Impact of professional development training in indirect language

stimulation techniques on language development in Head Start ESL preschool children

Research Team: Drs. Carolyn Abel, Jannah Nerren, Dorothy Gottshall, Hope Wilson

Stephen F. Austin State University Early Childhood Research Center Nacogdoches, Texas 75962

Head Start's 10th National Research ConferenceJune 21-23, 2010 Washington, DCAbstract

This pretest-posttest randomized study researched the effect of training for Head Start preschool teachers in indirect language stimulation techniques on English language development in ESL preschool students. The constructivist-based techniques taught in the training are for utilization in school settings, and in informal routine conversation between teachers and students. Impact was determined using the PPVT-4 and EVT-2. A 2 day training workshop was provided to a random half of Head Start teachers of 4 year-olds in a rural county in Texas. After controlling for pre-test expressive and receptive scores there was no significant difference between ESL students in classrooms in which the teacher received language training (n=10) and those ESL students in classrooms in which the teacher did not receive language training (n=15). This lack of significant differences is likely due to a lack of power to detect differences between the two groups.

Significance of the Study

1) There are very few studies that identify specific strategies that enhance early language development. This study can significantly add to the knowledge base.

2) Preschool teachers can be successful at learning strategies for improving early language development in a short period of time (two days). Therefore, the training method could easily be provided for professional development in most pre-school teaching environments such as Head Start, private schools, daycare centers, and public schools, as well as, parent education programs and university and other pre-service teacher training programs.

3) Preschool teachers can learn to see themselves as facilitators of language development in daily activities. Therefore, language development can evolve into a natural and individualized interaction between teacher and child, especially during the child’s play, allowing the child to process according to individual ecologies.

4) Preschool teachers can see how their existing school settings can be utilized to address students’ cognitive, social, and emotional needs in language learning through social interaction.

5) English Language Learners (ELL) and low SES groups are increasing at tremendous rates, especially in Texas preschools; this study permits exploration of the impact of language stimulation techniques on English language development in low SES and ELL preschoolers.

MethodologyThis pre-test/posttest randomized control group research project was conducted in two phases: Phase I (teacher training) and Phase II (classroom implementation). During Phase I, a 2 day language development training workshop was provided to a random selection of Head Start teachers of 4 year-olds in a rural county in Texas. The teachers were trained and assessed in an interactive, hands-on format to use indirect language stimulation techniques with preschool learners during daily routines and activities. During Phase II, the trained teachers integrated the newly learned language techniques into their regular classroom teaching. Researchers monitored program fidelity on a monthly basis with planned observations using a researcher-designed teacher observation form. Receptive language was measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and expressive language was measured by the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT-2) prior to beginning the intervention and 6 months after implementation. The results were analyzed using an analysis of covariance, controlling for pre-test scores and intervention status.

ResultsAn analysis of covariance was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the language intervention on expressive vocabulary for English Language Learners. The independent variable was participation in the intervention. The dependent variable was the score on the EVT administered after the intervention program. Scores on the EVT prior to the commencement of the intervention were used as a covariate to control for individual differences. After adjusting for prior EVT scores, the main effect was not statistically significant [F (1, 21)=2.34, p=.141). This represents a small effect size (partial eta squared=.100). These results suggest that the intervention does not significantly affect English Language Learners’ expressive language ability. This result may be due to the large growth that both the intervention and control groups experienced in expressive language when exposed to English at the Head Start schools.

Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of the study is to test the impact of indirect language stimulation techniques on preschoolers’ early language development.

Research Question(s):Phase 1: To what extent does a two-day teacher training improve the teachers’ knowledge and skill in the use of indirect language stimulation techniques? Phase 2: To what extent does teacher implementation of the indirect language stimulation techniques into classroom teaching improve the development of receptive and expressive oral language development in treatment groups?

The TrainingThe language stimulation techniques used in the training are grounded in the social theory of language acquisition, which recognizes that language learning is facilitated through interactions with mature language users (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2000; National Reading Panel 2000). The training program of five sequential video tapes from Educational Productions demonstrates how to stimulate language development in normally developing and language-delayed children who are three, four, and five years of age. These language stimulation techniques are developmentally appropriate for all children in their use of strategies that relate directly to what the child is interested in and extend what the child says (Snow, 1983). The training for this study emphasizes the importance of closely following the child’s lead and limiting extensions of the child’s language using indirect and less complex techniques for the youngest language learners. It was anticipated that all students in the preschool Head Start treatment programs would benefit from this intervention.

Theoretical FrameworkIt is widely known that language supports reading which in turn holds the key to future learning and success in school (National Reading Panel, 2000). Language develops best in a rich environment with many opportunities for practice (Dickinson, 2001). Children who do not develop basic language skills by age 3 may be more at risk for failure when they enter kindergarten (Morrow, 2008). Schools can attempt to influence how these children learn language. It is well known among early childhood educators that when young children are exposed to a sensitive nurturing environment where adults interact with students, comment on what the child says, and model and extend the language the child uses, language development is facilitated (Morrow, 2008).

www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/language/DC_headstart_study.doc

Presented by Jannah Nerren, PhD

Source Sum of Squares

df Mean Squares

F p Partial Eta Squared

EVT Pretest Scores

1501.47 1 1501.47 16.72 .001 .443

Intervention 209.78 1 209.78 2.34 .141 .100

Error 1868.36 21 1868.36

Total 131058.00 24

Source Sum of Squares

df Mean Squares

F p Partial Eta Squared

PPVT Pretest Scores

726.94 1 726.94 9.31 .006 .297

Intervention 35.70 1 35.70 .46 .506 .020

Error 1717.69 22 78.08

Total 168453.00 25

Note. R2=.307

Note. R2=.496

n Mean S.D.

Pretest 25 63.3 16.5

Intervention 11 63.7 16.8

Control 14 62.9 16.4

Posttest 25 81.5 10.2

Intervention 10 82.9 10.3

Control 15 80.5 10.3

n Mean S.D.

Pretest 25 63.2 16.5

Intervention 11 63.6 16.7

Control 14 62.9 16.4

Posttest 24 72.8 12.8

Intervention 10 77.4 15.8

Control 14 69.6 9.4

Statistics EVTStatistics PPVT

Descriptive StatisticsPretest Intervention Control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

EVT Results

Pre-test MeanPost Test Mean