Mixed-methods study demonstrates high instructional and emotional support in preschool classrooms, highlighting the benefits of teacher and speech therapist collaborative coaching.
This study investigated the SOLEM (Soutenir et Observer le Langage de l’Enfant en Maternelle; Supporting and observing children's language in preschool) intervention, a collaborative approach between preschool teachers and speech and language therapists designed to enhance language support in preschool classrooms. Fourteen teachers engaged in SOLEM's structured observation and support cycles, over 12–24 school months, receiving in-situ coaching from speech and language therapists. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, classroom interactions were quantitatively assessed using the CLASS pre-K tool: Emotional Support and Classroom Organisation both scored 6.46 out of 7 ( SD = 0.38 and 0.49, respectively), while Instructional Support reached 5.38 ( SD = 0.72), exceeding the 3.25 threshold associated with positive learning impact. Semi-structured interviews supported these findings, revealing that teachers adopted targeted language modelling practices, such as open-ended questioning, explicit vocabulary instruction, and sustained conversational engagement, to promote oral language development. Participants also showed increased reflective practice, evolving from basic descriptive observations to more critical analysis of their practices. Active ingredients sustaining implementation included mutual trust, transparent communication, clearly defined roles, and formal institutional endorsement of interprofessional collaboration. Although the absence of pre-intervention measures limits precise gain quantification, classrooms implementing SOLEM presented enriched language environments and teacher-reported changes in practice. Embedding collaborative, reflective frameworks such as SOLEM in early childhood settings may offer a promising way to address diverse language needs and support ongoing professional development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hreich et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: