Trägerkonsortium BiSS:

Language supporting practices of early childhood professionals –results of the “BiSS”-study “allE”

Prof. Dr. Katja Mackowiak & Dr. Christine Beckerle(Leibniz University Hannover/ Special Needs Education)

Prof. Dr. Katja Koch & Tina von Dapper-Saalfels(Technical University Braunschweig/ Educational Science)

Prof. Dr. Cordula Löffler & Julian Heil & Ina Pauer(University of Education Weingarten/ German Studies)

Theoretical Background

Task of early childhood professionals (Justice, 2004; Schneider et al., 2012)

Disillusioning study results on »additional language support« focus on everyday language support (Whorall & Cabell, 2015; Kucharz et al., 2015)

Language supporting techniques as central methods (Justice et al., 2008; Kucharz et al., 2015; Löffler & Vogt, 2015)

Language support in different everyday settings (Justice, 2004; Knapp et al., 2010; Kammermeyer & Roux, 2013)

Necessity of manifold demanding competencies (Fried & Briedigkeit, 2008; Justice et al., 2008)

Variety of advanced training concepts (Wasik & Hindman, 2011; overview: Beckerle, 2017)

Everyday language support in earlychildhood institutions in Germany -1-

3

Evaluation project“Conditions of success in everyday

language support in kindergarten (allE)”

Nationwide programme in Germany on language and writing support in early childhood institutions and schools

“Education through language and writing(BiSS)” (www.biss-sprachbildung.de; Schneider et al., 2012)

5

Practice andresearch projects

Evaluation andfurther developmentof existing concepts

Improvement oflanguage andwriting supportin pedagogicalinstitutions

Summative evaluation of two advanced training conceptsfor early childhood professionals on everyday languagesupport (realised in four different regional networks)

1. Analysis of the advanced trainings concepts(seminars, coaching)

2. Analysis of the early childhood professionals‘ languagesupport competence (knowledge, practices) –development over time

3. Analysis of the children‘s language competence –development over time

Project aims

6

Project design

7

Project sample (pretest)

8

Regional

networks

Number of

early childhood

institutions

Number of

early childhood

professionals

Number of

children

A 8 29 184

B 11 19 168

C 6 30 162

D 2 6 41

In total 27 84 555

Selected focus

Are there any differences in the use of language supporting techniques dependent on different settings – comparing bookreading in a dyadic setting to freeplay and mealtime?

Subsample:

n = 30 early childhood professionals Random sample

Data:

Of each person: 3 videos of 15 minutes (pretest) Dyadic bookreading with a key child Freeplay Mealtime

Research question

10

Summary of the category system (interrater agreement: 83.21%)

(Beckerle, 2017)

Main categories Examples

Corrective feedbacks(interrater agreement: 82.5%)

Child: “Look, there is an airplane.”

– Professional: “Yes, there is a helicopter.”

Child: “I home went.”

– Professional: “Right, you went home.”

Modelling techniques(interrater agreement: 76.6%)

Child: “Bird!“

– Professional: “That‘s a bird.“

Child: “I have a car.“

– Professional: “You have a big, green car.“

Stimulating techniques(interrater agreement: 91.9%)

Professional: “You are painting a dog. Lisa is

painting a cat.“

Professional: “Why would you like to play

outside?“

Language supporting techniques (LST)

11

Results

Number of used LST -1-

Repeated measures ANOVA:

LST in three settings: F(2;28)=15.420; p=0.000; η2=0.524

Bookreading > freeplay: p=0.000

Bookreading > mealtime: p=0.000

Freeplay ~ mealtime: n.s.

13

(n=30) M SD Min Max

Bookreading 97.23 36.07 41 168

Freeplay 61.67 23.83 25 117

Mealtime 57.73 20.00 22 92

Number of used LST -2-

14

(n=30) M SD Min Max Repeated measures ANOVA

Corrective feedbacks

Bookreading 20.23 15.73 4 61 F(2;28)=11.495; p=0.000; η2=0.451Bookreading > freeplay: p=0.000Bookreading > mealtime: p=0.000Mealtime ~ freeplay: n.s.

Freeplay 6.27 4.81 1 20

Mealtime 6.83 5.65 0 26

Modelling techniques

Bookreading 29.27 13.49 6 63 F(2;28)=15.004; p=0.000; η²=0.517Bookreading > freeplay: p=0.000Bookreading > mealtime: p=0.000Mealtime ~ freeplay: n.s.

Freeplay 15.60 10.03 3 46

Mealtime 15.37 6.60 1 26

Stimulating techniques

Bookreading 47.73 17.93 14 85 F(2;28)=6.575; p=0.005; η²=0.320Bookreading > freeplay: p=0.050Bookreading > mealtime: p=0.003Mealtime ~ freeplay: n.s.

Freeplay 39.80 14.24 14 71

Mealtime 35.53 12.15 16 57

Discussion

Interindividual differences in the use of language supporting techniques by early childhood professionals

“From beginners to experts“ (Albers, 2009)

Heterogeneous use of techniques (Justice et al., 2008)

Between 38 and 236 techniques in 45 minutes (Beckerle, 2017)

More stimulating techniques than correcting and modellingtechniques

More communication facilitating techniques than languagefacilitating techniques (Piasta et al., 2012)

Abundance of closed questions (Briedigkeit, 2011)

Discussion -1-

16

More language supporting techniques in bookreading with onechild than in freeplay and mealtime with a group of children

More language supporting practices in “prototype situations“ oflanguage support like bookreading than in freeplay (Jungmann et al., 2013; Böhm et al., 2017)

Higher interaction quality in structured and planned situations like bookreading than in less structured and plannable situations (e.g., freeplay) (Wertfein et al., 2015)

Discussion -2-

17

Why do early childhood professionals use significantly morelanguage supporting techniques in dyadic bookreadingcompared to freeplay and mealtime with several children?

How could the quality of language supporting techniques bemeasured?

In which settings and with which methods could children witha very weak language competence be supported effectively?

How could early childhood professionals be trained to meet all children‘s individual language competencies better in morecomplex everyday situations?

Discussion -3-

18

Thank you.

Leibniz University Hannover/ Special Needs Education

Prof. Dr. Katja Mackowiakkatja.mackowiak@ifs.uni-hannover.de+49 511/ 762-17568

Dr. Christine Beckerlechristine.beckerle@ifs.uni-hannover.de+49 511/ 762-17335

Technical University Braunschweig/ Educational Science

Prof. Dr. Katja Kochkatja.koch@tu-braunschweig.de+49 531/391-8839

Tina von Dapper-Saalfelst.von-dapper-saalfels@tu-braunschweig.de+49 531/ 391-8848

University of Education Weingarten/ German Studies

Prof. Dr. Cordula Löfflerloeffler@ph-weingarten.de+49 751/ 501-8305

Julian Heilheil@ph-weingarten.de+49 751/ 501-8106

Ina Pauer(parental leave)

19

Source: https://t1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/83/55/34/500_F_83553412_QDXlLC4JaD4dXv83b0nGu2L9CCOxWXEn.jpg

Literature -1-

Albers, T. (2009). Sprache und Interaktion im Kindergarten: Eine quantitativ-qualitative Analyse dersprachlichen und kommunikativen Kompetenzen von drei- bis sechsjährigen Kindern. Bad Heilbrunn:Klinkhardt.

Beckerle, C. (2017). Alltagsintegrierte Sprachförderung im Kindergarten und in der Grundschule. Evaluationdes „Fellbach-Konzepts“. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Böhm, J. Stelter, J. & Jungmann, T. (2017). Ergebnisevaluation. In T. Jungmann & K. Koch (Eds.),Professionalisierung pädagogischer Fachkräfte in Kindertageseinrichtungen. Konzept und Wirksamkeitdes KOMPASS-Projektes (p. 101-150). Wiesbaden: Springer.

Briedigkeit, E. (2011). Institutionelle Überformung sprachlicher Handlungsmuster – Realisierung vonFragetypen im Erzieherin-Kind(er)-Diskurs. Empirische Pädagogik, 25 (4), 499-517.

Fried, L. & Briedigkeit, E. (2008). Sprachförderkompetenz. Selbst- und Teamqualifizierung für Erzieherinnen,Fachberatungen und Ausbilder. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.

Jungmann, T., Koch, K. & Etzien, M. (2013). Effektivität alltagsintegrierter Sprachförderung bei ein- und zwei-bzw. mehrsprachig aufwachsenden Vorschulkindern. Frühe Bildung, 2 (3), 110-121.

Justice, L. M. (2004). Creating Language-Rich Preschool Classroom Environments. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren, 37 (2), 36-44.

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L. & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental Evaluation of a PreschoolLanguage Curriculum: Influence on Children’s Expressive Language Skills. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 51 (4), 983-1001.

Kammermeyer, G. & Roux, S. (2013). Sprachbildung und Sprachförderung. In M. Stamm & D. Edelmann(Eds.), Handbuch Frühkindliche Bildungsforschung (S. 515-528). Wiesbaden: Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften.

Knapp, W., Kucharz, D. & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2010). Sprache fördern im Kindergarten. Umsetzungwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse in die Praxis. Weinheim: Beltz.

20

Literature -2-

Kucharz, D., Mackowiak, K. & Beckerle, C. (2015). Alltagsintegrierte Sprachförderung. EinWeiterqualifizierungskonzept für Kita und Grundschule. Weinheim: Beltz.

Löffler, C. & Vogt, F. (Hrsg.) (2015). Strategien der Sprachförderung im Kita-Alltag. München: ErnstReinhardt.

Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Wiggins, A. K., Turnbull, K. P. & Curenton, S. M. (2012). Impact ofProfessional Development on Preschool Teachers‘ Conversational Responsivity and Children’s LinguisticProductivity and Complexity. Early Research Quarterly, 27 (3), 387-400.

Reich, H. H. (2011). Bedingungen des Gelingens: Eine Orientierungssuche nach der Evaluation. In Baden-Württemberg Stiftung (Ed.), »Sag‘ mal was – Sprachförderung für Vorschulkinder«. Zur Evaluation desProgramms der Baden-Württemberg Stiftung. Sprachförderung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wissenschaftund Praxis (p. 183-190). Tübingen: Francke.

Schneider, W., Baumert, J., Becker-Mrotzek, M., Hasselhorn, M., Kammermeyer, G., Rauschenbach, T.,Roßbach, H.-G., Roth, H.-J., Rothweiler, M. & Stanat, P. (2012). Expertise „Bildung durch Sprache undSchrift (BISS)“. Bund-Länder-Initiative zur Sprachförderung, Sprachdiagnostik und Leseförderung.http://www.biss-sprachbildung.de/pdf/BiSS-Expertise.pdf (13.09.2016).

Wasik, B. A. & Hindman, A. H. (2011). Improving Vocabulary and Pre-Literacy Skilss of At-Risk Pre-schoolersthrough Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 203 (2), 455-469.

Wertfein, M., Wirts, C. & Wildgruber, A. (2015). Bedingungsfaktoren für gelingende Interaktionen zwischenErzieherinnen und Kindern. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der BIKE-Studie.http://www.ifp.bayern.de/imperia/md/ content/stmas/ifp/projektbericht_bike_nr_27. Pdf (06.04.2017).

Whorall & Cabell, 2015. Supporting Children’s Oral Language Development in the Preschool Classroom.Early Childhood Education Journal, 44 (4), 335-341.

21

Number of used LST -3-

Bookreading Freeplay Mealtime

22