This presentation discusses findings from research directly comparing two modes of delivery of the Hanen Center’s Learning Language and Loving It professional education program for early childhood educators: traditional delivery (group workshops plus individual video feedback and coaching) and embedded delivery (one-on-one, on the floor, professional learning and coaching). The session will present an overview of the research objectives, methods, results and conclusions. Objectives: This research aimed to directly compare service delivery methods of a well-known, evidence-based program for supporting educator capacity to facilitate children’s communication development. Attendance at quality early childhood education and care services is a known protective factor for children’s development (Sammons et al., 2002). However, quality varies due to several factors including type of education and care centre, geographic location, and the domain of quality being assessed (i.e. emotional support, environment, instructional support, etc) (Tayler et al 2013). It is well established that educator instructional practices can be positively influenced through access to professional development (e.g. Cabell et al., 2011; Girolametto et al., 2003). However, barriers such as time, funding, workforce shortages etc have made access to PD difficult (e.g. Marshall et al., 2002). Methods: we conducted a community-based quasi-experimental study investigating the differences in educator use of interaction and communication-promoting strategies as well as children’s oral language skills following participation in either traditional delivery of LLLI or embedded delivery of LLLI. Results: Data analysis is currently in progress. Preliminary inspection suggests that educators' use of interaction and communication-promoting strategies increased following participation in LLLI, regardless of delivery method. Conclusions: Speech pathologists should consider advocating for improved funding for the early childhood education and care sector. Embedding speech pathologists into early childhood education settings to provide centre-focused interventions has the potential to benefit both children’s communication development and the centre’s quality of instructional practice.

Cabell SQ, Justice LM, Piasta SB, Curenton SM, Wiggins A, Turnbull KP, et al. (2011) The Impact of Teacher Responsivity Education on Preschoolers' Language and Literacy Skills. American journal of speech-language pathology. 20(4):315-30.
Girolametto L, Weitzman E, Greenberg J. (2003) Training Day Care Staff to Facilitate Children's Language. American journal of speech-language pathology. 9(1)299-311.
Marshall, J., Ralph, S., & Palmer, S. (2002). I wasn’t trained to
work with them’: mainstream teachers’ attitudes to children
with speech and language difficulties. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 6(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603110110067208
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Elliot, K., &
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2002). The Effective Provision of Pre-
School Education (EPPE) Project: Measuring the impact of preschool
on children’s cognitive progress over the pre-school
period. (Technical report 8a). Institute of Education
University of London. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/18189/
11/EPPE_TechnicalPaper_08a_2002.pdf
Tayler, C., Ishimine, K., Cloney, D., Cleveland, G., & Thorpe,
K. (2013). The quality of early childhood education and care
services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
38(2), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911303800203