Practitioner Support: Indirect Language Stimulation Techniques to Promote English Language Development in Preschool Students

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

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

9th Annual Hawaii International Conference on EducationJanuary 4-7, 2011 Honolulu, Hawaii

AbstractThis pretest-posttest randomized group study was undertaken to determine the effect of Head Start teacher training in indirect language stimulation techniques on English language development in their students with diverse language backgrounds. A 2-day training workshop on language techniques was provided to a random half of Head Start preschool teachers of 4-year-olds in rural Texas. Results on the PPVT-4 and EVT-2 following 6 months of implementation determined significant effects on students’ expressive English vocabulary.

DiscussionAs our population becomes more linguistically diverse, it is critical to develop oral language skills of preschool children to prepare them for later academic success in school. This study indicates the effectiveness of language stimulation techniques for both English speaking and Spanish speaking preschool children from low-income backgrounds. With minimal professional development training (2-days) and periodic follow-up and monitoring (1 hour per month), students in the treatment Head Start four-year-old classrooms showed significant improvements in expressive oral English language development.

Significance of the Study1) 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. Results were analyzed using an analysis of covariance, determining the differences between treatment and control groups on the posttest scores, while controlling for pretest scores and home language. The analyses were conducted separately for oral receptive language, as measured by the PPVT-4, and expressive language, as measured by the EVT-2 (Dunn & Dunn, 2007; Williams, 2007).

Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to test the impact of indirect language stimulation techniques on the English language development of Head Start preschool 4-year-olds with diverse language backgrounds when their teachers were trained and taught to integrate these strategies into their regular classroom instruction.

The pretest scores on the PPVT-4 scores of all of the students, showed a low mean standard score (M=77.7), with a large increase over 6 months for both treatment and control groups (M=90.4). The Spanish speaking students showed the lowest pretest scores (M=63.7, treatment group; M=62.9, control group) as compared to the English speaking students (M=86.4, treatment group; M=82.9, control group).

Similar results were seen for the tests of expressive language on the EVT-2, with a low mean standard score in the pretest results (M=78.8), and a large increase over 6 months for both treatment and control groups (M=85.6). Again, the Spanish speaking students had lower pretest scores (M=63.6, treatment group; M=62.9, control group) as compared to the English speaking students (M=83.8, treatment group; M=89.4, control group). A 2 by 2 between-groups analysis of covariance was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the language intervention on receptive vocabulary for students with diverse language backgrounds. The independent variables were participation in the intervention and language spoken at home (English or Spanish). The dependent variable was the score on the PPVT administered after the intervention program. Scores on the PPVT prior to the commencement of the intervention were used as a covariate to control for individual differences.

After adjusting for PPVT scores prior to the beginning of the intervention, there was no significant interaction between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 62)=1.99, p=.163]. Neither of the main effects were statistically significant [intervention: F (1, 62)=.02, p=.891; language: F (1, 62)=.09, p=.764]. These results suggest that the intervention did not have an effect on the receptive language of either students from English speaking or Spanish speaking homes.

Another 2 by 2 between-groups analysis of covariance was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the language intervention on expressive vocabulary for students with diverse language backgrounds. The independent variables were participation in the intervention and language spoken at home (English or Spanish). 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 EVT scores prior to beginning the intervention, there was no significant interaction between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 60)=.09, p=.772]. After adjusting for prior EVT scores, both of the main effects were statistically significant [intervention: F (1, 60)=6.64, p=.012; language: F (1, 60)=9.86, p=.003].

However, they both represent a small effect size (language partial eta squared=.141; intervention partial eta squared=.100). These results suggest that the intervention is equally effective for students from diverse language backgrounds and supports expressive language development.

After controlling for pre-test scores, students in classrooms in which the teacher received the language training (n=31) had significantly higher expressive language scores (p=.012) than students in classrooms with teachers who had no language training (n=34).

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 (Dickinson, 2001; 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.

ResultsPhase 1: The 2-day training workshop was successful based on participant pre/post test scores, anonymous survey responses, and direct feedback from participants through discussions about answers on the assessment following post testing. Pre-test scores ranged from 35% to 55% with a mean of 45% understanding of language stimulation techniques before the training began. Post-test scores revealed a mean of 78% and a smaller range of 75% - 80%, indicating participants had improved 33% in their knowledge of the strategies in only 2 days of training.

Phase 2: Once intervention began in treatment classrooms, fidelity was measured on a monthly basis. A researcher-created and tested rubric was utilized to determine if the trained teachers were integrating the strategies into daily classroom interaction. A scale of 0 (indicating no usage of the strategies) to 5 (indicating excellent usage of the strategies) measured implementation of techniques. Results indicated teachers were regularly integrating the strategies with success, earning scores averaging 3 (average use) to 4 (good use of strategies) at each observation.

Theoretical FrameworkThe development of language in preschool has significant effects on the academic success of children once they begin schooling (National Reading Panel, 2000; Morrow, Reuda, & Lapp, 2009). When students with fewer resources and diverse language backgrounds enter school, they are often at a disadvantage with regard to their language development (Morrow, 2008; National Literacy Panel, 2006; Helman, 2005; Hart & Risley, 2003). Thus, it is important to investigate early interventions that can help children from diverse backgrounds develop early language to promote later school success.

Presented by Jannah Nerren, PhD