Support of language and communication in the ‘Tambour situation’ in Swedish preschools

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to investigate in what ways 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). The support of Physical Language Learning Environment and Language Learning Interactions were observed for children (1–5 years). Initial video-taped observations were followed by the staff’s examination of the language practice. Data were analysed by using an observation-tool, identifying the support of the children’s language-use and how it could be further developed. After six weeks another video-taped observation was made and the observations were compared. The Language Learning Environment dimension scored higher than the Language Learning Interactions did. Potentials for increasing the support of language learning were found. These observations turned out to be flexible measures to support teachers developing practices and finding targeting areas for specific actions to improve the children’s language and communication.

KEYWORDS:

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

Introduction

This study aims to investigate ‘communication and language friendly’ approaches from the staff towards the children at Swedish preschools in the ‘Tambour situation’, which is a daily routine situation that takes place in the preschool hall. The term communication friendly has earlier been used for ensuring a strong commitment to staff training and development to meet language and communication needs for children with special needs in schools in the UK. Good practice for children with special educational needs, such as children at risk for dyslexia, is also good practice for children in general at preschools and schools (Coffield & O’Neill, 2004). The main focus of this study is to make the ‘Tambour situation’ at preschool communication friendly for all children. It is emphasized in Swedish preschool and school curricula that teachers should work in a language-generating manner in all subjects of the Swedish school (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). Support of the children’s language is consequently important parts of the Swedish preschool and preschool curricula. The children should be given the opportunity, based on their needs and conditions, to develop spoken language, vocabulary, play with words, tell, argue, communicate and reflect. They should also be given the opportunity to develop an interest in the written language and create an understanding of symbols and how they can be used in learning situations (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). It is stated that each child should have his or her needs respected and met, and be able to experience and express his or her own value (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). Support of children’s language development and learning in general can take place in all possible environments and contexts in the preschool, including in the everyday conversation with the child in various routine situations (Pramling-Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2016). The ‘Tambour situation’ is one example of a routine situation that the children attend every day at the preschool.

Swedish preschool

The Swedish preschool is part of the school system and is designed to encompass children’s care, development and learning. The preschool is governed by the Swedish school law (SFS, 2010:800) and by a curriculum. Eighty-four per cent of all children aged 1–5 years old and 95% of all children aged 3–5 years old attend preschool (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019). It is possible for children to begin preschool at one year old. There are two professional groups that work in the Swedish preschools; university-educated teachers and childcare-workers with a vocational training in upper secondary school.

‘Tambour situation’ at Swedish preschools

The ‘Tambour’ appears as an arena intended for certain specific activities based on actors and purposes. The purpose of the ‘Tambour’ can be described as Markström (2007) denotes as a transit hall, which means that it is an arena where the private sphere meets the public and it is also a spatial transition between indoor and outdoor activities. Altogether, according to Markström (2007), the ‘Tambour’ is a place where preschool staff and children stay before and after they have been outdoors. The ‘Tambour’ entails routines around what is expected to happen in there, such as dressing and undressing and also the children’s clothes are stored here. The situation for the children and the preschool staff in the ‘Tambour’, can be seen as a transitional situation, which can be developed into a learning situation depending on the approach from the staff. There are great demands on the teacher’s ability to support the children in this situation in order to make the situation harmonious with the importance of scaffolding language learning and social relationships, instead of moving this situation into a stressful situation (Swedish School Inspectorate, 2017). It can also be problematic for the preschool staff at winter. They have to help the entire group of children from one space to another and the children need to get dressed and undressed in winter clothes. Also, allowing children to learn to dress themselves for winter takes time. In Swedish preschools the children are provided with opportunities to become independent and to get dressed in the ‘Tambour situation’ is one such opportunity.

Language and communication support from the staff at preschool

Learning environments in preschool that enhance language and communication can provide both support for literacy (Snowling & Hulme, 2011) and support learning (Mercer, 2008). Many research studies reveal that adults’ early language and communication support of children promote a positive reading and writing development later in the children’s lives (e.g. Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Justice, 2004; National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), 2008; Snowling & Hulme, 2011; Puranik & Lonigan, 2012; Fricke, Bowyer-Crane, Haley, Hulme, & Snowling, 2013; Dockrell, Bakopoulou, Law, Spencer, & Lindsay, 2015; Lervåg, Hulme, & Melby-Lervåg, 2018). Children’s everyday conversations and interactions with peers and adults in preschool make them experience various activities promoting communication, language and literacy (e.g. Barton, 2007; Fast, 2008; Kamhi & Catts, 2004; Norling, 2015; Norling & Lillvist, 2016; Pianta, 2006; Reichenberg, 2006; Scott, 2004). It is a demanding task for a child to make the subcomponents of the language system work together in a dynamic way in order to express themselves and understand others. To retell a story is a complex task, it was proven in a study by Nordberg, Dahlgren Sandberg, and Miniscalco (2015) when children (mean age 11) had grammatical difficulties retelling a story even when they had pictures as prompts. In another study by Renblad and Brodin (2019) teachers were interviewed and reported that they know that language support through the staff’s storytelling was effective to support children’s language. However, the staff did not have any know-how strategy to conduct storytelling in the preschool practice, one reason for this was probably that they spent a lot of time on practical issues with the children during daytime why they did not have time for in-service training. Obviously, it is a challenge for the preschool staff to give the children opportunities to master language so they learn to produce extended, fluent and coherent narratives so children can communicate with both peers and adults effectively.

The theoretical framework of adult’s language and communication support for children is inspired by Lev Vygotsky’s social development theory (Vygotsky, 1978). The main concept is that individuals develop language and communication as a structure of cultural development. The forms of knowledge that are generated within the culture, in this case at the preschools, contribute to the children’s learning. Knowledge is transmitted from those who are more refined, to those who are less refined in a culture, for example, adults transmit knowledge to children. The ‘zone of proximal development (ZPD)’ is a fundamental concept in Vygotsky’s theory. It is the region outside of the children’s achievement abilities where children need assistance. This type of assistance is considered to be providing ‘scaffolding’ or helping children to develop language and communication in the preschool context.

Communication supporting observation tool

The observation tool, Communication Supporting Observation Tool (Dockrell et al., 2015), is initially developed for observing adult’s support of language and communication at preschools. The tool has a clear evidence base, where all the items included are associated with current empirical evidence. The features to be included in the observation tool were derived from a comprehensive review of relevant research literature to ensure that the components of the tool were informed by evidence (Dockrell et al., 2015). Furthermore, a feasibility study of the reliability, validity and usefulness of the observation tool was also carried out in preschool settings (Dockrell, Bakopoulou, Law, Spencer, & & Lindsay, 2012; 2015). The observation tool should be used as a support to identify key Language Learning Environment features related to children’s language development. It can also be used as a continuous and structured professional tool for the educational staff at preschools and schools to find out what kind of language activities they are offering the children.

There are dimensions of children’s language and communication, according to research (e.g. Dockrell et al., 2015; Lervåg et al., 2018; Mashburn, 2008; Mashburn, Justice, Downer, & Pianta, 2009; Resnick, Michaels, & O’Connor, 2010; Snowling & Hulme, 2011), that are important for adults to observe and support. These dimensions are included in the observation tool (Dockrell et al., 2015) used in this study. The dimensions are: (a) ‘Physical Language Learning Environment’, thus the way the room is adapted to stimulate language development (b) ‘Language Learning Interactions’ between child–teacher and child–child and (c) the dimension ‘Language Learning Opportunities’.

The observation tool was tested in 101 different British schools by Dockrell et al. (2015) for children aged 5–6 years in 35 classrooms. It turned out that the physical Language Learning Environment, that is, how the environment is adapted to stimulate language development, was quite well organized. In contrast, the adults in the classroom offered the children a few language strategies and interactions. It is suggested that adults at preschools should offer children more strategies for optimizing their language and communicative development (Dockrell et al., 2015).

Collegial reflections at preschool

Collegial reflections at preschool is a summary term for various forms of competence development where colleagues through structured cooperation acquire knowledge and skills. Collegial reflections emphasize the way forward for solving tasks, formulating problems and critically examining their own work. Together, two or more persons have tasks to prepare and solve, discuss and reflect on before they seek advice or discuss further with a supervisor. Those who participate are trained on giving each other feedback on how different tasks are carried out (Rönnerman, Edwards-Groves, & Grootenboer, 2018; Timperley, 2011). Collegial reflections can be supervised by a ‘middle leader’. This term reflects how a teacher sit in the middle positionally (i.e. between the principal and the staff), philosophically (i.e. as a leader among peers) and practically (i.e. in the practices of leading). Rönnerman et al. (2018) have described these middle leaders as teachers with an acknowledged position of leadership but also with a significant teaching role and a specific purpose of facilitating collegial professional learning and the development of quality learning for the children in the preschool. In this study, the term ‘middle leader’ is used for the teachers who facilitate the collegial professional discussions and reflections for the staff at the preschools.

Aim

The overall aim of this study was to investigate in what ways children’s language development could be supported by the staff at preschools in the ‘Tambour situation’. Furthermore, exploring the staff’s support of the children’s language before and after that critically collegial discussions and reflections were performed.

Research questions:

• In what ways have the support of language and communication from the preschool staff changed in the ‘Tambour situation’ before and after structured collegial discussions and reflections?

• Has the Physical Language Learning Environment and Language Learning Interactions in the ‘Tambour situation’ differed before and after structured collegial discussions about the observations made with an observation tool?

Method

This study had a mixed-method design in which the derived data from video observations were supplemented with qualitative descriptions from the preschool staff. ‘Tambours situations’ in nine municipal Swedish preschool groups were observed. The observations of Language Learning Environment and Interactions took place in the ‘Tambours’ of nine different preschool groups in preschools located just outside the city centre of a medium-sized municipality in southwestern Sweden. The area where these preschools are located consists of apartment buildings and villas. Descriptive characteristics of the staff and the preschool groups are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of the observed preschool groups in the ‘Tambour situation’.

Observed preschool-groups in the ‘Tambour situation’	Number of children	Age of children	Staff (number of adults)
Preschool group 1	6	1–3 years	2
Preschool group 2	6	3–5 years	2
Preschool group 3	9	3–5 years	2
Preschool group 4	10	1–3 years	2
Preschool group 5	10	3–5 years	2
Preschool group 6	7	1–3 years	3
Preschool group 7	6	1–2.5 years	2
Preschool group 8	10	1–3 years	2
Preschool group 9	12	2.5–5 years	2

Material and analysis

The preschool staff’s support of language and communication was observed and assessed by using the research-evidence-derived observation tool (Dockrell et al., 2015) to see if there were possibilities to make the ‘Tambour situation’ more language and communication friendly.

The components included in the observation tool are different aspects of how adult’s support children’s language and communication development and they are informed by evidence (Dockrell et al., 2015; Swedish translation; Waldmann, Dockrell, & Sullivan, 2015). The tool is available from the Communication Trust (http://www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk/resources/resources/resources-for-practitioners/communication- supporting-classroom-observation-tool.aspx; January 2015).

The observation tool comprises the following dimensions: ‘The Physical Language Learning Environment’, comprises 19 items, each of which is scored as either observed or not observed (range 0-1). The item ‘outdoor play’, was not applicable, thus range 0–18 for the dimension in this study.

The ‘Language Learning Interactions’ dimension’, that is, the ways in which adults in the setting talk with children, comprises 20 items each scored 0–5 reporting the number of times the behaviour was seen during the observation, providing a range of 0–100 for the dimension. The dimension ‘The Language Learning Opportunities’ of the observation-tool, about opportunities to participate in structured conversations was not scored in this study. Some items were not applicable to this ‘tambour situation’. However, the development of Language Learning Opportunities was a natural part of the staff’s collegial discussions.

The observers collect quantitative data and add supplementary qualitative information in terms of commentaries on each item observed. The qualitative commentaries capture in what way and why there are a large number of certain language activities and if others are lacking. The supplementary qualitative data were the basis for professional discussions and evaluations about how to improve adult behaviour when interacting with the children. The data also provide the basis for evaluations of the teachers own strengths in using specific Language Learning Interaction approaches.

Procedure

The ‘Tambour situations’ at the nine preschools’ units were video-taped for 30 minutes around 9 am. Five teachers, so-called middle leaders, were trained how to use the observation-tool and how to analyse the data, by a person (the author) with experience from using the research-evidence-derived observation tool (Dockrell et al., 2015). The focus for the middle leaders was to critically examine the observed data together with the staff about improving the support of the children’s language development. The five middle leaders trained the rest of the staff at the nine preschool units how to use the observation tool. The staff from the nine preschool units watched the video-taped observations of the ‘Tambour situations’ together at their respective preschool together with the trained middle leader. All of them used the observation tool together when analysing the video-taped observations. Collegial discussions and reflections took place about how to improve language support for the children at the ‘Tambour situation’ based on the analyses made by them using the tool. The staff at the preschools in this present study was theoretically inspired when conducting their structured collegial discussions by research about professional discussions and reflections by Scherp (2003), Timperley (2011) and Rönnerman et al. (2018).

There were six weeks for the staff to implement the language supportive items that they had discovered they needed to focus on in order to improve children’s communication and language. After six weeks, the ‘Tambour situations’ were video-taped and a similar scoring was made. The second video-taped observation was made in order to examine if the staff’s way of supporting the children’s language and communication had changed after the structured collegial discussions. The staff from the nine preschool units watched the second video-taped observations of the ‘Tambour situations’ at their respective preschool together with the trained middle leaders. New collegial discussions took place with new discussions and reflections about which language learning environment items and interactions they needed to improve and in what way the language-supportive work should go on.

The participants in this study were given information about the project. It was emphasized that their participation was voluntary and all data would be used for scientific purposes only. It was also explained that the material would be anonymized so that no individual person could be identified (Swedish Research Council, 2017). The fieldwork of this study was conducted in preschools, which is viewed as a sensitive environment by several researchers (e.g. Larsson, Williams, & Zetterqvist, 2016; Larsson, Williams, & Zetterqvist, 2019). In this study the support from the staff concerning the children’s language and communication development was highlighted, thus, the children themselves were not the research participants. Still, as this study took place in a sensitive environment, the national ethical regulations were thoroughly discussed, both during the planning stages of this study and prior to the data collecting process, this is ethical issues of great importance when conducting research in preschool (Larsson et al., 2019). Furthermore, a feasibility study of the reliability, validity and usefulness of the observation tool used in this study was carried out in preschool settings (see Dockrell et al., 2012; 2015).

Results

The results of this study are reported in three tables and running text. Tables 2 and 3 are presenting the scores on the Physical Language Learning Environment dimension for the preschool groups. Furthermore, the scores on the Language Learning Interactions dimension are presented in Table 4. The tables are followed by the staff’s reflections about how and if the observed Language Learning Environment and Interactions items increased or changed after collegial discussions at the preschools.

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 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)
Defined learning areas	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	1 ( 0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)
Labelled learning areas: pictures/words	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (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	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	−1	1 (0)	0 (1)*
Comments on displayed items	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Book specific areas	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Literacy specific areas	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)	0 (1)	0 (1)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Transition times with appropriate noise levels	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	−1

Note: 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.

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)*	1 ( 0)	0 (1)	0 (1)	0 (1)	0 (1)	−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	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	1 (0)	0 (1)*	1 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*
Free play items reached by the children	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Appropriate range of books is available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Interesting books available in other learning areas	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Quality natural toys, available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (1)*	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Musical instruments, noise makers available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (0)	0 (0)
Role play area is available	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)

Note: 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.

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

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

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

Physical language learning environment dimension

The results from the observations of the staff’s support of Language Learning Environment are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 as differences before and after the staff’s collegial discussions. 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.

The Language Learning Environment items occurring most frequently after collegial discussions were:

• Majority learning resources labelled with pictures/words (3 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Learning areas are clearly defined throughout the room (2 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Learning areas are clearly labelled with pictures/words (2 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Children’s work is displayed and labelled appropriately (2 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Book specific areas are available (2 of 9 Preschool groups).

The Language Learning Environment items occurring both before and after the staff’s discussions were:

• There is good light (9 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Some room displays include items inviting comments from children (7 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Book specific areas available (3 of 9 Preschool groups).

Some items, such as ‘Free play items reached by the children’ were only introduced after collegial discussions in one of the preschool groups (the staff gave opportunities for the children to play with a ‘language box’ while they were waiting for each other in the tambour). Also, the item ‘Musical instruments, noise makers available’ occurred only in one preschool group after collegial discussions (one child was singing and drumming the pace with help from a shoehorn, inspired by a picture on one child’s backpack).

Reflections from the staff on the language learning environment

The staff summarized their reflections on how and why they had changed the Language Learning Environment after collegial discussions. There were improvements in many ways, for example, they observed more literacy activities:

What is different is that the teachers now pay attention to literacy activities by reading on things that are in the children’s everyday life. There are names of children’s clothes and the staff have set up pictures with associated characters as well as text on various clothes as well as pictures and text on different weather, put on, take off, go out … However, I cannot see anyone using the material together with the children. The teachers have also talked about setting up pictures for the book about ‘Totte dressing up’ for the children to talk about and they have started to think about how it would be to add books inside the tambour … Much is inside the house but missing in the tambour. (Preschool group 1)

There were reflections on possibilities to increase the use and interact more around the language learning environment items. Below is an example of a not very well-structured ‘tambour situation’ and the staff’s reflections:

Unfortunately, fewer points than at the first observation! More unstructured situation this time and more children in the tambour. Higher noise level and more ‘messy’. One reason may well be that the children who were not completely focused on dressing were mostly observed. Also, better weather this time and less clothes to put on, probably meant that we lost structure in our work, with the idea that the dressing will flow smoothly anyway. (Preschool group 9)

Reflections were also made over the difficulties of keeping a good work over time:

The ‘Tambour situation’ is currently focused on dressing, mainly transition from indoor to outdoor but also for collaboration with the children’s parents. There is documentation from the children placed in the height of the child in order to give the parents transparency in the activities and give the children a basis to tell about their days at preschool. After the last observation, during our collegial discussions we talked about a number of development areas in the physical environment. Now, some time ago, we can say that few of these have been implemented in practice, which feels boring. The work must continue … (Preschool group 9)

The reflections above came from the only preschool group that scored less points at the second observation. They reflected on this and tried to understand why this occurred:

Language learning interactions

The results from the observations of the staff’s support of the staff’s Language Learning Interactions are presented in Table 3 with bold figures indicating improvement of language supporting interactions, that is they occurred more often after the collegial discussions (4 or 5 times).

The Language Learning Interactions that occurred most frequently after collegial discussions, that is, 4 or 5 times more often:

• Using symbols (pictures) to reinforce language (in 3 of 9 Preschool groups)

• Adults using contrasts that highlight differences in lexical and syntactic structures (in 2 of 9 Preschool groups)

• Labelling unfamiliar items/actions (in 1 of 9 Preschool groups)

• Supporting listening skills (in 1 of 9 Preschool groups)

The most frequently supported Language Learning Interactions both before and after collegial discussions (5 times before and 5 times after) were:

• Getting down to child’s level (in 8 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Using children’s name (in 8 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Confirming children’s intentions (in 8 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Commenting on childreńs communication (in 4 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Using open questions (in 4 of 9 Preschool groups).

• Imitating what child says more or less exactly (in 4 of 9 Preschool groups).

Some Language Learning Interactions occurred more seldom after than before the staff’s collegial discussions: ‘Encouraging turn-taking’, ‘Commenting on childreńs communication’ and ‘Extending children’s language’.

Reflections from the staff on the language learning interactions

The staff summarized their reflections on how and if Language Learning Interactions had improved after their collegial discussions:

The group has worked actively with the week’s characters (with associated picture and text). It is evident that the teachers are comfortable with it and the children are influenced. Children with no immediate need to make use of it are encouraged to use it to make all the children included, which we do not see that everyone can be if not everyone can use it. We need now to develop further, putting words on things. A lot of focus now on nouns and we started with adjectives warm, cold, colors. We need to develop characters and images with verbs such as bike, puzzle, swing, dig … (Preschool group 1)

The quote above is an illustration of the staff’s support of the children’s language and increased literacy activities for the children.

The staff found a new way for the children to play with the language:

Since the last observation, the staff have worked actively to create language materials and introduce them to the children. After the children get dressed, they picked up a ‘language box’ with a friend and they sat outside to work with it. (Preschool group 5)

The staff had many new ideas and thoughts about how to support and expand the children’s language:

At the last observation, it was sad that we did not encourage turn-taking more when we saw that the children had a lot of waiting in the ‘tambour’. Unfortunately, this is the case this time as well, but it is now evident that we have found a way of working that makes the children wait less than they did last time. The teachers, however, give more positive feedback to the children, they say for example: ‘It’s good that you are telling me’. (Preschool group 1)

They also expressed their surprise over the progress they saw in their language-developing approach to the children:

Great difference from the last observation! Conversations with the children about which clothes should be taken on and continuous signing as support for the communication. Exciting to see that the children are more involved and engaged when getting dressed. (Preschool group 8)

The preschool staff discovered improvements, but they were also well aware that they need to continue and improve the work on supporting the children’s language:

Much has improved, but there are still areas for development where we can improve. (Preschool group 2)

We have become better at interacting with the children, but there are areas to further develop. (Preschool group 6)

Surprised to see that it is possible to see the difference and development so soon.

Of course, there are still areas to develop but fun when development work makes a difference! (Preschool group 7)

The children talk more to each other this time than previous observations (Preschool group 9).

The quotes above are illustrations of the staff’s awareness of the necessity to continue their language-supporting work at the preschools, also in the future.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to find out in what ways children’s communication and language development were supported by the staff at preschools after collegial structured language-supportive discussions. Adults in educational settings, as the staff in the present study, play a key role in supporting the children’s language and developing the learning environment in order to support the children’s language for thinking and learning (Mercer, 2008). A number of research studies reveal that adults’ early language and communication support underpin a positive language, reading and writing development later in the children’s lives (e.g. Dickinson et al., 2003; Justice, 2004; National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), 2008; Snowling & Hulme, 2011; Puranik & Lonigan, 2012; Fricke et al., 2013; Dockrell et al., 2015; Bruce, Ivarsson, Svensson, & Sventelius, 2016; Lervåg et al., 2018).

Language learning environment

The staff´s support of Physical Language Learning Environment was most improved for the item ‘labelling a majority of the learning resources with pictures/words’. Research has shown that labelling materials at preschools with pictures and words support children’s language development (e.g. I CAN, 2008; Siraj-Blatchford, 2010;). Also, Aydogan (2012), states that children’s engagement in everyday activities is benefitted when preschool staff use a variety of types of strategies and activities, such as the use of pictures, photos and symbols.

Furthermore, some of the observed Language Learning Environment items, occurred both before and after the staff’s discussions. This was the case for ‘There is good light’, ‘Some room displays include items inviting comments from children’ and ‘Book specific areas available’. This demonstrates for the staff that they already have worked in a language-supportive way. However, based on the reflections from the staff, they want to move forward and develop the language supportive work by introducing more supportive Language Learning Environment items.

Language learning interactions

The supported Language Learning Interactions in this study did not increase to any greater extent, nevertheless a few of them did. The item ‘Using symbols (pictures) to reinforce language’, improved the most. For example, when the staff used new pictures to reinforce language, they used visual schedules including words and pictures for dressing which gave many opportunities for talks, initiated by the children. In addition, at breakfast before the children went out to the tambour, the staff talked with the children about the weather and what kind of clothes they needed to put on. Older children also accompanied the teacher when putting up pictures on the schedule of the clothing needed and the children were thus involved. Pramling-Samuelsson and Pramling (2013) consider that young children use verbal and bodily expressions to distinguish different ways of understanding and experiencing something. Bodily expressions and access to pictures have a significant role in the preschool’s language environment for children’s language, reading and writing processes (Fast, 2008; Pramling & Pramling-Samuelsson, 2013; Westby, 2005) In this study, the preschool staff used and supported bodily expressions and pictures with the children, which is important for the children’s language processes.

The staff also discovered that some language supportive interactions also existed before the collegial discussions took place, which made them realize that they, before this study, already used some language-supportive interactions. Examples of such interactions were: ‘Getting down to child’s level’, ‘Using children’s name’ and ‘Confirming children’s intentions’.

One reason why the items of the Language Learning Interactions did not increase to any greater extent after the collegial discussions may be due to the short time for implementing what emerged during the staff’s language-supportive collegial discussions. Only six weeks passed between the first and the second observation. Despite this, new Language Learning Interactions were introduced, although the staff had short time for implementing the language learning support for the children. The preschool staff expressed that they saw improvements, but they wanted to continue and expand their language learning interaction work in the future.

Language learning environment and interactions

In the study by Dockrell et al. (2015) the scores for the Language Learning Environment items were significantly higher than for the Language Learning Interactions, which was quite well organized and adapted. In this study, as well, the observed Language Learning Environment items increased more than the Language Learning Interactions. One can only speculate about reasons for this, maybe it is easier to change the physical learning environment than changing human behaviour in terms of interaction between people. Norling (2015) points out that the preschool staff’s attitudes and approach towards how to support the children’s language development has an overriding importance for influencing the Language Learning Environment’s design of activities, creating opportunities for Language Learning Interactions in the social language environment. The reflections from the staff in this study are very much in line with the findings from Norling (2015). The staff discovered that the language learning support and approach improved to some extent at the preschools, but still, they were not yet satisfied, they wanted to continue their language-developing work together with the children. Furthermore, other researchers stress that it is important to take advantage of children’s own creativity when they play with words and expressions that they do not yet fully master (Bjar & Liberg, 2003). Björk-Willén (2012) conclude that it can be a way for children to test and negotiate different concepts, and if they get opportunities for feedback from staff and peers, these activities can promote children’s language processes. Pramling-Samuelsson and Sheridan (2016) point out that the staff at preschool need to interpret children’s intentions and actions and to have trust, even expectations, that a child can handle and manage things with the right support and guidance from adults. Also, Almqvist (2006) emphasize that interactional prerequisites are important for children’s engagement in activities. One of the key components for creating optimal learning opportunities for children seems to be that teachers are involved and affectively responsive without being directive or controlling (Almqvist, 2006). In this present study, the staff is fully aware of that they need to be responsive to the children. This is obvious when you see the staff’s reflections on how to achieve, increase and improve the language learning support in their further work.

Conclusions

The staff’s extended and improved language and communication support to the preschool children in this study can be considered to provide ‘scaffolding’ or help for the children to develop language and communication in the actual preschool context. It can be interpreted as if the staff used the fundamental concept of Vygotsky’s theory the ‘zone of proximal development (ZPD)’ in order to provide ‘scaffolding’ the children to develop language and communication.

Research findings (Justice, Jiang, & Strasser, 2018) have shown that preschool teachers communication-facilitating behaviours predict growth in children’s vocabulary. Thus, it is positive for children’s language development that the staff at preschools increase their language-developing working methods as they do in this present study. An interpretation of the findings in this present study is similar with previous research (Cabell, Justice, McGinty, De Coster, & Forston, 2015; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2003; Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Zucker, Justice, Piasta, & Kaderavek, 2010). They suggest that, in order to improve children’s language skills in the early education setting, it is of utmost importance to explicitly target the processes that lead to high-quality, extended conversations among teachers and children.

The findings of this study support that professional development of preschool teachers should include learning to use conversation-facilitating behaviors together with the children. However, as Piasta et al. (2012) pointed out, with relatively little training preschool teachers have the ability to significantly increase their use of conversation facilitating behaviour. The staff in this study managed to introduce new language learning environment items and interactions, although the implementation phase only lasted for six weeks.

The observations made by the staff at the preschools in this study turned out to be flexible measures to develop practices and find targeting areas for specific actions to improve the children’s language and communication. The contribution that this study provides is new and the results achieved is promising, therefore there is a reason to inspire staff at other preschools to work in this structured and creative way when supporting children’s language and communication.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the staff and children 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.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ann Nordberg

Ann Nordberg, PhD, is a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, Sweden. She is a teacher educator with research 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 language support and reading and writing is also focused.