	1	1	0 (1-1)
Using symbols (pictures) to reinforce language	0 (4-4)	0 (5-5)*	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	0 (5-5)*	−1	−2	0 (3-3)	3
Using contrasts	−2	1	−2	1	1	1	0 (0-0)	3	2
Providing clear language choices	0 (0-0)	1	1	2	−1	0 (3-3)	1	2	2
Labelling unfamiliar items/actions	4	1	1	1	−1	0 (4-4)	2	3	2
Using natural gestures	0 (0-0)	1	1	0 (0-0)	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*
Extending children’s language	5	−1	0 (3-3)	0 (2-2)	0 (4-4)	−1	−1	2	0 (5-5)*
Oral scripting of activities	0 (0-0)	−1	1	2	−4	1	1	−2	3
Pauses to encourage turn-taking and active participation.	1	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	−2	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	1	0 (3-3)	−2
Modelling language that the children are not producing yet.	0 (5-5)*	−1	0 (2-2)	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	−1
Imitating what child says more or less exactly.	0 (1-1)	1	−1	0 (3-3)	1	0 (5-5)*	−2	3	0 (5-5)*
Using open questions	−1	0 (5-5)*	0 (4-4)	1	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	−1	0 (3-3)	−1
Slow pace during conversations	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	2	0 (5-5)*
Getting down to child’s level	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*
Commenting on childreńs communication	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	2	0 (5-5)*
Confirming children’s intentions	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	3	0 (5-5)*
Using children’s name	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*	0 (5-5)*

Notes: Bold figures = the interactions occurred most often after collegial discussions. Figures in the parenthesis = times the interactions occurring before collegial discussions.

*Indicate items observed the most often both before and after the staff’s collegial discussions.

Frequent and less frequently used language support strategies at the preschools

In this present study there were 49% Language Learning Environment items occurring before and after the collegial discussions. In the study by Nordberg (2019) there were 37% Language Learning Environment items that occurred before and after the collegial discussions. Thus, the staff had implemented 12% more of Language Learning Environment items after conducting two phases of regular and structured language support.

Around half of the observed Language Learning Environment items already occurred before the collegial discussions took place. Thus, already before the collegial discussions took place, the staff had implemented around half of the Language Learning items. In a majority of the preschool groups (in 8 of 9) the staff created opportunities to engage the children in structured conversations with teachers, other adults and with peers. They also used language learning interactions such as talking slowly during conversation and got down to the children’s level when communicating with them. They often confirmed the children’s intentions and used the children’s name when communicating with them.

The staff’s reflections on how to increase and deepen their language support

The participants’ reflections on the structured observations with the following collegial discussions show that they saw them as functionally useful because they discovered aspects of their own language support which they had not considered before. The findings also indicated that their way of working with language support, effectively provided a forum for discussion about how to gain more knowledge on how to support the children’s communication and thus increase the quality of their professional work in this area.

The staff had many thoughts and reflections on how to continue to support and expand the children’s language. They reflected on how to be able to support the children’s language at the moment, inspired by their observations, but there were even more thoughts about how to further develop their language support in the future. For example, as noted before, there were now more preschool groups where literacy activities were implemented and the staff reflected on this:

More documentation has been placed on the wall, for example things the children have seen and found outdoors. Pictures of signed language and other images are placed on and under a window. An activity board with removable numbers is placed on the wall. (Group 4)

There were few preschool groups that had implemented book specific areas, but those who had following reflections on it:

There is now a bookcase where the children can choose books and look at them while they are waiting. (Group 5)

Accordingly, with few book specific areas, few opportunities were created by the staff to engage the children in interactive book reading. However, the staff of one of the two groups that had implemented a book specific area they had following reflections on how to increase the children’s interest in books:

It depends on the children how much interest they have in reading books. We need to find books that attract all children or other interesting material. We have an idea: putting pictures of dinosaurs on the drying cabinets that can increase conversation and book reading. (Group 3)

There were reflections on how their interactions with the children had improved after their collegial discussions. Earlier they did not pay attention to the children’s listening skills:

… Then the teacher comments on the child’s good listening skills and the other children listen to this and maybe learn about how to listen to someone. (Group 3)

In, summary, the quotes above from the staff illustrate that they offered the children many opportunities to actively use and also process language inputs. It is obvious when taking part of the staff’s comments that they have continued to create natural opportunities for language exposure and language use and there are a variety of reflections on how to go further.

Discussion

This study is, together with the earlier study by Nordberg (2019), the first study using the observation tool, Communication Supporting Observation Tool (Dockrell et al., 2012, 2015) in a Swedish preschool setting. This present study aimed to find out how and if the staff had continued to support the children’s language development. It was obvious that preschool staff was very much aware of their key role in supporting the children’s language and how to develop the learning environment in order to support language for thinking and learning. The staff’s awareness of supporting children’s early language was still there after this second phase of language support. Their reflections illustrated that they have deepened their knowledge about the importance of supporting early language for a good foundation for language development and lifelong learning, which is in accordance with well-established research (e.g. Bruce, Ivarsson, Svensson, & Sventelius, 2016; Fricke et al., 2013; Dockrell, Bakopoulou, Law, Spencer, & Lindsay, 2015; Lervåg et al., 2018; National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), 2008; Puranik & Lonigan, 2012; Snowling & Hulme, 2011).

Structured observations of language support

In comparison with the previous study by Nordberg (2019) the staff now combined the three Language Learning dimensions more often when they reflected on their observations. They had more thoughts about how the implemented Language Learning Environment items gave the children access to further language development by using new Language Learning Opportunities and Interactions. Obviously, the staff had made new discoveries about how to create opportunities for children to communicate with peers and adults.

Frequently and seldom used language support at the preschools

In the previous study by Nordberg (2019) there were 37% of the Language Learning Environment items that occurred before and after performed collegial discussions. In this present study there were 49% of the Language Learning Environment items occurring before and after collegial discussions. Thus, the staff had implemented 12% more of Language Learning Environment items after conducting these two phases of regular and structured language support activities. This is a promising result indicating improvements of the language supportive work of the staff at the preschools and also that this is a work that need to be done continuous at the preschools.

In only 2 of the 9 preschool groups the children had opportunities to ‘engage in interactive book reading facilitated by an adult’. The majority of the preschool groups had not yet introduced having book specific areas but those who had found many creative language-supporting activities around the books and these activities occurred often. The staff also reflected on how to make book reading more interesting for the children. This strategy for supporting the children to read books is in accordance with research by Mol, Bus, and de Jong (2009) that emphasized that interactive storybook reading is important for children’s vocabulary and print knowledge.

The staff frequently used Language Learning Interactions focusing the children’s general learner needs, such as: ‘confirming the children’s intentions’, ‘using the children’s name’ and ‘getting down to the children’s level’ were frequently used. On the other hand, advanced language learning interactions were less frequently used, such as: ‘Oral scripting of activities’ and ‘Using syntactic and semantic contrasts. In addition, adult–child interactions need to be of sufficiently high quality and sensitivity in order to specifically develop the children’s language skills. Data from this study and other studies in the same field (e.g. Dockrell et al., 2015; Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002) showed that interactions acknowledging the children’s general learner needs occurred more often than interactions between adults and children that were characterized by high quality language learning interactions. The use of interactions including more advanced language learning has been shown to develop grammatical skills, vocabulary and narrative. Together, these techniques constitute high-quality verbal input by adults. For example, regular and extended interactive instruction by teachers during storybook reading leads to positive gains in vocabulary and receptive and expressive language in general (e.g. Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, & Kapp, 2009). One can speculate why adults do not use so many advanced language learning interactions togheter with the children. It would surely require more in-depth collegial discussions about how they can gain knowledge on how to challenge children to use more of syntactic and semantically advanced language constructions.

The staff’s reflections on how to continue their language support

Research has indicated that children need to have regular and structured opportunities to develop their language skills through interactions with both peers and adults (e.g. Brigman & Webb, 2003). Children need opportunities for both language exposure and language use. Throughout the day there need to be particular opportunities created for the children to learn and practise their language skills. Creating Language Learning Opportunities in a preschool context are characterized by having a communication supporting environment including small group work (Turnbull, Anthony, Justice, & Bowles, 2009), interactive book reading (Mol et al., 2009), structured opportunities for high-quality conversations with peers and adults (Chapman, 2000) and opportunities including all the children at preschool. In 8 of the 9 preschool groups in this study the children had many opportunities to engage in structured conversations both with adults and peers. The staff was obviously able to create natural contexts for the production of language targets for the children. Research has emphasized the importance for children to interact with more knowledgeable conversational partners for support of the language development (e.g. Justice & Kaderavek, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978). In this study the staff reflected on how they created the language Learning Opportunities for the children. They had many good ideas for increasing such opportunities and fill them with high quality content. For example, the staff inspired the children to help each other to dress in the ‘Tambour’ and during that activity they had structured conversations with each other.

The dimensions of Language Learning Environment and Opportunities are important aspects of supporting children’s language at preschool but not sufficient. Children’s use of language in interaction with others is associated with robust language gains by children (e.g. Dickinson et al., 2003). Adult–child verbal interactions that are characterized by high levels of adult responsiveness have shown to be specific supportive of children’s language development. Techniques such as open-ended questions, expansions by using new words and the use of challenging questions, have been causally associated with accelerated language development in children (Huttenlocher, Waterfall, Vasilyeva, Vevea, & Hedges, 2010). Language exposure from adults when they explicitly highlight word meanings and when adults offer instructions directly to the children (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) are known to facilitate and increase vocabulary acquisition for both monolingual speakers and second language learners (August & Shanahan, 2010). The staff combined the three Language Learning dimensions when they reflected on their observations. They had thoughts about how the implemented Language Learning Environment items gave the children access to further language development. Obviously, the staff had obtained new knowledge about how to create opportunities for children to communicate with peers and adults.

Limitations

There are limitations to the present study that should be noted. There is, of course, a need to collect more data to test the assumptions arising out of the data presented in this article about the observation tool used in a Swedish preschool context. Still, the preschools staff’s discussuion about how to be able to continue to support the children’s language could be used as the foundation to test whether it is possible to change the language support environment for children in preschool. No study alike is performed using this observation tool in a Swedish preschool setting, except the study by Nordberg (2019), therefore the findings is of interest.

Other aspects that need further investigation were the barriers the staff commented on for being able to support the children’s language. It was not possible for them to create so many language supportive opportunities as they wanted, due to, as they call it, ‘economic conditions and shortage of staff’. Persson and Tallberg Broman (2019) have pointed at the strained staff situation in the daily work of the Swedish preschools. One consequence of this is a stressed work environment with high workload. Preschool teachers experience a shortage of close colleagues and a loneliness in their responsibility for the educational activities. Future research needs to continue to explore how to best support the staff so they can fulfil their educational assignments.

Conclusions

The amount and type of language and emergent literacy activities vary considerably in Swedish preschools, leading to various language and communication experiences for children (Swedish School Inspectorate, 2018; Nordberg & Jacobsson, 2019). Using a communication supporting observation tool, as used in this study, effectively provides a forum for discussion about the preschool’s language supporting practice – ‘a means of communicating about communication’.

In this study the staff continued to find a way forward through collegial discussions and reflections for formulating problems and critically examining their own work. They had a systematic approach to implementation and this provided them with understanding of the evidence supporting the measure (the observation tool) and knowledge to carry it out. Barriers to and enablers of research implementation, and consequent change in practice, are dependent on the context in which the practitioners are working in, as reported by Long et al. (2016). Accordingly, it is of utmost importance that the staff are given organizational condidtions for conducting structured and regular professional discussions. In this study, there were good organizational conditions which made the implementation of language support successful.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the staff at the preschools who made this study possible. I also wish to thank Professor Karin Rönnerman at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, for many fruitful discussions and insights about support of children’s language at preschools through collegial reflections.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ann Nordberg

Dr Ann Nordberg, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, Sweden. The research is particularly focused on strengthening children’s communicative participation in preschools and schools. Particular attention is paid to professional development to scaffold language development through the use of evidence-informed tools for profiling features of language support in preschools and schools. The connection between early language support and children’s reading and writing is also a focus and research interest.