Directiveness in Teachers’
Language Input to Toddlers and
Luigi Girolametto
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Elaine Weitzman
The Hanen Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Riet van Lieshout
Dawna Duff
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000 • ©American Speech-Language-Hearing
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Preschoolers in Day Care
Five subtypes of directiveness were examined in the interactions of day care
teachers with toddler and preschooler groups. The instructional context (book
reading, play dough) yielded significant differences across all five subtypes of
directiveness, indicating that these two activities elicited different types of teacher-
child discourse. Book reading was characterized by significantly more behavior
and response control and less conversation control in comparison with the play-
dough activity. Correlations between teachers’ directiveness and child language
productivity indicated that behavior control and turn-taking control were associ-
ated with low levels of productivity, whereas conversation control was associated
with the highest levels of productivity. The results of this study confirm that
instructional context is an important mediator of teachers’ directiveness and
suggest that subtypes of directiveness have differential effects on child language
output.
KEY WORDS: directiveness, teacher-child interaction, day care, language input
A
n increasing number of young children are spending the major-
ity of their waking hours in day care centers. One advantage of
attending day care is that interactions with childcare providers
are thought to provide the impetus for developmental progress in a
number of areas, including language acquisition (Peisner-Feinberg &
Burchinal, 1997). This premise is based, in part, on findings from longi-
tudinal studies that have demonstrated gains in receptive and expres-
sive language skills of typically developing children as a result of their
participation in quality day care (Goelman & Pence, 1987; Howes, 1997;
McCartney, 1984; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1985). In these
studies, gains in language skills have been consistently related to global
aspects of teacher-child interaction, such as sensitivity to children’s non-
verbal cues, warmth, talkativeness, and verbal responsiveness.
The recognition of teacher-child interaction as an important source
of language input derives theoretical support from social interactionist
accounts of language acquisition—namely that language learning occurs
during everyday conversational exchanges with adults. Although adults
are generally motivated by the desire to converse rather than to teach
language (Cross, 1977; McDonald & Pien, 1982), their conversations
include important structural and discourse adaptations that are thought
to assist children in the language-learning process. First, joint atten-
tion and joint action in the interactions between caregivers and young
children permit children to make comparisons between nonlinguistic
Girolametto Association
et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1101
1092-4388/00/4305-1101
 and linguistic contexts and induce the relationships
among objects, actions, external events, and words (Hoff-
Ginsberg, 1986; Snow, 1981). Second, during these epi-
sodes of conversational interaction, the adults’ simpli-
fied and contingent language input models syntactic and
semantic content that reflects the child’s interests. Such
input reduces contextual ambiguities, provides redun-
dancy, and increases the saliency of the input such that
more motivational and cognitive resources can be avail-
able for language learning (e.g., Cross, 1977; Harris,
Jones, Brookes, & Grant, 1986; Snow & Ferguson, 1978;
Tomasello & Todd, 1983; Yoder, Kaiser, Alpert, & Fischer,
1993). Thus one hallmark of the social interactionist
account of language acquisition is the facilitative role
attributed to the adult’s responsive language input.
However, research on teacher-child interaction por-
trays teachers’ child-directed talk as overly directive in
nature and unresponsive (e.g., Cicognani & Zani, 1992;
Pellegrino & Scopesi, 1990; Polyzoi, 1997; Schaffer &
Liddell, 1984; Tizard & Hughes, 1984). Despite this char-
acterization, it is an area that has not been well docu-
mented, especially in relation to contextual differences,
age differences, and effects on child participation in in-
teraction. The theoretical and clinical implications of this
line of inquiry include (a) a description of different sub-
types of directive input used in day care, (b) the effect of
directiveness on children’s verbal participation in con-
versations, (c) how directiveness varies as a function of
different contexts and age groups, and (d) the identifi-
cation of specific areas of in-service education for child-
care providers. Speech-language pathologists are in-
creasingly becoming involved in consultative roles and
direct treatment in day cares and preschools. To be maxi-
mally effective in these new roles and contexts clinicians
need to understand better the communication dynam-
ics in these settings and how they vary by task and age.
The specific role of directive language input in lan-
guage acquisition is not clearly defined by social inter-
actionist theories. Some adherents of this perspective
generally maintain that language learning may be in-
hibited when the input is at odds with the child’s plan-
of-the-moment in topic and content (McDonald & Pien,
1982; O’Brien & Bi, 1995; Ogilvy, 1992; Olsen-Fulero,
1982). It is thought that directive input lacks semantic
contingency and provides few opportunities for joint
engagement. In contrast, other researchers suggest that
some subtypes of directiveness can serve to facilitate
the child’s participation in interaction and receptive lan-
guage development (Barnes, Gutfreund, Satterly, &
Wells, 1983; Ellis & Wells, 1980; Tannock, 1988).
Tannock (1988) describes three subtypes of directive-
ness that are most frequently used by caregivers of
young children. The most commonly studied subtype,
response control, refers to teachers’ use of commands,
test questions, and yes/no questions that serve to elicit
1102 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
a specific vocal, verbal, or action response from the child.
Studies of adult-child interaction report that teachers
use a high proportion of response control directives in
both their individual and their group interactions in
day care (Schaffer & Liddell, 1984; Tizard & Hughes,
1984). Moreover response control directives are more
frequently observed with less conversationally skilled
children than with children who have well-developed
language skills (Cicognani & Zani, 1992; Polyzoi, 1997).
Contexts can also elicit differential use of response con-
trol directives, with teacher-directed play, such as circle
time, resulting in more response control than in child-
directed contexts, such as free play (O’Brien & Bi, 1995;
Pecyna, Feeny-Giacoma, & Neiman, 1987). Although
response control is used to direct behavior (e.g., “Make
a snake”) and elicit responses (e.g., “What color is this?”),
it is generally considered to inhibit children’s verbal
productivity because it does not invite extended con-
versation and places few cognitive demands on the chil-
dren to explain, predict, or provide information (Tizard
& Hughes, 1984). Therefore, although its discourse role
may be to increase child participation in interaction,
its effect on verbal conversation and output may be
counterproductive.
A second type of directiveness observed in caregiver-
child interactions is turn-taking control. Turn-taking
control is the extent to which teachers dominate the con-
versation by using frequent verbal turns. Tannock (1988)
suggests that caregivers may take more turns, especially
with less conversationally skilled children, in an effort
to encourage them to verbalize. However, turn-taking
dominance in group childcare settings is generally
viewed as having an inhibiting effect on child conversa-
tion, although this has not yet been unequivocally dem-
onstrated. Investigations of turn-taking dominance in
teacher-child interaction report that teachers tend to
dominate the conversation by taking most of the turns
whether they interact with children in dyads or groups
(Wells, 1978, 1981). Also, when compared to mother-
child interaction, teachers take many more turns, with
the consequence that preschool-age children talk very
little in these interactions (Cross & Horsborough, 1986;
Polyzoi, 1997; Tizard & Hughes, 1984).
Finally, the third type of directive interaction that
Tannock (1988) describes, topic control, refers to the
extent to which adults select the topic of the conversa-
tion and direct the child’s attention to adult-selected
topics or activities. This subtype of directiveness has not
been directly examined in the extant literature on
teacher-child interaction. However, a related type of
directiveness, behavior control, is similar in function and
appears to be characteristic of group childcare. Behav-
ior control refers to utterances that are used by teach-
ers to elicit group participation around a common activ-
ity or to manage safety concerns. Previous studies report
 that approximately 40% of teacher’s speech to older
preschoolers addresses management functions such as
these (Perry, Colman, & Cross, 1986) and that this is
also a dominant mode of interaction in toddler class-
rooms (Ogilvy, 1992). According to Pellegrino and Scopesi
(1990), younger children receive more attention calls to
direct their focus to shared tasks, whereas older pre-
schoolers receive more commands directing them to co-
operate in ongoing group activities. The precise rela-
tionship between behavior control and child language
productivity has not yet been examined.
One explanation for the observed directiveness in
teacher-child interaction may reside in the nature of
group childcare. As noted previously, teachers’ directive
input may be necessary to promote safety, manage group
behavior, and ensure participation in group tasks. A sec-
ond explanation suggests that directive input may be
influenced by the developmental level of the children,
with more directive interaction provided to less conver-
sationally skilled children (e.g., Pellegrino & Scopesi,
1990; Polyzoi, 1997). In this case, directiveness (e.g.,
response control and turn-taking control) may be used
as a strategy to scaffold children’s participation in on-
going activities and to invite them to take part in con-
versations (e.g., File, 1994; Ogilvy, 1992; Polyzoi, 1997).
A third influence on teachers’ directiveness may be the
underlying instructional purpose or context of an activ-
ity. (For a review of contextual influences on adult and
child behavior, see Caldera, Houston, & O’Brien, 1989;
O’Brien & Nagle, 1987; Wanska, Pohlman, & Bedrosian,
1989.) Contexts that are teacher-directed and have spe-
cific themes or scripts, such as circle time or book read-
ing, have been found to elicit more directive input than
child-directed free play (e.g., O’Brien & Bi, 1995; Pecyna
et al., 1987). Therefore, in part, teachers’ directiveness
may be an adaptation that is facilitative of group man-
agement and interaction and characteristic of certain
instructional discourse modes commonly found in day
care classrooms. However, if controlling and directive
input is the primary means of encouraging interaction
and conversation there is a concern that it may also in-
hibit children’s verbal productivity and reduce oppor-
tunities for language learning (Cross & Horsborough,
1986; McDonald & Pien, 1982; O’Brien & Bi, 1995;
Ogilvy, 1992). For this reason, it is important to observe
the systematic influences of different contexts and age
groups on teacher’s directiveness and determine the
relationships between subtypes of directive interaction
and children’s verbal productivity.
The present study was designed to explore, in a sys-
tematic fashion, five different subtypes of conversa-
tional directiveness that are characteristic of group
childcare settings. We adapted Tannock’s (1988) delin-
eation of three subtypes of directiveness (including re-
sponse control, topic control, and turn-taking control)
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
and extended it to include two additional subtypes of
directiveness. The first, behavior control, refers to the
use of group regulation strategies that promote safety
or group cohesion. The second, conversation control, in-
cludes open-ended questions, clarification questions, and
conversational yes/no questions that attempt to engage
the children in conversation and are indicative of a con-
versation-eliciting style of interaction. The present study
contributes to the existing literature on teacher-child
interactions by clarifying the effects of child age and
context on teachers’ directiveness using a systematic
delineation of directive subtypes. This study examines
teachers’ directive language input to a group of toddlers
(average: 24 months old) and a group of preschool chil-
dren (average: 41 months old) to determine the extent
to which teachers modify their directive language input
when addressing children of different age groups. Also,
because previous studies have reported that the con-
text of the interaction can systematically influence teach-
ers’ linguistic behavior (O’Brien & Bi, 1995; Rhyner,
Lehr, & Pudlas, 1990), we elected to observe teachers in
a child-directed context (i.e., play dough) as well as a
teacher-directed context (book reading) in order to de-
termine contextually bound differences in directive in-
teraction styles. The results of this study extend our
knowledge of language input in day care settings and
the role of directive interaction in facilitating or inhibit-
ing conversation.
This study addresses several research questions: (a)
Does teachers’ use of different subtypes of directiveness
differ when addressing a group of toddlers versus pre-
schoolers? (b) Does teachers’ use of subtypes of direc-
tiveness differ in two naturalistic but different instruc-
tional contexts (i.e., play dough, book reading)? (c) Does
the amount of child talk differ systematically as a func-
tion of age and context? (d) Are there significant rela-
tionships between measures of teachers’ directiveness
and measures of child language productivity? In keep-
ing with the results of previous studies we predicted that
teachers would use more behavior control, response con-
trol, and turn-taking control with younger children than
with older children. However, we hypothesized that
teachers would use more conversation control with the
children in the preschool group. In addition, because
child-directed play is associated with less teacher in-
volvement, we predicted that teachers would use fewer
directives in the play-dough context than in the book-
reading activity. We also hypothesized that the play-
dough context would elicit more child participation than
the book-reading activity. Finally, we hypothesized that
there would be significant negative correlations between
behavior control, response control, topic control, and
turn-taking control and measures of children’s language
use, but significant positive correlations between teach-
ers’ conversation control and child language use.
Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1103

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 20 early child-
hood education teachers who worked in licensed non-
profit day care centers in the metropolitan area of
Toronto. Each teacher selected four children from her
classroom to take part in the study. Ten of the teachers
were caregivers for 40 toddlers, and the remaining 10
teachers were caregivers for 40 preschoolers. Eight of
the preschool teachers were also involved in a related
study of teacher-child interactions with children who had
disabilities (Girolametto, Hoaken, Weitzman, & van
Lieshout, 2000). The toddlers ranged in age from 17 to
33 months, and the preschoolers ranged in age from 32
to 53 months. All 80 children were developing typically
according to parent report and had normal speech and
language development as determined by the Speech and
Language Assessment Scale (Hadley & Rice, 1993) that
was completed by the teacher for each child. Most of the
children attended the facility on a full-time basis (i.e.,
at least 40 hours per week), and all had attended the
particular day care for at least 2 months before the study.
Summary data describing the characteristics of the chil-
dren can be found in Table 1.
The toddler classrooms had a teacher-child ratio of
1:5, and the preschool classrooms had a teacher-child
ratio of 1:8 as mandated by law in the Province of
Ontario. Class sizes for the toddler classrooms ranged
from 10 (four classrooms) to 15 children (six classrooms).
Class sizes for the preschool classrooms ranged from 12
to 24 children and included one classroom with 12 chil-
dren, five classrooms with 16 children, one classroom
Table 1. Characteristics of the toddlers and preschoolers.
with 20 children, and three classrooms with 24 children.
All 20 teachers who participated in this study had com-
pleted high school as well as 2 years of postsecondary
education, resulting in a diploma in Early Childhood
Education (ECE). None of the caregivers had received
any specific training in how to stimulate language de-
velopment. All teachers were female and had at least 2
years experience in childcare. The average age of the
teachers was approximately 30 years in both groups.
Descriptive data on the teachers’ characteristics can be
found in Table 2.
Procedures
A research assistant contacted the supervisors of
day care centers by letter, describing the research, and
followed up on the letter with a phone call within 2
weeks. If the center agreed to take part in the research
project, the supervisor nominated a teacher with an
ECE diploma who was interested in participating, and
the research assistant set up appointments for three
consecutive visits to the center within a 2-week period.
During the first visit, teachers were informed that the
purpose of the study was to observe teacher and child
communication in small groups, but they were not in-
formed of the categories of language behavior that were
under investigation. The investigator gathered demo-
graphic information on the teacher (e.g., age, training,
years of experience) and then asked each teacher to se-
lect four children in her classroom who displayed typi-
cal development, had average language skills, and fre-
quently played together. Information and consent forms
were given to the parents by the teacher. Parents who
allowed their children to participate in the research com-
pleted case history forms that requested information
about birth history and developmental milestones.

Toddler Preschool
During the second visit, the teachers were asked to
Group Group complete the Speech and Language Assessment Scale
Variables (n = 40) (n = 40) (Hadley & Rice, 1993) separately for each of the four
children in order to provide information on their speech
Age (months) M 24.9 41.1
SD 3.9 4.5
Table 2. Characteristics of the teachers.
Median 24.0 41.0
Range 17–33 32–53
Toddler Preschool
Gender Male 20 19 Group Group
Female 20 21 Variables (n = 10) (n = 10)
Time in day carea
2–6 8 3 Age (in years) M (SD) 29.9 (8.1) 30.0 (6.5)
7–12 17 6 Range 23–46 23–44
13+ 15 31
Years of education M (SD) 14.8 (0.7) 14.2 (.42)
Attendance Full Time 35 39 Range 14–16 14–15
Part Time 5 1
Years of experience 2–5 6 4
a
Length of time in months that child has attended the particular day 6–10 4 2
care center. 11+ 0 4

1104 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 and language development. Also, the case history forms
that were completed by parents were collected and re-
viewed. In three instances, children who did not have
average language skills as determined by the scale or
parent report were excluded and replaced. The investi-
gator then videotaped a 30-min teacher-group interac-
tion involving two different instructional contexts (play
dough, book reading). This first videotape was used to
familiarize the children and the teachers with the vid-
eotaping procedure and was not used for analysis. Only
the children participating in the study were videotaped;
the other children played with similar materials in an-
other room or in a different area of the same classroom,
or participated in outdoor play. The group size was set
at four children because previous research indicated
that teacher language input was adversely affected by
larger group sizes (Pellegrino & Scopesi, 1990) and that
young children were more interactive in small rather
than large group settings (McCabe et al., 1996). There-
fore, the findings of this study may be generalizable
only to similar group sizes. A portable camera with a
directional microphone was used to permit the research
assistant to position herself so that the behaviors of the
teacher and children could be videotaped simultaneously.
She was instructed to capture as many frontal views of
the children as possible without constraining the par-
ticipants to sit in any particular order. Thus, the video-
tape frequently captured the back of the teachers’ heads
and profiles of the participants. The groups were video-
taped for 15 min in a book-reading activity followed by
15 min in a play-dough activity following procedures
used in a previous study of teacher-child interaction
within integrated day care settings (Girolametto,
Hoaken, et al., 2000). The book reading activity took
place on the floor of the center’s designated book cen-
ter. Typically, the teacher and children sat on the floor,
on a carpet or on pillows, in a circle. The investigator
provided the teacher with a set of three books, The
Mixed-Up Chameleon (Carle, 1998), Spot Bakes a Cake
(Hill, 1994), and Barney and Baby Bop Go to the Gro-
cery Store (Cooner, 1997), and one set of toys that ac-
companied the latter book and permitted thematic
play. For example, the book Barney and Baby Bop Go
to the Grocery Store was accompanied by a toy shop-
ping basket with boxes of pretend cereal, cake mix,
granola bars, pizza mix, two plastic eggs, an apple, an
orange, a banana, a slice of pizza, and two plastic muf-
fins. The order of books was not constrained, and use of
the toys was optional. The play-dough activity took place
nearby at a child-size table with five chairs. The activ-
ity included the following objects that were provided
by the investigator: a plastic container with three dif-
ferent colors of play dough, three rectangular wooden
blocks, three cubic wooden blocks, four spoons, four
knifes, four plates, two cars, two boxes with lids, and
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
four Sesame Street finger puppets (Big Bird, Grover,
Oscar, Ernie).
The third and final visit occurred one week later,
but because of illness or absence some visits were post-
poned for up to 3 weeks. During this visit the teachers
and children were videotaped using the same protocol
described previously. Following this visit the childcare
providers completed an informal questionnaire that
asked them to rate their impressions of the representa-
tiveness of their interaction on a 5-point scale (1 = very
typical, 3 = typical, 5 = not typical). The scale measured
four indices: the amount of talk, the rate of talk, their
comfort level, and the amount of playtime. All teachers
rated their amount of talk, rate of speech, and amount
of playtime as typical (mean rating = 3.0, 2.9, and 2.8,
respectively). In addition, the childcare providers deter-
mined that their comfort level was typical of an unob-
served playtime (mean rating = 2.8). Thus, these rat-
ings provided some assurance that the childcare
providers believed their interactions to be similar to
other, unobserved, situations in the day care.
Transcription
Ten min of the play-dough activity and 10 min of
the book-reading session, obtained during the third
visit, were transcribed using the Systematic Analysis
of Language Transcripts (SALT; Miller & Chapman,
1992) to yield a total of 20 min of transcription per
childcare provider. The first 5 min of each videotaped
session were omitted to permit a brief warm-up period.
Transcripts included the adult’s utterances and all in-
telligible utterances spoken by each of the four chil-
dren on separate speaker lines. In addition, the chil-
dren addressed by the adult were noted at the end of
each utterance. This was accomplished by noting
whether the adult used the child’s name, referred to a
specific child’s toy or activity, or responded to a specific
child’s question/comment. All other utterances were
considered to be addressed to all four children in the
group. Transcripts were prepared by a research assis-
tant, and every transcript was verified by the second
author. The second author read the prepared transcripts
and observed the accompanying videotape, noting dis-
agreements on the transcripts. Each disagreement was
subsequently discussed with the original transcriber and
resolved in joint meetings during which the videotapes
and transcripts were reviewed. Where the individuals
reached a consensus, a change was entered on the tran-
scripts. If there was a disagreement that could not be
resolved, then the word or utterance was noted as unin-
telligible by typing an X in the appropriate speaker line,
and the utterance was excluded from further analyses.
Similarly, disagreements concerning the addressee of the
adult’s utterance were resolved through discussion and
Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1105
 observation of the videotape. Agreement reliability was
conducted on 25% (i.e., 100 min) of the corrected tran-
scripts selected at random using the following formula:
number of agreements / the number agreements + dis-
agreements × 100. Agreement reliability for the childcare
providers was 96% for utterance boundaries, 99% for
words, and 95% for addressee. Reliability for the chil-
dren was 93% for utterance boundaries and 91% for
words. An examination of the intelligibility of the speak-
ers’ utterances revealed that teachers in both groups
were highly intelligible at 99%. For toddlers and pre-
schoolers the proportion of intelligible utterances was
88% and 91%, respectively.
Coding
Each utterance (excluding direct reading of the text
in the books) was coded to capture the functional use of
language input. Individual codes were mutually exclu-
sive and were combined to create five superordinate
variables: (a) behavior control (i.e., attention calls, group
management), (b) response control (i.e., commands, test
questions, directive yes/no questions, choice questions),
(c) conversation control (e.g., Wh-questions, conversa-
tional yes/no questions, clarification questions), (d) lan-
guage modelling (e.g., label, imitate, expand, comment),
and (e) other utterances (acknowledgments, evaluative
statements). Only the first three categories that reflected
directive input were analyzed. A complete description
of the coding system with examples can be found in Ap-
pendix A. The research assistant was trained to code
transcripts using this system until an 85% level of agree-
ment was reached on each individual code. The research
assistant subsequently coded all transcripts, and the
first author independently coded a random sample of
eight 10-min transcripts. Interrater reliability was cal-
culated using percentage agreement (i.e., the number
of agreements / the number agreements + disagreements
× 100), and reliability for the individual teacher codes
ranged from 90% to 98%; overall agreement for teacher
codes was 93% (N = 1427 codes).
Rating
The Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale
(Girolametto, Weitzman, & van Lieshout, 1999) was used
to assess the teacher’s use of 14 interaction strategies.
Each of the strategies was judged for its quality (i.e.,
how completely and consistently a teacher carries out a
strategy) and was rated from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excel-
lent). Only two scale items (balanced turn-taking, follow
the child’s lead) that captured directive interaction styles
were used in the present study. (The entire scale is avail-
able from the first author.) These two subjective rating
scale items were used because they measured directive
aspects of dyadic interaction that were not captured by
1106 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
the existing coding system and were time-consuming to
transcribe and code. Turn-taking control was rated in
an item that assessed teachers’ turn dominance, and
topic control was rated in a second item that assessed
teachers’ ability to follow the child’s lead. See Appendix
B for a full description of these two items. Before using
the scale, a research assistant was trained to use the
scale items to a level of 85% agreement (within 1 point)
with the first author. The trained observer watched each
of the videotapes, recorded examples of the strategies
as they occurred, and noted missed opportunities. After
viewing the tape, the observer rated the teacher’s be-
havior on the scale and then watched the videotape a
second time to note strategies that were missed during
the first pass. Interrater reliability was determined by
having a second independent observer assign ratings to
20% of the data (i.e., 8 videotaped interactions: 4 tod-
dler teachers and 4 preschool teachers). Reliability was
computed, allowing a margin of error of 1 scale point;
overall interrater reliability was 87.5% and ranged from
75% to 100% for all 14 items. Specific interrater reli-
ability for the two individual scale items used in this
study was 88% for Follow Child’s Lead and 88% for Turn-
Taking. Intrarater reliability was computed one month
after the initial ratings were finished. The original ob-
server recoded 20% of the videotaped samples without
referring to the original ratings. Overall intrarater reli-
ability was 100%, and there were no disagreements (al-
lowing 1 point spread) for any of the items, including
Follow the Child’s Lead and Turn-Taking.
Results
The results are presented in three sections: (a) com-
parisons of teachers’ directive interaction by age group
and context, (b) comparisons of child language use in
the toddler versus the preschool groups, and (c) correla-
tions between subtypes of teachers’ directiveness and
child language productivity. Wherever appropriate,
MANOVAS were used to compare groups in order to re-
duce the family-wise error rate. Univariate follow-up
tests were conducted only if the omnibus test was sig-
nificant. The two-tailed probability was set at .05.
Teachers’ Directiveness
This set of analyses compares overall aspects of
teacher’s directive language input (i.e., percentages of
behavior control, response control, conversation control,
topic control, turn-taking control). Both percentage and
frequency summary data for these variables are found in
Table 3, although only the percentage data were analyzed.
Two codes measuring Behavior Control (attention calls,
group management) were entered into a MANOVA, with
 Table 3. Means and standard deviations for measures of teachers’ directiveness to toddlers and pre-
schoolers in two contexts.

Toddler Group (n = 40) Preschool Group (n = 40)

Variable/Context M (SD) Min-Max M (SD) Min-Max

Behavior Control
%Attention Calls B 7.5 (3.9) 3.1–14.6 4.5 (3.4) 0.9–12.4
P 4.7 (3.8) 0.0–12.0 2.1 (1.5) 0.0–4.1
#Attention Calls B 15.3 (7.8) 5.0–25.0 8.0 (8.9) 2.0–32.0
P 8.9 (7.5) 0.0–22.0 3.9 (3.1) 0.0–10.0
%Grp Management B 4.0 (2.2) 1.0–7.6 4.3 (2.9) 0.8–10.0
P 4.3 (4.3) 1.0–14.1 3.8 (4.2) 0.0–14.0
#Grp Management B 8.4 (6.2) 1.0-20.0 7.0 (4.3) 1.0-15.0
P 7.5 (6.5) 2.0-20.0 7.0 (7.2) 0.0-22.0

Response Control
%Commands B 5.9 (3.7) 1.4–13.5 8.1 (4.4) 3.0–15.8
P 8.4 (4.2) 1.8–17.0 7.9 (3.1) 3.4–14.2
#Commands B 13.0 (11.0) 2.0–41.0 14.5 (11.0) 4.0–41.0
P 16.1 (8.2) 3.0–28.0 14.6 (6.1) 8.0–24.0
%Test Questions B 11.1 (5.7) 4.1–20.4 19.0 (8.7) 6.0–31.0
P 3.5 (2.0) 0.0–5.7 3.6 (4.2) 0.0–11.0
#Test Questions B 24.1 (16.1) 6.0–53.0 11.4 (4.9) 5.5–20.7
P 6.8 (4.5) 0.0–14.0 2.0 (2.3) 0.0–6.8
%Directive Y/N B 5.7 (2.7) 2.1–12.2 8.0 (4.4) 0.0–13.4
P 4.9 (2.2) 0.9–7.7 3.8 (2.2) 1.6–9.0
#Directive Y/N B 11.5 (5.2) 3.0–22.0 14.1 (8.9) 0.0–29.0
P 9.5 (5.3) 2.0–17.0 7.5 (5.3) 3.0–20.0
%Choice Questions B 0.4 (0.5) 0.0–1.1 0.8 (0.9) 0.0–2.8
P 0.3 (0.3) 0.0–0.7 0.7 (0.9) 0.0–2.7
#Choice Questions B 0.8 (0.9) 0.0–2.0 1.3 (1.3) 0.0–3.0
P 0.4 (0.5) 0.0–1.0 1.6 (2.2) 0.0–7.0

Conversation Control
%Wh-Questions B 4.1 (2.6) 1.2–10.2 5.5 (4.1) 0.0–14.2
P 6.1 (2.9) 2.2–11.5 9.6 (3.6) 3.8–13.5
#Wh-Questions B 8.3 (4.9) 2.0–16.0 8.7 (5.5) 0.0–17.0
P 11.3 (5.3) 5.0–19.0 19.2 (9.8) 6.0–30.0
% Conv Y/N B 7.7 (4.6) 3.0–18.5 8.4 (4.8) 3.0–20.0
P 10.9 (3.8) 5.1–15.3 12.9 (5.9) 4.1–23.5
# Conv Y/N B 14.8 (7.2) 5.0–29.0 13.5 (7.2) 4.0–27.0
P 20.5 (7.3) 10.0–28.0 26.7 (17.0) 4.0–62.0
%Clarification B 4.7 (3.5) 0.6–11.5 3.6 (3.0) 0.0–10.0
P 8.6 (3.1) 5.4–14.1 8.3 (2.2) 5.7–11.4
#Clarification B 8.9 (6.1) 1.0–20.0 5.6 (3.9) 0.0–12.0
P 15.9 (5.4) 9.0–23.0 16.2 (6.8) 6.0–30.0

Note. B = book reading, P = play dough. Percentages denote the number of adult utterances that were coded in a
given way over the total number of adult utterances.

repeated measures with Group (toddlers, preschoolers)
and Context (book reading, play dough) as the indepen-
dent variables. This analysis revealed a significant main
effect for Group [Hotellings F(2, 35) = 3.8, p ≤ .05] and
for Context [Hotellings F(2, 35) = 3.3, p ≤ .05]. Follow-
up analyses for Group revealed a significant univariate
effect for Attention Calls only [F(1, 36) = 7.3, p ≤ .01].
Similarly, follow-up analyses for Context yielded a sig-
nificant univariate effect for Attention Calls [F(1, 36) =
6.4, p ≤ .05]. An examination of the data in Table 3 indi-
cates that teachers of toddlers used more attention calls
than did teachers of preschool-age children and more

Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1107

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 attention calls were used overall in the book-reading Table 4. Means and standard deviations for ratings of teachers’
than in the play-dough context. directiveness to toddlers and preschoolers in two contexts.
A second MANOVA with repeated measures was
Toddler Group Preschool Group
conducted on four codes that were included in Response
(n = 40) (n = 40)
Control (commands, test questions, directive yes/no ques-
tions, choice questions). This analysis revealed a signifi- Min- Min-
cant main effect for Context only [Hotellings F(4, 33) = Variable/Context M (SD) Max M (SD) Max
11.5, p ≤ .001]. There was no significant main effect for Topic Controla B 4.6 (1.5) 2–6 4.2 (0.8) 3–5
Group. Follow-up analyses for Context revealed signifi- P 3.8 (1.2) 2–5 3.1 (1.1) 2–5
cant univariate effects for both test questions and di-
rective yes/no questions [Fs(1, 36) = 44.5 and 6.8, ps ≤ Turn-Taking Controla B 4.7 (0.8) 3–6 4.7 (0.8) 3–6
P 3.8 (0.9) 2–5 3.2 (0.9) 2–5
.001 and .05, respectively]. An examination of the means
in Table 3 reveals that teachers used significantly more Note. B = book reading, P = play dough.
of these two question types in the book-reading context a
Ratings on the Teacher Language and Interaction Rating Scale. For the
than in the play-dough activity. purposes of this study, the scale was reverse scored so that high ratings
A third MANOVA was conducted on three codes that corresponded to high levels of control.
were included in the measure of Conversation Control
(Wh-questions, conversational yes/no questions, clarifica- more Topic Control during the book-reading activity than
tion questions). This analysis revealed a significant main in the child-directed play-dough activity.
effect for Context only [Hotellings F(3, 34) = 7.3, p ≤
.001]. Follow-up analyses for Context revealed signifi-
cant univariate effects for all three variables: Wh-ques- Child Participation in Talk
tions, conversational yes/no questions, and clarification This section compares the two groups (toddlers,
questions [Fs(1, 36) = 6.4, 8.2, and 20.8; ps ≤ .01, .05, preschoolers) in terms of the children’s verbal produc-
and .001, respectively]. An examination of the means in tivity in group conversations (i.e., number of utterances,
Table 3 reveals that teachers used significantly more of number of different words, number of combinations, and
these three question types in the play-dough activity length of the longest utterance). The summary data for
than in the book-reading context. Although the main these analyses can be found in Table 5.
effect for Group did not reach conventional levels of sig-
Measures of the children’s productivity were en-
nificance [F(3, 34) = 2.5, p = .077], the data in Table 3
tered into a MANOVA, with repeated measures with
generally indicate that teachers used less conversation
Group (toddler, preschool) and Context (play dough, book
control with toddlers than with preschoolers. When ex-
reading) as the independent variables. This analysis re-
ploratory follow-up tests were conducted on these vari-
vealed a significant multivariate main effect for Group
ables, there was a significant univariate effect only for
Wh-question types [F(1, 36) = 5.5, p ≤ .05]. Teachers may
Table 5. Means and standard deviations for amount of child talk in
use significantly more Wh-questions with preschoolers
the toddler and preschool groups.
than with toddlers.
Next, ratings assigned to two items on the Teacher Toddler Group Preschool Group
Interaction and Language Rating Scale that evaluated (n = 40) (n = 40)
the teachers’ Topic Control and Turn-Taking Control
Min- Min-
were analyzed using a series of nonparametric Mann- Variable/Context M (SD) Max M (SD) Max
Whitney U tests. These two items were reverse scored
so that low ratings were associated with low levels of # Utterances B 19.6 (16.5) 1–58 26.4 (17.1) 0–77
control and high ratings indicated high levels of control. P 23.1 (17.2) 0–67 39.0 (19.1) 2–88
The data for these items are summarized in Table 4. First,
the ratings were compared between Groups (toddlers, # Different Words B 18.3 (16.6) 2–79 33.4 (20.6) 0–84
P 22.4 (16.8) 0–72 55.6 (24.1) 2–105
preschoolers). Then, they were compared between Con-
texts (play dough, book reading). There were no differ-
# Combinations B 7.5 (8.3) 0–27 12.3 (9.8) 0–39
ences between the toddler and preschool age groups for P 12.5 (9.9) 0–35 29.1 (15.6) 0–70
either variable. However, when these items were compared
across the two Contexts, play dough received significantly Longest Utterance B 3.8 (2.1) 1–10 6.5 (3.6) 0–19
lower ratings for both Topic Control and Turn-Taking in Words P 4.4 (2.0) 1–10 9.4 (4.1) 1–23
Control (Us = 117.0 and 71.0, ps ≤ .05 and .001, respec-
tively). Turn-taking was less balanced, and teachers used Note. B = Book reading, P = Play dough

1108 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 [Hotellings F(4, 153) = 23.3, p ≤ .001] for all measures of
productivity when analyzed together. Significant
univariate differences were found for all four measures
of child language productivity [Fs(1, 156) = 14.4–62.5,
ps ≤ .001]. Not surprisingly, preschoolers talked signifi-
cantly more often and used a higher level of complexity
than children in the toddler group. The context of inter-
action also exerted a systematic effect on the children’s
participation [Hotellings F(4, 153) = 17.7, p ≤ .001]. Re-
gardless of the age group, children were more produc-
tive during the play-dough activity than during book
reading. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed that all
four variables contributed to this finding [Fs(1, 156) =
10.5–62.5, ps ≤ .001].
Relation Between Teachers’ Directiveness
and Child-Language Productivity
In this section the five subtypes of teachers’ direc-
tiveness were correlated with indices of child-language
productivity measured during the same interaction.
Because there were four children in each teacher-group
interaction, the average values of the children were se-
lected for these correlational analyses such that each
teacher’s language input was correlated to the mean
productivity of the four children in her group. Because
all hypotheses were directional, the Pearson product
moment correlations were conducted using a one-tailed
probability with an alpha level of .05. To increase the
power of the analyses, teachers’ values for directiveness
and children’s data for participation in interaction were
summed across the two contexts (i.e., book reading and
play dough). The results of all analyses between teachers’
input and child productivity are presented in Table 6.
There were significant negative correlations be-
tween teachers’ Behavior Control and three of the four
measures of productivity—that is, children’s number of
different words [r(18) = –0.39, p ≤ .05], use of multiword
combinations [r(18) = –0.41, p ≤ .05], and average length
of the three longest utterances in words [r(18) = –0.40,
p ≤ .05]. According to standards of behavioral research
(Silverman, 1998), these correlation coefficients indicate
relatively weak relationships between behavior control
Table 6. Relations between measures of teachers’ directiveness and child language productivity (N = 20).
Behavior
Variables Control
# Utterances –.37
# Different Words –.39*
# Multiword Combinations –.41*
Longest Utterance –.40*
Note. One-tailed significance. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01.
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
and child language output. In addition, there were also
significant negative correlations between ratings for
teachers’ Turn-Taking Control and the number of ut-
terances [r(18) = –0.60, p ≤ .01], different words [r(18)
= –0.50, p ≤ .05], and the number of multiword utter-
ances used by children [r(18) = –0.55, p ≤ .01]. These
correlation coefficients are indicative of moderate lin-
ear relationships between turn-taking control and child-
language output (Silverman, 1998). Only conversation
control was positively related to children’s language
measures—that is, with the number of children’s utter-
ances [r(18) = 0.51, p ≤ .05], different words [r(18) = 0.42,
p ≤ .05], and multiword combinations [r(18) = 0.46, p ≤
.05]. According to accepted standards of behavioral re-
search, the correlation coefficients for conversation con-
trol range from small (for different words and combina-
tions) to moderate (for number of utterances) (Silverman,
1998). There were no significant correlations among any
of the four measures of child-language productivity and
Response Control or Topic Control. Therefore, teachers’
use of conversation control was associated with higher
values of language productivity. In contrast, teachers’
use of behavior control and turn-taking control was as-
sociated with children who spoke least often and used
language that was less complex.
Discussion
The results of this study reveal several important find-
ings concerning the subtypes of teachers’ directive lan-
guage input to children in group childcare settings. For
the most part, children in both the toddler and preschool
age groups received similar amounts of directive input
from their teachers. Exceptions include the use of more
attention calls with younger children (who were on aver-
age 24 months old) and the use of more Wh-questions with
older children (who were on average 41 months old). The
finding for attention calls replicates previous work by
Pellegrino and Scopesi (1990), who reported that teach-
ers used more attention calls with younger children
when attempting to manage group behavior. However,
the absence of group differences for the remaining sub-
types of directiveness stands in sharp contrast to the
Response Conversation Topic Turn-Taking
Control Control Control Control
–.04 .50* –.29 –.60**
–.05 .42* –.22 –.50*
–.06 .46* –.25 –.55**
.04 .25 –.23 –.38
Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1109
 findings of earlier studies which report that teachers
use more closed questions, commands, and turns with
less conversationally skilled children (Cicognani & Zani,
1992; Polyzoi, 1997). In part, differences in methodolo-
gies may explain the absence of group findings in our
study. First, our toddlers were older and more verbal
than the 12-month-old infants in the Cicognani and Zani
study, who were predominantly preverbal. Second, we
constrained the interactions by providing novel toys,
restricting group size to four children, and confining the
location of filming—thereby limiting the need for teach-
ers to use differential directive input to elicit the children’s
attention and participation. Thus, it is possible that teach-
ers may be more directive with children who are much
younger than those included in our study or in more
naturalistic settings where the group task is flexible and
group size and membership are constantly changing.
The results of the present study also reveal that
teacher’s directiveness is more a function of the context
of the interaction than of the children’s ages. This find-
ing indicates a stable pattern of directiveness across
toddlers and preschool groups who display significantly
different language abilities. Moreover, this finding sug-
gests that sampling multiple contexts of teacher-child
interaction is important for speech-language patholo-
gists who consult to day care centers and evaluate teach-
ers’ language input. As hypothesized, book reading elic-
ited more behavior control (attention calls), response
control (test questions, directive yes/no questions), and
topic control. This teacher-directed activity was also
associated with less balanced turn-taking overall. One
feature that may have accounted for the systematic dif-
ference between the two activities is the perceived dis-
course role of the activity (i.e., the underlying instruc-
tional purpose). Book reading is a scripted activity, and
the teachers’ general expectation appeared to be for the
children to listen, attend, and respond to specific ques-
tions related to the book’s content. An examination of
the transcripts revealed that the book-reading sessions
tended to elicit more test questions (e.g., “What color is
this?”) and directive yes/no questions (e.g., “Can you
show me the orange?”). Also, teachers tended to direct
more of their utterances to the group as a whole, and
this style of interaction did not invite an individual child
to participate; often, these questions remained unan-
swered. Overall, book reading was associated with the
least amount of child talk. Thus, the directive style that
characterized book reading generally tended to inhibit
the children’s participation in interaction.
In contrast, play dough was less directive than book
reading. Teachers used fewer attention calls, asked fewer
test questions, and used fewer directive yes/no questions.
They followed the child’s lead more often, and the turn-
taking was more balanced. In contrast to book reading,
teachers also tended to promote interaction with the
1110 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
children by asking more clarification questions, conver-
sational yes/no questions, and open-ended Wh-questions.
In this activity, each child had his or her own play dough
and implements and ordinarily was free to construct
whatever he or she chose, thus inviting open-ended ques-
tions such as “What are you making?” or yes/no ques-
tions that matched the child’s plan-of-the-moment and
attempted to initiate a conversation (e.g., “Is that a snake
you’re making?”). An examination of the transcripts re-
vealed that teachers were engaged in more individual
conversations during the play-dough activity, thereby
inviting specific children to take turns. This activity was
also associated with the greatest amount of child talk in
terms of volubility (number of utterances, different
words) and complexity (combinations, length). It is pos-
sible that the teachers’ style of using more conversation
control relative to other types of directives encouraged
the children to increase their verbal participation in this
play context. This finding corroborates a similar find-
ing by O’Brien & Bi (1995), who also reported that child-
directed play contexts in which teachers used less con-
trol yielded more complex speech and more talk overall.
The pattern of correlations between teachers’
directiveness and child language productivity indicates
that teacher input that constrains behavior (behavior
control) and dominates turn-taking is associated with
restricted and less complex language use by the chil-
dren. In contrast, the teachers’ use of conversation con-
trol (Wh-questions, clarification questions, conversa-
tional yes/no questions) is related to the greatest amount
of child talkativeness, lexical diversity, and complexity.
Topic control did not yield any significant association
with child output, suggesting that this variable was not
an important characteristic of the two contexts sampled
in this study. However, the lack of significant correla-
tions for response control is puzzling because test ques-
tions, directive yes/no questions, and commands have
previously been associated with inhibiting interaction
styles (McDonald & Pien, 1982; Olsen-Fulero, 1982).
There are two alternative explanations for the ob-
served pattern of correlations. On the one hand, if it is
assumed that teacher input drives the interaction, the
current results indicate that, for the age groups in this
study, conversation control is helpful for promoting lan-
guage productivity. Also, they indicate that high levels
of behavior control and turn-taking control may inhibit
language productivity and may be incompatible with
the basic goal of promoting conversational interaction.
On the other hand, the bidirectional theory of influ-
ence (Bell, 1979) suggests an alternative explanation.
It is possible that low levels of child participation may
elicit higher levels of teacher directiveness. If this is
the case, the observed levels of teachers’ directive lan-
guage input may be interpreted as constructive adap-
tations used to scaffold conversation and interaction
 with a nonparticipating child. Future research is needed
to assess the longer-term effects of these directive sub-
types on child language productivity and to ascertain
the direction of influence.
It is important to note that this study did not mea-
sure the impact of teachers’ directive interaction on the
children’s linguistic development. Rather, the focus was
on the children’s overt verbal performance and partici-
pation in the classroom, which is presumed to be ulti-
mately important for the development of their full dis-
course and linguistic competencies. Thus, although
teachers can be directive in book-reading activities, there
can nevertheless be strong language learning underway
in the form of enhanced comprehension and vocabulary
growth that was not tapped by this study (M. Rice, per-
sonal communication, March 22, 2000).
Several limitations in the methodology must be
noted in interpreting the findings of this study. First,
all teachers in this study were well educated, elected to
participate, and were supported in this endeavor by their
supervisors. Thus, the teacher-child interactions sampled
in this study may not be representative of all caregiver-
child interactions that occur in day care centers. Sec-
ond, the teacher-children interactions occurred under
very specific, structured conditions with small group
sizes. Although the videotaping took place in childcare
centers (familiar settings for both the children and teach-
ers), the time period was limited, the group size was
restricted to four children, and the investigators pro-
vided specific books and toys. Observations of teacher-
child interactions in more naturalistic contexts and with
larger groups of children may reveal that teachers use
different interaction styles during their everyday inter-
actions. Third, the results of this study may not be gen-
eralized to teachers from diverse educational back-
grounds or cultural groups, as these characteristics may
widely influence the nature of adult-child interactions
and yield results different from those obtained in this
study. Nor can these results be applied wholesale to chil-
dren from different age groups, as there is evidence to
suggest that directiveness may facilitate productivity
in children who are much younger than those in the
current study (Cicognani & Zani, 1992; Pellegrino &
Scopesi, 1990). Finally, day care providers are a hetero-
geneous group of individuals. The presentation of group
results in this study masks their diverse and distinc-
tive approaches towards individual children. Future
descriptive and ethnographic studies may contribute to
our understanding of how background and experiential
and attitudinal variables interact with different styles
of language input to the children in their care.
The application of social interactionist theory to
teacher-child interactions suggests a number of implica-
tions for stimulating the language use and development
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
of children in day care. First, this study suggests that
teachers may benefit from training to reduce some sub-
types of directiveness (e.g., behavior control, response
control, turn-taking control, topic control) and to increase
their use of conversation control (e.g., Wh-questions,
clarification questions, conversational yes/no questions)
during book reading. Evidence from previous studies
indicates that caregivers can be trained to modify their
input during book reading and to enhance child language
development (e.g., Dale & Cole, 1996; Valdez-Menchaca
& Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1988). Second,
it also suggests a collaborative role for speech-language
pathologists within day care centers in that they can
provide teachers with appropriate support and training
in naturalistic language facilitation (e.g., Arnett, 1989;
Buysse, Wesley, Keyes, & Bailey, 1996). This may be
particularly important if unidentified children who are
at risk of language delays or who have identified lan-
guage delays are integrated into regular childcare set-
tings (Girolametto, Hoaken, et al., 2000). Because
directiveness may facilitate the participation of less con-
versationally skilled children, teachers’ use of directive
strategies should be examined in terms of their impact
on the child. If directiveness is an attempt to re-engage
an uninvolved child and to elicit higher levels of partici-
pation, then this differential handling should be re-
spected. If, on the other hand, directiveness is used to
override the child’s topic, redirect the child’s attention,
or constrain the child’s response, alternative strategies
should be taught. Third, the recognition that play con-
texts elicit different patterns of teacher-child interac-
tion and child verbal participation can help teachers and
speech-language pathologists select naturalistic environ-
ments that are conducive to child talk. Simply training
teachers to reduce their overall directiveness may place
them at odds with their expectations for the children’s
participation in group interactions. For some teachers,
the instructive value of teaching children to sit, listen,
and respond to didactic questions during book reading
may override the usefulness of modifying this interac-
tion. In addition, the contextual differences noted in this
study suggest that it is necessary to evaluate teacher-
child interactions in different contexts in order to cap-
ture the variability in their language use.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by a grant from Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We
thank Sophie Kaegi and Megan Wiigs, research assistants,
for their help with data transcription and data entry. We are
grateful to Lisa Hoaken, speech-language pathologist, for
her assistance in subject recruitment and data collection.
Above all, we are deeply appreciative of the participation of
the teachers and the children.
Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1111
 References
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does
training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 10, 541–552.
Barnes, S., Gutfreund, M., Satterly, D., & Wells, G. (1983).
Characteristics of adult speech which predict children’s
language development. Child Language, 10, 65–84.
Bell, R. Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences.
American Psychologist, 34, 821–826.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. B., Jr.
(1996). Assessing the comfort zone of child care teachers in
serving young children with disabilities. Journal of Early
Intervention, 20, 189–203.
Caldera, Y., Houston, A., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social
interactions and play patterns of parents and toddlers
with feminine, masculine, and neutral toys. Child
Development, 60, 70–76.
Carle, E. (1998). The mixed-up chameleon. New York:
Harper Collins.
Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (1992). Teacher-children interac-
tions in a nursery school: An exploratory study. Language
and Education, 6, 1–11.
Cooner, D. (1997). Barney and Baby Bop go to the grocery
store. Allen, TX: Barney.
Cross, T. (1977). Mother’s speech adjustments: The contri-
butions of selected child listener variables. In C. Snow &
C. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input
and acquisition (pp. 157–188). Cambridge, MA: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Cross, T. G., & Horsborough, K. (1986). Adult speech,
child language and their interaction in the preschool.
Paper presented at the Fourth Australian Language and
Speech Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Dale, P., & Cole, K. (1996). Parent-child book reading as an
intervention technique for young children with language
delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16,
213–235.
Ellis, R., & Wells, G. (1980). Enabling factors in adult-child
discourse. First Language, i, 46–62.
File, N. (1994). Children’s play, teacher-child interactions,
and teacher beliefs in integrated early childhood pro-
grams. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 223–240.
Girolametto, L., Hoaken, L., Weitzman, E., & van
Lieshout, R. (2000). Patterns of adult-child linguistic
interaction in integrated day care groups. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 31, 154–167.
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & van Lieshout, R.
(1999). The Teacher Interaction and Language Rating
Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON.
Goelman, H., & Pence, A. R. (1987). Effects of child care,
family, and individual characteristics on children’s
language development: The Victoria Day Care Research
Project. In D. A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What
does the research tell us? (Vol. 1, pp. 89–104). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Hadley, P. A., & Rice, M. L. (1993). Parental judgments of
preschoolers’ speech and language development: A
1112 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
resource for assessment and IEP planning. Topics in
Speech and Language, 14, 278–288.
Harris, M., Jones, D., Brookes, S., & Grant, J. (1986).
Relations between the non-verbal context of maternal
speech and rate of language development. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 4, 261–268.
Hill, E. (1994). Spot bakes a cake. New York: The Penguin
Group.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in
maternal speech: Their relation to the child’s development
of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 22, 155–163.
Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based
child care as a function of teacher background and adult:
child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404–425.
McCabe, J. R., Jenkins, J. R., Mills, P. E., Dale, P. S.,
Cole, K. N., & Pepler, L. (1996). Effects of play group
variables on language use by preschool children with
disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 329–340.
McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environ-
ment on children’s language development. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 244–260.
McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Phillips, D., & Grajek, S.
(1985). Day care as intervention: Comparisons of varying
quality programs. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 6, 247–260.
McDonald, L., & Pien, D. (1982). Mother conversational
behaviour as a function of interactional intent. Journal of
Child Language, 9, 337–358.
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1992). Systematic analysis
of language transcripts. Madison: University of Wisconsin–
Madison.
O’Brien, M., & Bi, X. (1995). Language learning in context:
Teacher and toddler speech in three classroom play areas.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 148–163.
O’Brien, M., & Nagle, K. (1987). Parents’ speech to
toddlers: The effect of play context. Journal of Child
Language, 14, 269–279.
Ogilvy, C. M. (1992). How might psychological research
findings be applied to increase the effectiveness of
nurseries as learning contexts? Early Child Development
and Care, 81, 65–75.
Olsen-Fulero, L. (1982). Style and stability in mother
conversational behaviour: A study of individual differ-
ences. Journal of Child Language, 9, 543–564.
Pecyna, P., Feeny-Giacoma, M., & Neiman, G. (1987).
Development of the object permanence concept in cleft lip
and palate and noncleft lip and palate infants. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 20, 233–243.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997).
Relations between preschool children’s child-care experi-
ences and concurrent development: The cost, quality, and
outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 451–477.
Pellegrino, M. L. M., & Scopesi, A. (1990). Structure and
function of baby talk in a day-care centre. Journal of
Child Language, 17, 101–113.
Perry, F., Colman, M., & Cross, T. G. (1986). Conversa-
tions with children in kindergartens. In T. G. Cross & L.
M. Riach (Eds.), Aspects of child development (pp. 66–76).
Melbourne: AE Press.
 Polyzoi, E. (1997). Quality of young children’s talk with
adult caregivers and peers during play interactions in the
day care setting. Canadian Journal of Research in Early
Childhood Education, 6, 21–30.
Rhyner, P. M. P., Lehr, D. H., & Pudlas, K. A. (1990). An
analysis of teacher responsiveness to communicative
initiations of preschool children with handicaps. Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 91–97.
Schaffer, H. R., & Liddell, C. (1984). Adult-child interac-
tion under dyadic and polyadic conditions. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 2, 33–41.
Silverman, F. (1998). Research design and evaluation in
speech-language pathology and audiology. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Snow, C., & Ferguson, C. (Eds.). (1978). Talking to
children. London: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, C. E. (1981). Social interaction and language
acquisition. In P. S. Dale & D. Ingram (Eds.), Child
language: An international perspective (pp. 195–213).
Baltimore: University Park Press.
Tannock, R. (1988). Mothers’ directiveness in their
interactions with their children with and without Down
syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93,
154–165.
Tizard, B., & Hughes, M. (1984). Young children learning.
London: Fontana Paperbacks.
Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention and
lexical acquisition style. First Language, 4, 197–212.
Appendix A. Teacher-Child Coding System
All codes were mutually exclusive. If an utterance satisfied
the criterion for two codes the utterance was assigned a code
corresponding to the order in which the codes are listed in this
appendix. For example, the utterance “John, can you make a
snake?” was coded as Attention Call and not as a Directive
Yes/No Question.
1. Behavior Control: Includes all utterances coded as Group
Management and Attention Calls.
(a) Group Management (GM): Utterances that suggest or
direct the child’s behavior in order to promote safety
and to encourage participation in the group activity
(e.g., “Push your chair forward.” “Take that out of
your mouth please.” “Come here and play.”).
(b) AC (Attention Calls): Utterances that direct child’s
attention to an object or activity or call child’s name
to get child’s attention (e.g., “Look here.” “Julian.”
“Let’s see what’s in the bag.”).
2. Response Control: Includes all utterances that serve to
constrain the child’s response.
(a) Commands (CO): Utterances that suggest or direct the
child to play in a certain way; commands used to
elicit words (e.g, “Make a snake with the play
dough.” Say ‘excuse me.’” “Go and get the giraffe.”).
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992).
Accelerating language development through picture book
reading: A systematic extension to mexican day care.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 1106–1114.
Wanska, S., Pohlman, J., & Bedrosian, J. (1989). Topic
maintenance in preschoolers’ conversation in three play
situations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 393–402.
Wells, C. G. (1978). Talking with children: The complemen-
tary roles of parents and teachers. English in Education,
12, 15–38.
Wells, C. G. (1981). Learning through interaction. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Whitehurst, G., Falco, F., Lonigan, C., Fischel, J., De
Baryshe, B., Valdez-Menchaca, M., & Caulfield, M.
(1988). Accelerating language development through picture
book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–559.
Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., Alpert, C., & Fischer, R. (1993).
Following the child’s lead when teaching nouns to
preschoolers with mental retardation. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 36, 158–167.
Received January 11, 2000
Accepted June 28, 2000
Contact author: Luigi Girolametto, PhD, Department of
Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, 6
Queen’s Park Crescent West, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S
3H2. Email: l.girolametto@utoronto.ca
(b) Directive Yes/No Questions (YN-D): Questions that
can be answered with a yes or no but that suggest or
direct the child to play in a certain way or to speak in
a certain way (e.g, “Can you make a snake?”).
(c) Test Questions (TQ): Questions that test the child’s
knowledge; the answer is usually one word and
obvious from the context (e.g., “What color is your
shirt?” “How many do you see?”).
(d) Choice Questions (CQ): This category includes choice
questions (e.g., “Do you want a cookie or a ba-
nana?”).
3. Conversation Control: Includes all open-ended Wh-
questions, clarification questions that repair breakdowns,
and yes/no questions that promote conversation without
directing behavior.
(a) Clarification Questions (CL): Questions that clarify the
child’s meaning in the preceding utterance. They are
usually yes/no questions (e.g., C: “pak” / T: “He’s
going to the park?”).
(b) Wh-Questions (WH): These are questions that
includes a wh-word (i.e., what, who, why, where,
how). They are considered to be open-ended
questions because the answer is not constrained (e.g.,
Girolametto et al.: Directive Input in Day Care 1113
 “Who likes grapes?” “What did you have for lunch
yesterday?”).
(c) Conversational Yes/No Questions (YN-C): These are
yes/no questions that can be answered with a yes or
no but do not suggest action or constrain behavior
(e.g., “Can I use some of yours?” “Baby Bop is going
shopping, isn’t she?”).
4. Language-Modeling Utterances (not used in this study).
(a) Imitations (IM): Direct imitations of the child’s
verbalization/vocalizations (e.g., C: “Spaghetti” / T:
“Spaghetti”). Imitations with evaluative tags were
considered imitations (e.g., C: “Eye” / T: “Eye, that’s
right”).
(b) Labels (LA): Short utterances that label objects. Most
labels were used in short utterances that used the
following carrier phrases: That is X. Here’s an X. Red
X. Another X. You have X.
(c) Recasts (RE): Expansions that use words from the
child’s utterance in a longer utterance (e.g., C: “Car
broken.” / T: “The car’s broken.” and C: “Green
apples.” / T: “You like green apples.”).
(d) Comments (CM): Utterances that describe the
children’s or the teacher’s own activity (e.g., “You built
a house.” / “I’m making a cookie.”).
5. Other Utterances: (not used in this study)
(a) Other Utterance (OU): Usually short utterances that
acknowledge, evaluate, or praise the child (e.g.,
“Good job.” “Thank you.” “Oh good, I’m so glad.” “I
know.” “Nice sharing.”).

Appendix B. Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale

1. Topic Control
Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A

Follow the Teacher never follows
Children’s Lead the children’s lead,
never comments on the
children’s activities, and
ignores or redirects the
children.
Teacher sometimes
comments on the children’s
topic or lead if verbal but
may ignore or redirect
nonverbal leads.
If children initiate (verbally
or nonverbally), teacher
responds frequently and
promptly by commenting,
answering, and/or
participating nonverbally.
Same as in #5, plus
teacher is consistent
throughout the
interaction.

Comments:

2. Turn-Taking Control

Use Balanced Teacher dominates the
Turn-Taking conversation or
interaction. Does all the
talking and/or completes
most of the activity.
Teacher sometimes takes
turns with children, but
her turns are more
frequent and longer.
Teacher talk still dominates.
Conversational turn-taking
is balanced—children
and teacher take equal
numbers of turns and turns
of similar length.
Same as #5, plus
the teacher is consistent.
Matches the children’s
pace.

Comments:

1114 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 43 • 1101–1114 • October 2000

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a Univ of York-England User on 02/16/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx