The relation between teacher input and lexical growth of preschoolers
Abstract
The present study examined the growth of receptive lexical skills in preschoolers over an academic year in relation to teacher speech. The participating students were English language learners and their monolingual English-speaking peers from the same classrooms. The measures of teacher input included indicators of the amount of speech (total number of words), lexical richness (number of different word types), and structural complexity (number of words per utterance). These measures were based on a speech sample collected during a classroom observation. For English language learners, vocabulary growth was positively related to the total number of words produced by the teacher, but negatively related to the number of words per utterance. For monolingual speakers, vocabulary growth was positively related to the number of word types produced by the teacher. The findings underscore the importance of considering different aspects of verbal input for understanding individual variability in language growth of preschool students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effects of lexical diversity and morphological richness on vocabulary growth have been mixed in prior research.
“the effects of lexical diversity and morphological richness on vocabulary growth have been mixed in prior research (e.g., Bowers and Vasilyeva, 2011)”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Bowers and Vasilyeva, 2011
Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the MLU of teachers' input is negatively associated with bilingual children's vocabulary growth.
“For example, Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the MLU of teachers' input is negatively associated with bilingual children's vocabulary growth.”
From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011)
Cites
Hoff, E. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00612 · Cited by 2,346 · see citing works
How social contexts support and shape language development☆
HOFF, E. (2006) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002 · Cited by 1,853 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Peers have been shown to play a role in language development (Hoff, 2006; Oller & Eilers, 2002), and it is possible that having more English monolingual classmates may benefit lexical growth in preschoolers.”
BackgroundThe Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and Language Development
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2000) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00202 · Cited by 530 · see citing works
8. The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom
Ranta, L. (2002) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.2.11ran · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review
Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Sandilos, L. E. (2014) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
Franco, X., Bryant, D. M., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., Zepeda, M., & Willoughby, M. T. (2019) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.007 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Gámez, P. B., Griskell, H. L., Sobrevilla, Y. N., & Vazquez, M. (2019) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13197 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Wang, X., McMillen, S., & Shi, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1566442 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“For example, Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the MLU of teachers’ input is negatively associated with bilingual children’s vocabulary growth.”
Influential
- Authors
- BOWERS, E. P., & VASILYEVA, M.
- Affiliations
- Tufts University (US)
- Boston College (US)
- Corresponding author
- BOWERS, EDMOND P.
- Venue
- Applied Psycholinguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-10-07
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 221-241
- ISSN
- 0142-7164 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1817
- OpenAlex
- W2127338728
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 8.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Psycholinguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- teacher input, lexical growth, receptive vocabulary, preschool children, English language learners, monolingual English speakers, lexical diversity, utterance length, classroom speech, language acquisition, interindividual variability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
