abel paper draft

7/29/2019 Abel Paper Draft

1/22

Integration of English Language Development Strategies into

ESL Preschool Classrooms in Rural East Texas

Carolyn Davidson Abel

Dorothy Lee GottshallJannah Walters NerrenLee W. Payne

Stephen F. Austin State UniversityThis paper is fully co-authored

Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association

San Diego, April 13 17, 2009

The purpose of this pretest-posttest randomized clinical trail was to determine the effect of ESL

preschool teacher training in indirect language stimulation techniques on English language

development in ESL preschool four-year-old students as determined by the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS-R). Phase One of the

study provided a two-day training workshop on language stimulation techniques described in

Educational Productions program, Good Talking With You, to a randomly assigned half of all ESL

preschool teachers of four-year-olds in a 5-A school district in rural East Texas. Phase Two assessed

the impact of teacher training on the English language development of their ESL preschool students.

This research is in progress at the time of this writing; data will be collected in April and findingspresented at the AERA Annual Meeting in San Diego on April 16, 2009.

KEYWORDS: English Language Learners, English language development, literacy development,language stimulation techniques, receptive oral language, preschool, bilingual, professionaldevelopment, research

_________________________________________________________________________________

English Language Learners (ELL) comprises one of the fastest-growing groups among school-

aged children in the nation. According to the Pew Hispanic Centers data based on the 2006 Census, 1in 5 students in public schools today is Hispanic; this incredible growth rate poses challenges foreducators, especially in kindergarten where the populations are increasing most rapidly, and especiallyin Texas where more than half of this population is enrolled (Fry & Gonzales, 2008). Half of thesechildren live in poverty, and a low socioeconomic status (SES) can contribute to lack of school success(Snow et al, 1998, p. 87) which is often explained by limited early language development support in thehome (Hart & Risley, 2003).

1


2/22

According the National Reading Panel, it is widely known that language supports reading whichholds the key to future learning and success at school (National Institute of Child Heath and HumanDevelopment, 2000). Language develops best in a rich environment with many opportunities to uselanguage (Dickinson, 2001). Children who do not develop basic language skills by age 3, no matterwhat their first language is, are most likely to be at risk of failure when they enter kindergarten(Morrow, 2008). Young ELLs face increased risk for school failure due to the lack of teachers who areknowledgeable about second language development in young children (Coppola, 2005.) This is becauseELLs are often perceived by teachers as having poor language skills, even when they do not; suchteachers are less likely to offer responsive language support, often providing shortened and sometimesnegative responses to children they perceive as having limited proficiency with language (Tsybina et al,2006). This problem is magnified due to the high number of children now attending preschools (overtwo third attend), where the quality of language instruction is characteristically low (Justice et al, 2008).

Although many schools attempt to offer a variety of bilingual and ESL programs for thesestudents, there is relatively limited rigorous research delineating which curricular model works best(Ramirez, 1991). The seminal report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Childrenand Youth by August and Shanahan (2006) agree there is a need for more research on how best to

support English Language Learners, especially in the preschool years. With over 400 differentlanguages and dialects spoken in todays schools across the country, and preschools reporting thehighest enrollments of ELLs (Hadaway, 2004), it becomes increasingly difficult to offer instruction inthe first language. There is increased concern for those who are already at risk in their first languagewhen they begin school.

While schools cannot control for skill level development in the first language, schools canattempt to influence how these children learn English. It is well recognized that when young childrenare exposed to a sensitive nurturing environment where adults say what the child sees and model &extend language based on what interests the child, language development is facilitated (Pence & Justice,2008). This study attempts to determine if a similar positive impact can be made for Spanish-speaking

children when these simple language development techniques are used to encourage them to learn anduse English.

The present research studies the impact of a user-friendly professional development trainingprogram in language stimulation techniques, provided to a random half of all of the ESL preschoolteachers of four-year-olds in a large rural school district in East Texas, on the English languagedevelopment of their ESL students. Following the two-day training workshop, the five randomlyselected and trained teachers integrated the newly learned strategies into their regular classroomteaching during the following school year. Impact on English language development was measured bythe current versions of the receptive oral language Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and theWoodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS-R). Additional variables of gender, socio-economic level,and teacher experience were also considered.

Theoretical Framework

Among the most important variables found to support ELLs is a strong foundation in the firstlanguage (Ramirez, l991). Oral language development, no matter what the language, challenges themind and increases growth and understanding; it enables thinking. Knowing English upon entering

2


3/22

American schools improves success even further (Rossi & Stringfield, l995). We have known thattransfer can occur from a well-developed first language to the new one (English) but interestingly, wealso find reverse transfer can occur when English is learned as a second language, because it cantransfer back to further develop the first language (National Literacy Panel, 2006. p.214). Wilcox &Murphy (2003) have already posited the idea of studying developmentally appropriate languagetechniques on English language learners to teach them English, but they found little support toencourage it at the time. Our study moves forward with this pragmatic solution and its realistic potentialfor first and second language gainsin particular, to encourage language development in English.

Preschoolers acquire English more easily where there are good language models and sensitiveteachers to facilitate its development (Morrow, 2008). Student and teacher interaction plays a criticalrole in supporting this language development (Ramirez, 1991). The more teachers know aboutlanguage, the more they are equipped to facilitate language development in their students; in fact,learning how language develops can be more helpful than knowing how to speak the childs language(Tinajero,1998).

Language learning is similar in both Spanish and Englishchildren evolve through four phases

of language development (Vukelich, Christie, & Enz, 2008). The first level is the oral receptive phasewhere basic words about the here and now are learned; this begins the process of learning language(Snow, 1983). The proposed language training for ESL preschool teachers in our study isdevelopmentally appropriate in that it uses strategies that relate directly to the childs immediateinterests and models and extends what the child says (NAEYC, 1996).

It is well documented that a major facilitator of language is semantic contingencylanguage isfacilitated best when others comment on and continue topics introduced by the child (Snow, 1983).Children who are exposed to an environment rich in language and able to interact with adults usinglanguage in a social context, develop a greater facility with language than those who are not affordedsuch opportunities (Owens, 2008). Pence and Justice (2008, p. 172) confirm the critical importance of

educational experiences and language development during these earliest years. On page 100 in herchapter on language and literacy, Morrow (2008) states, Children whose language is not appropriatelydeveloped by age 3 because of lack of experiences or exposure to language are already at risk. But withquality preschool that emphasizes language and literacy, they can catch up.

Preschool ELLs have already acquired some basic conversational language in their first languagewith varying degrees of success. Schools cannot control for this skill level, but schools CAN attemptto help these children learn English. The language strategies suggested in this study are intended to giveELLs a jump start in speaking English. Simple language strategies one uses with an English speakingtoddler, may also be used to support ELLs when they are learning to speak English.

Tsybina et al (2006) attempted to do this in a study on recasts offered by teachers to their ESL

preschoolers. Recasts are syntactic revisions of childrens utterances that keep the central meaning intact. Implications from this study support the use of recasts, but they recommend that future studiesreduce the complexity of teacher language to better support English language development. Emphasisin the proposed training by Educational Productions corrects for the limitation noted in the recast study.See sample wording on page 3-4 lifted directly from the first video of the training offered in this pilotstudy:

Did you notice the number of questions and commands

3


4/22

Miguels mother, Leslie, used in an attempt to get him totalk? 85% of her speech to Miguel was composed ofquestions and commands. Thats too many for a youngpreschool child who is trying to learn language andespecially too many for Miguel, who is behind in hislanguage development.

The language stimulation techniques proposed in this study are grounded in social interactionisttheories of language acquisition which recognizes that language learning is facilitated through socialinteractions with mature language users (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2000; National Reading Panel 2000).The training program of five sequential video tapes from Educational Productions demonstrate how tostimulate language development in normally developing and language-delayed children who are three,four, and five years of age. These techniques are recommended by the U. S. Department of Health andHuman Services for building positive child outcomes for Head Start Programshttp://www.edpro.com/pdf/GT_HS_std.pdf which is based on the research by Snow, Burns, and Griffin(1998).

In searching the literature, it was readily apparent there is consensus re the importance oflanguage development, yet there exists a paucity of significant scientifically-based research studies todirect and support language development in English Language Learners, and there is virtually noscientific research to direct this study specifically on the English language development of Spanish-speaking ESL preschoolers. The Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Childrenand Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006) is the most current, exhaustive, and rigorous body of researchsummarizing studies that support ESL students reading acquisition toward a goal of life-long learning.For this seminal work, a distinguished panel of expertsresearchers in reading, bilingualism, researchmethods, and educationfrom the United States and Canada were invited to become the NationalLiteracy Panel (NLP) charged with creating a research data-base that would become a model for itsrigor and the quality of information it contained. The NLP was funded by the Institute of Education

Sciences (IES) with funds from the Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisitionand the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and establishes afoundation for both current and future research on reading for language-minority students. The panelmade every attempt to be inclusive and exhaustive in its search to evaluate quality research across arange of research methods to provide a user-friendly and quality research data base upon which toinform ongoing and future ESL studies. It is intended to serve as a bench-marka major resourceillustrating the state of knowledge and science at a crucial point when new research attention is focusedon the education of language-minority students (August & Shanahan, 2006, p.x-xi).

In reviewing this NLP data base, only two studies were found that merited attention regardingprofessional development training for teachers who work with ESL students. In a qualitative study by

Calderone and Marsh, 1988, teachers were given 12-15 days of inservice training and encouraged tointegrate certain teaching strategies to support ESL students in the classroom. Success was determinedfrom self-reported questionnaires. A second cohort was videotaped along with questionnaires andinterviews; a subsample of 5 were videotaped once a month to study transfer of training into teaching.The success of this training model appeared dependent upon administrator support and the opportunityfor trainees to practice theory being taught; these aspects have been incorporated into the present pilotstudy (administrator and participant buy-in and hands-on training of new techniques).

4


5/22

In the other study by Hoffman, Rosner, and Farest (1988), also qualitative, 16 participantteachers were taught story book reading strategies using demonstration techniques. Participants laterused these strategies in their kindergarten and first grade classrooms, which consisted mainly of lowSES Hispanic children who were predominantly Limited English Proficient (LEP). According to rubricassessment of seven targeted behaviors on pre/post audio tapes of their teaching, the training resulted inan average of 56% increased use of targeted strategy behaviors (p


6/22

this particular study. It is evident from the lack of solid research to inform the present study, that thispilot breaks new ground in targeting young, often poor, ESL preschoolers who are rapidly increasing innumber across the U.S.

Need for Language Studies on ESL Preschoolers

Dr. Helman studied the formidable task of ELLs learning a new language and culture, while alsolearning to read (2005). Helman writes, EL students, generally, have no more time in their day atschool than other students. Yet the expectations are for English learners to catch up and learn more thantheir monolingual peers. The only way this can happen is with exceptional teaching that builds orallanguage (Helman 2005, p. 223) Of the 2,000 first-through-third grade students she studied acrossthe state of Nevada who were already performing below grade-level peers across the nation, 49% ofHispanic children were performing below grade-level benchmarks by third grade with 28% functioningat beginning reading levels. She concluded, While it would be inappropriate to wait on literacyinstruction for EL students until full oral-language proficiency has developed, literacy instruction mustsimultaneously be imbued with rich language teaching. Oral language is the foundation of literacy, andlimited language proficiency constructs student success on many early literacy tasks (Helman, 2005, p.

222). She went on to explain that while first grade teachers expect to support early literacydevelopment and are well trained to do so, second and third grade teachers face pressures to perform onstandardized assessments which can influence the instructional agenda and reduce the amount andquality of differentiated instruction English learners receive. Equally, classroom teachers may make theassumption from hearing students who have learned to read aloud that comprehension is taking placewhen Ells demonstrate the ability to read accurately and fluently on lower level passages yet do notnecessarily understand the vocabulary and content (Helman, 2005, 0. 221).

The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) found that language (vocabulary, syntax, semantics,and pragmatic skills) has a positive impact on early literacy development (Shanahan, 2006, p. 72-73). Itwas concluded that an instructional focus on vocabulary during the preschool and kindergarten years is

a necessary approach to promoting later literacy success. This language benefit was true for a widerange of children under five years of age with the youngest seeming to benefit the most (Shanahan,2006, p. 78). The panel was not able to make specific comparisons with regard to which strategiesworked best for which age group since school and day care settings tend to lump groups into the birth-to-five-year-old population making it difficult to generalize (Shanahan, 2007, p. 222).

In terms of need and direction for future research on language development in young children,the panel recommended that studies should delineate for the following (Shanahan, 2006, p. 222-223),which the present study does:

approach (direct, or naturalistically integrated into classroom instruction as in the present study), delivery (via parents, researchers, or teachers professional development as in the present study), population (language impaired, low-income, or ELLs as in the present study) agent of intervention (researcher, speech-language pathologist, or other professionals, such as

the classroom teachers in the present study), intensity / frequency of intervention (individual, or group as in the present study), age group (which of the birth to five population; the present study specifies four-year-old

preschoolers)

6


7/22

The panel also identified the following research areas in need of more attention related to theefficacy of language interventions for young children (Shanahan, 2006, p. 223-224). Again, the presentstudy addresses them all:

Programs that target a specific range of outcomes for specific age groups (the present studyresearches the impact of language stimulation techniques on four-year-old ESL students andlooks at gender, SES, and teacher experience; it looks at receptive oral language developmentimpact via PPVT-4 and it looks at general language literacy readiness through the Broad Englishlanguage cluster of the WMLS-R)

Replication of studies showing positive effects (the present study extends and improves upon therecast studies which demonstrated promise; the present study will also expand based on data)

Program efficacy in enhancing specific aspects of languagereceptive and expressivevocabulary, syntax, semantics, pragmatic (the present study uses the PPVT-4 to explicitly testfor receptive vocabulary using a paid external experienced tester for both pre and postassessment)

Attention to determining characteristics of children at risk for language vs those identified aslanguage impaired (the present study looks at SES levels and variables such as first languagedevelopment vs second language development via the WMLS-R in both English and Spanish todetermine if an original language strength or weakness influences results)

More longitudinal research on sustainability of effective programs (the present study willcontinue to follow all students studied).

The present study follows the guidelines and research needs as outlined by the National Early LiteracyPanel for rigorous and targeted research into language development and incorporates what is knownabout language development toward the improvement of language and school success for Englishlanguage learners.

Methodology

The standard pretest-post control-group design was used to determine impact of languagestrategies on ESL treatment preschool classrooms. During Phase One of this research project, a two-day language development training workshop was provided to a random half of all ESL preschoolteachers of four-year-olds in a large rural 5-A school district in East Texas. During Phase Two of thisstudy, the trained teachers integrated the newly learned language stimulation techniques into theirregular classroom teaching (see Table 1). Impact was measured by pre and post assessments using thePeabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS-R).

Random visits were made by the researchers to establish fidelity to the treatment, which occurred over asix month period during the 2008 2009 school year.

At this writing, the present study is in progress. This pretest-posttest randomized pilot study willuse means comparison tests (t-tests), ANCOVA techniques, ordinary least squares (OLS) regressionsand ordered logit (OLOGIT) regressions to determine the effect of ESL preschool teacher training inlanguage stimulation techniques on their ESL four-year-old students English language development

7


8/22

during six months of integrating the newlylearned strategies into their regular classroomteaching. Impact will bemeasured by the growthindex of thepre and post assessment of receptiveoral language development on the most currentversion of the receptive oral language PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4). Additionalinformation on student language levels, gender,and SES will be gleaned from the WoodcockMunoz Language Survey (WMLS-R) given inEnglish and Spanish by the school district.Teacher surveys will also provide informationregarding teaching experience, ESL certification,and Spanish language background. It isanticipated the null will be rejectedat the .05level due to an increase in the English languagedevelopment of the treatment ESLclassroomgroups when compared to the ESL controls.

Pre-Treatment Methods

Because the primary interest is in thetreatment affect on student learning, it wasnecessary to determine pre-treatment differencesbetween control and treatment student languageability. T-tests of the PPVT raw scores wereused to make this determination. This procedureis represented in formula one,

t= ( - 0) n /s (1)

where is the PPVT average, 0 is the null hypothesis (zero difference between the control and treatmentmeans), n is the number of observations, ands is the student score. Unfortunately, a majority (22 out of34) of control students were receiving BIL education (only 3 hours per day instruction in English),while a minority (12 out of 34) of control students, and all of the treatment (31) students, were receivingESL education (6 hours per day of instruction in English). The baseline difference in BIL and ESLlanguage ability made comparisons based on group impossible the BIL students scores skewed thecontrol group scores in a negative direction. As such, it was necessary to compare the 12 ESL controlstudent means with several sets of 12 randomly selected treatment student means.1

Post-Treatment Methods

1 Treatment students were randomly selected using the Excel randbetween formula.8

T=Treatment; C=Control

TABLE 1Teacher Training and Impact on Students


9/22

Several post-treatment techniques will be used to determine the treatment affect on studentlearning. First, ANCOVA techniques will be used with PPVT raw scores as they variable. ANCOVAallows us to examine how the mean of variabley (PPVT raw scores) varies depending on a number ofxvariables, both categorical (group, gender, ethnicity, and class) and continuous (teacher experience).This procedure is represented in formula two,

yij = + 1 + (xij ) + (2)

whereyij is the jth replicate observation of the PPVT variable, is the mean values of the PPVTvariable, 1 is 1 - (mean value of the independent variable the mean value of PPVT), is thecombined regression coefficient, xij is the covariate value for the jth replicate observation from the ithlevel of factor A, is the mean value of covariate, and is the unexplained error.

Second, OLS multivariate regressions will be used to estimate how the group variable predictsstudent PPVT scores, while controlling for a number of other possible predictor variables (gender,ethnicity, class (ESL or BIL), and teacher experience). OLS is a linear process that generates anintercept and slope such that a one standard deviation change in an independent variable will generate apredicted change in the dependent variable. This procedure is represented in formula three,

= +1x1i + (3)

where is the predicted value of the dependent variable (PPVT), is a constant the point at which theregression line crosses the y axis when x equals zero, is a coefficient representing the slope of theregression line, x1i is the observed value of the independent variable for the ith case, and is theunexplained error.

Finally, OLOGIT multivariate regressions will be used to generate predicted probabilities ofstudent WMLS scores given the group variable, while controlling for a number of other possiblepredictor variables (gender, ethnicity, class, and teacher experience). The WMLS dependent variablehas been coded into three ordinal categories. This procedure is represented in formula four,

Pr (y = m | x) =F(m xi) F(m 1 xi) (4)

where Pr (y = m | x) is the probability of WMLS outcome 1 3 given the group variable,Fis thecumulative distribution formula for , m is the cut-points, xi is the observedvalue of the independentvariable for the ith case, and is the estimated coefficient.

9


10/22

Participants

Table 1 illustrates thepopulation from which the subjectsin the present study were randomly

selecteda large rural East Texasschool district totaling tenclassrooms of preschool four-year-old children, called PreK-4. Table2 shows the two types of PreK-4classroomsbilingual classroomsand

ESL classrooms. Childrenin ESL classrooms receive

instruction in English only; parentsof students in these classroomsselect for this option, preferring the6 hours of daily instruction inEnglish. Children in bilingualclassrooms (BIL) receive half oftheir daily instruction in Englishand the other half in Spanish;parents of students in bilingualclassrooms select for this option,

preferring 3 hours of dailyinstruction in English and 3 hoursin Spanish.

At the outset, all teachersexpressed interest in receiving thetraining, so the control group waspromised they would receivetraining immediately following thestudy. During Phase One, half of

the ESL PreK-4 classroom teachers(4 of the 8 teachers) and half of thebilingual PreK-4 classroomteachers (1 of the 2 teachers) wererandomly selected to receive thetraining. Refer to Table 2 (top

10

TABLE 2Treatment and Control Group Data

Phase 1 and 2ESL = ESL Classrooms

BIL = Bilingual Classrooms

All groups were randomly

assigned

Treatme

nt

Integration of

language

stimulation

techniques intodaily classroom

teaching

Control

Phase 1TRAINING

JUNE 2008

Data

Collection

Pre/Post M/C

Test

Treatment:

Pretest = 70%

average

Posttest =

96% average

N = 5 teachers

ESL

ESL

ESL

ESL

N = 5 teachers

ESL

ESL

ESL

ESL

BIL BiIL

All PreK-4 classrooms

Phase 2PRE-TEST &

TREATMENT

Mid END

SEPTEMBER

2008

Data

Collection

WMLS-R

PPVT-4

Random

Observation of

treatment

classrms

N = 29

Students

ESL = 2

ESL = 3

ESL = 7

ESL =17

PREtest

MEANS

WMLS English

= 2.4

Wmls Spanish

= 1.9

PPVT English= 53.8

Pr = 0.03

ESL

N = 12 Students

ESL=3

ESL=4

ESL=5

(replacement)

PREtest MEANS

WMLS English

= 1.9

Wmls Spanish

= 1.4

PPVT English

= 43.4Pr = 0.1079

ESL

Means from

PPVT only; such

little variance in

WMLS calp

scores make

significance

testing difficult.

Researchers

plan to look atother school

data before

April 09.

N = 22 Students

:

PREtest MEANS

WMLS Englsh

= 1.6

Wmls Spanish

= 2.3

PVT English=

33.8

Pr = 0.0001

BIL

Phase 2POST-TEST

Mid-END

MAR 2009

6 mos

treatment

DATA TO BE

ENTERED

ESL ESL

BIL


11/22

right in gray). The column furthest to the right shows the parallel control groups to be studied forcomparison.

By early fall, teacher attrition reduced group sizes and eliminated the option to compare the twobilingual classrooms. Prior to the schools start in the fall, the treatment bilingual teacher (BIL) left the

district as did two of the ESL control teachers. One of these ESL control teachers was replaced by thedistrict; researchers allowed her to take the place of the control classroom she filled. Student numberswere thus reduced to a total of 29 students in treatment ESL classrooms compared to only 12 students incontrol ESL classrooms; the bilingual comparison would no longer be possible.

A survey given before the training during Phase One, had determined that all treatment andcontrol ESL teachers were ESL certified, all had a minimum of one year of teaching experience in thisdistrict, all spoke very little Spanish (reporting levels 1 and 2 of 5), and each had an aide in theclassroom who could speak Spanish. The replacement ESL control teacher was not ESL certified nordid she have any classroom experience.

The three groups ultimately studied during Phase Two of this pilot are highlighted in yellow onthe chart on Table 2; the major focus of this study will be on ESL treatment (N=29) vs ESL controlclassrooms (N=12) regarding English language development during six months of implementation forthese small but similar groups.

Phase OneTeacher Training

During Phase One, the research team provided a two-day language training workshop for the

randomly-selected five ESL preschool teacher participants. This included viewing, discussing,practicing, and mastering skills from five sequential training videos that demonstrated and discussedLanguage Stimulation Techniques from the program, Good Talking With You, produced by EducationalProductions (now owned by Teaching Strategies). Participants received a daily stipend for their timeand gas; breakfast and lunch were provided on both days. Specific skills taught began with the firstlevel of parallel talk that encourages those first words from children by improving their receptivelanguage using the technique of saying what the child sees. More advanced levels demonstrated howto draw a child into conversation by using and extending the childs words, modeling and encouragingconversation with other children at the level of language they are using, and supporting all attempts tocommunicate. The two-day training was held in the university lab school. Participants discussedtechniques with each other first and then moved into the classroom to observe and hone their languagedevelopment skills with children exhibiting various levels of language development. Every effort wasmade to keep the training sessions as non-threatening and as enjoyable and supportive as possible. Amnemonic was included in the training notebook, and updated based upon participant feedback, to helpremind participants of the training essentials and to facilitate integration of the training into their ESLpreschool classrooms in the coming year.

11


12/22

Phase TwoImplementation of Treatment in the Classroom

During Phase Two, teachers in the treatment group began integrating language stimulationtechniques into their daily instruction. Treatment teachers were observed a random four times during thesix months of implementation to ensure fidelity to the treatment and level of integration of the newtechniques. All treatment and control ESL students and all control bilingual classroom students were preand post tested for language development gains using the PPVT-4 (in English) and the WMLS-R (inEnglish and Spanish).

Data Sources

Assessment of Teachers

Before the study began, all treatment and control teachers were given a survey to indicateinterest in receiving the training and dates/times available for the two-day workshop, which would beoffered to a random half of the teachers during the summer before the study would take place. Thissurvey also inquired about level of education and ESL certification, ability to speak Spanish on a scaleof 1 5, and past teaching experience.

During Phase One, treatment teachers were assessed for knowledge of language stimulationtechniques before and after the two-day training in June using a 20-question multiple choice pre/postassessment. An anonymous follow-up survey was given after the training to determine how participants

felt about the training. Once in the classroom, the researcher with whom the teachers were most familiarbegan observing treatment teachers use of the new techniques on four random occasions for 15 minutesper visit during the six months of implementation to determine fidelity to the treatment. This rubricscored treatment teachers interaction with children as 5 (excellent) 4 (good) 3 (average) 2 (weak) 1(poor) 0 (no interaction or other). A section for checking and commenting on observed behaviorsrelative to the video levels taught was also included on this assessment. Both instruments had beencreated with input from experts in the field to ensure validity, and tested (and retested) to gaininstrument reliability. These two assessments will continue to be revised and honed to improve theirability to capture the information they claim to measure.

Assessment of ESL Students

During Phase Two, ESL students of treatment and control teacher classrooms were pre and posttested to determine English language development using the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey(WMLS-R) and the most current version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test of receptive orallanguge development (PPVT-4). The WMLS-R was given in both English (WMLS-Re) and Spanish(WMLS-RS) by the school district and is a state recommended assessment for testing ESL preschool

12


13/22

students language development and readiness for literacy instruction in kindergarten. These pre andpost WMLS-R scores were chosen because they already existed in all of the schools for all of thestudents in the study. The PPVT-4 was added due to its recognition and popularity in the field, its lowerlevel receptive oral language focus, its quick reliable growth index score, the tests generalattractiveness for young children, and its ease of use. Researchers were also better able to control for

testing fidelity using this instrument (Solano-Flores, 2008) by hiring a retired teacher with previousexperience giving this test to young children and who was not connected with the research in any way.She administered the pre-test during the week of September 29, 2008 and will complete all post-tests byApril 1, 2009.

Variables & Variable Coding

Several independent variables were operationalized for analysis. Local county school recordssupplied demographic information on the selected students and experience information on the selectedteachers. To ensure confidentiality for participants, students and teachers were assigned numeric andalphanumeric identifiers respectively. Student demographics consisted of gender and ethnicity; bothwere coded into dichotomous nominal level variables. Gender was coded where 0=male and 1=femaleand ethnicity was coded where 0=Hispanic and 1=other.2 Teacher experience is a ratio level variablethat indicates the number of years the teacher has been teaching. Finally, two dichotomous nominallevel variables were created to indicate whether the students were in the control group (coded zero) or inthe treatment group (coded one) and whether the students were receiving bilingual (BIL) education(coded zero) or receiving English second language (ESL) education (coded one). The latter distinctionwas necessary because a majority of the control group students are receiving BIL education, which mayinfluence results. Table 3 contains summary statistics for the independent variables.

Table 3: Summary Statistics (Independent Variables)

Variables Observations Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Gender 64 0.52 0.51 0 1Ethnicity 65 0.09 0.29 0 1Teacher Experience 65 9.20 7.73 0 21Group - Control/Treatment 65 0.48 0.50 0 1Class - BIL/ESL 65 0.66 0.48 0 1

Several dependent variables were operationalized for analysis. The PPVT is designed to teststudent receptive vocabulary skill and consists of raw scores and the corresponding vocabulary agelevel of the student. The PPVT raw and age scores are numerical ratio level variables. The WoodcockMunoz Language Survey (WMLS) tests consisted of four different procedures English and Spanish

Pre-Idea Proficiency Tests for three-year-olds and English and Spanish Oral Language Cluster andReading-Writing Cluster tests for four-year-olds. These four procedures were combined into twovariables one including three- and four-year-old English test results and one including three- and four-year-old Spanish test results. Originally, WMLS test results for three-year-olds were recordedalphabetically A through E with A representing lower English skills and E representing higher Englishskills; and WMLS test results for four-year-olds were recorded in .5 numerical increments ranging from

2 The other category consists of three Caucasian, two Asian, and one African-American student.13


14/22

1 to 6 with one representing lower English skills and six representing higher English skills. While itwould have been ideal to incorporate the numerical WMLS coding for both the three- and four-year-oldtest results, the alphabetical coding scheme did not correspond with the numerical coding. Quantifyingthe three-year-old test results necessitated losing precision in the four-year-old test results. The three-year-old test results, both English and Spanish, were coded so that 1=A, 2=B-C, and 3=D-E; the four-year-old test, both English and Spanish, were coded so that 1=1-2, 2=2.5-3.5, and 3=4-6. Both variablesare ordinal levels of measurement. Table 4 contains summary statistics for the pre-test dependentvariables.

Table 4: Summary Statistics (Pre-Test Dependent Variables)

Variables Observations Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

WMLS-E 64 2.05 0.68 1 3WMLS-S 61 1.93 0.70 1 3PPVT Raw 59 45.83 16.13 10 85PPVT Age 59 3.20 1.00 0 5.3

Results

Teacher Training Phase One

Pre-testing indicated the treatment teacher group had some prior knowledge of the techniques tobe learned; participants demonstrated a mean of 70% on the 20-item multiple test assessment before thetraining. No participant scored 100%. Post-testing revealed an average of 60% increase inunderstanding of the language stimulation techniquesscores increased to an average of 96%suggesting the training had been successful. The anonymous survey feedback confirmed that allparticipants felt the training had been beneficial and all felt they had improved their understanding ofhow to support ESL preschool language development using language stimulation techniques.Discussion about test answers following post-testing concurred participant understanding of trainingtechniques was solid.

Pre-Treatment Results Phase Two

Prior to the treatment group teachers implementing the treatment technique, students in thecontrol and treatment classes were administered the PPVT. Under ideal conditions control andtreatment groups would have been similar in every aspect save the treatment technique. As statedpreviously, this was not the case. A majority (22 out of 34) of control students were receiving BILeducation, while a minority (12 out of 34) of control students, and all of the treatment (31) students,were receiving ESL education. The baseline difference in BIL and ESL language ability made

comparisons based on group impossible the BIL students scores skewed the control group scores in anegative direction. In addition, the occurrence of hurricane Ike necessitated a delay in administering thePPVT. As such, the treatment students had been benefiting from the teaching technique for severalweeks when the PPVT was administered. In an attempt to compensate for the BIL/ESL problem, the 12ESL control student means were compared to several sets of 12 randomly selected treatment studentmeans. Unfortunately, there was no way to compensate for the treatment students receiving theteaching technique early.

14


15/22

T-test results (Table 5) for the 12 ESL control students and 12 randomly selected treatmentstudents indicate that there was not a significant difference in the PPVT means for the control andtreatment groups. While the treatment means were consistently higher than the control means, in mostinstances the differences were not statistically significant at the accepted .05 level. Given the overallsmall treatmentN(31), there was a one in 2.6 chance of including the PPVT high score (85) in therandom sample. When this occurred, t-test significance levels were affected. That said, we arecomfortable proceeding under the assumption that the ESL control and treatment student baselinelanguage skills are similar. Any post-treatment differences can be attributed to the treatment teachingtechnique.

Table 5: Two-Sample T-Test (Pre-Treatment PPVT Raw Scores)

Group Observations Mean Std. Error95% Confidence

Interval

ESL Control 12 43.42 4.44 33.63 53.21ESL Random Treatment 12 54.08 3.32 46.78 61.39Difference -10.67 21.12 -24.08 2.75Probability = 0.11

Treatment Fidelity

Once in the classroom, the researcher with whom the teachers were most familiar beganobserving treatment teachers use of the new techniques on four random occasions for 15 to 20 minutesper visit during the six months of implementation to determine fidelity to the treatment. Theseinfrequent checks are not complete at this writing, but preliminary data indicate treatment teachers areusing the new techniques during their regular classroom instruction. Half of the observations have beencompleted and scores in all treatment classrooms are averaging a level 4 (good), ranging from 3-5 onthe scale of 1 5 (5 indicating an excellent level of quality language support, 4 indicating goodinteraction with few missed opportunities, and 3 showing average engagement with children with somemissed opportunities). Final score values will be shared at the AERA meeting in April.

Post Test Language Gains

Additional data will be obtained and analyzed in April 2009; results will be shared during theAERA presentation in San Diego.

Analysis

Teacher Training

15


16/22

The two-day training workshop appeared to be successful based on participant pre/post testscores, anonymous survey responses, and direct feedback from participants from discussions aboutanswers on the assessment following post testing. Pre-test scores ranged from 40% to 95% with amean of 70% understanding of language stimulation techniques before the training began. This was notsurprising given all participants were ESL certified and had previous teaching experience. However, allparticipants demonstrated improvement in this knowledge base; post-test scores revealed substantialgains with a mean of 96% and a smaller range of 80% - 100%. Two participants scored l00%. Oneparticipant demonstrated 60% growth moving from a pre-test score of 40% to full knowledge at 100%.Feedback from the follow-up survey corroborated this finding indicating all participants felt they hadbenefitted from the training and had increased their understanding of how to support languagedevelopment in young preschoolers, especially for those who may struggle to learn English.Participants attributed this success to watching the sequential videos, informally dialoguing about whatthey were learning, and then moving into the classroom to observe and then try out some of thetechniques with university lab school preschoolers who exhibited various levels of languagedevelopment shown in the videos. They also mentioned their appreciation for the risk-free flexible andenjoyable atmosphere in which the training took place.

Following post-testing, participants were invited to discuss test answers using the revisedmnemonic for reference. This proved beneficial for three reasons. First, it provided an opportunity foradditional review and fine-tuning of understanding about the newly learned language stimulationtechniques. Second, it gave researchers invaluable information into the minds of participants taking theresearcher-constructed test so that the test instrument could be honed for future studies. Third, itconfirmed for a third time that participants fully understood the new language stimulation techniques.

Two questions on the researcher-created pre/post test appeared to be flawed. The wording of thefirst problem question could easily be modified to clear up confusion and all would have easily earnedthat credit. The other had two equally plausible answers from the legitimate perspective of those whohad not viewed the entire first video due to the technical difficulties that prevented it from being shown.

Had credit been given for these small but valid inconsistencies in the rare instances that they occurred(understanding quickly clarified), the mean results from post testing would clearly have been 100%understanding. This reinforces the importance of some kind of demonstration (i.e., the video), beforeasking trainees to emulate it themselves. Clearly from these discussions, surveys, and testing, it wasevident this group understood what was covered in the training, and they understood it well.Researchers had every reason to feel they would successfully integrate many of these strategies intotheir fall teaching (Phase Two) which would impact English language development in their ESLpreschool four-year-old students.

Impact on English Language Development

To be continued when results are obtained in April .. Discuss limitations of the study

(Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002) / consider selection bias (not issue for random assignment and allvolunteering to participate), history (hurricane Ike), maturation (covered by giving pretests), attrition(reduced sample size to smaller numbers), statistical regression (possible given small number size),testing (doubtful since teachers did not see or give PPVT-4 test and 6 months elapsed between testing offour-year-olds), instrumentation (used clean simple user-friendly PPVT-4 with same externalexperienced tester), external validity (can only generalize to local region), treatment variations (randomvisits support fidelity / impact of ESL certification and teacher experience), interaction of causal

16


17/22

relationships with outcomes (WMLS-R to support PPVT-4 findings), and context (does not appear to becontext dependent).

Conclusions

Five randomly selected ESL preschool teachers in East Texas volunteered to participate in a 2-

day professional development training to learn simple language stimulation techniques to support theEnglish language development of their ESL four-year-old preschoolers. Participants were paid a smallstipend to attend the 2-day training workshop, which involved viewing and discussing five sequentialvideos from Educational Productions' Good Talking with You. Following each video, participantsmoved into the university lab school to observe and then try out some of the techniques on young two tofour year olds who exhibited varying levels of English language development. Post-testing revealed anaverage of 60% increase in understanding of the language stimulation techniques with all scoresincreasing to an average of 96% suggesting the training had been successful. Anonymous surveyfeedback confirmed that all participants felt the training had been beneficial and all felt they hadimproved their understanding of how to support ESL preschool language development using languagestimulation techniques. Discussion about test answers following post-testing concurred participant

understanding of training techniques was solid.During Phase Two of the study, trained teachers integrated the newly learned language

stimulation techniques into their daily classroom teaching. PPTV-4 pretesting indicated treatment andcontrol groups were similar in terms of English language development (t-testPr = 0.11). Random visitsto the treatment classrooms confirmed newly language techniques were being implemented. Followingsix months of treatment, post testing revealed. Post test scores from the PPVT-4 and the WMLS-Rwill be analyzed in April and reported at the AERA meeting in San Diego.

Implications

It was the intent of this study to provide quality but simple user-friendly training in basiclanguage stimulation techniques used with normal developing English speakers to support EnglishLanguage Learners in their earliest levels of oral language development as they begin to acquireEnglish. If treatment proves successful, it will be easy for schools to duplicate in the form ofprofessional development training for classroom teachers. (to be continued after results are in).

Future studies will seek ways to improve and extend the present pilot study and to find ways tointegrate language development strategies determined to be effective into training for a variety of adultswho work with young English learners such as: teacher candidates, classroom teacher aids, Head Startpersonnel, and parents of ELLs and at risk children. This study will also inform the development ofSpanish learning modules currently being created at this university for adults learning a new language.

NOTES

17


18/22

This research was conducted with funds provided to the Perkins College of Education Faculty ResearchAcademy by the Stephen F. Austin State University Research Development Program. InstitutionalReview Board approval was granted for this multiple research project in May 2008.

REFERENCES

August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of thenational literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates. P. 214, 298.

Bohannon, J. N. and Bonvillian, J. D. (2000). Theoretical approaches to language acquisition. In J. B.Gleason (Ed.). The development of language (pp. 254-314). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon. In Tsybina I., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., and Greenberg, J. (2006 October). RecastsUsed with Preschoolers Learning English as their Second Language. Early ChildhoodEducation Journal, 34(2), 178-179.

Caderone, M., L& Marsh, D. (1988). Applying research on effective bilingual instruction in a multi-district inservice teacher training program. NABE Journal, 133-152. In August, D., andShanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the nationalliteracy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers.

Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, l999Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G.(l999). Relationship of metalinguistic capatilities and reading achievement for children who arebecoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(4), 459-478. In August, D., and Shanahan,T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy

panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers.

Coppola, J. (2005). English language learners: Language and literacy development during the preschoolyears. Journal of the New England Reading Association, 41 (2), 18-23. In NationalClearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2005). P.4. A resource guide. RetrievedFebruary 29, 2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/ecell/intro

Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Large group and free-play times: Conversational settings supporting languageand literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson and P. O. Tabors (Eds.). Beginning literacy withlanguage (pp. 223-255). Baltimore: Brookes. In slide 3 of Kindergarten Oral Language andVocabulary Development: Overview. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from

http://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Kinder/slides/k1030001/k1030010.gif

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer ofphonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 453-465. In August, D.,and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of thenational literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.

18


19/22

Helman, L. A. (2005). Spanish Speakers Learning to Read in English: What a Large-Scale AssessmentSuggests About Their Progress. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 211-226.

Fry, R. and Gonzales, F. (August 2008). One-in-Five and Growing Fast: A Profile of Hispanic PublicSchool Students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 fromhttp://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/92.pdf

Good Talking With You Series (2007). Oh say what they seean introduction to indirect languagestimulation techniques. Portland, OR: Educational Productions. Retrieved February 29, 2008from http://www.tr.wou.edu/perc/documents/indirectlanguagestimulation.pdf Currently ownedby Teaching Strategies http://www.edpro.com/changes.shtml March 9, 2009.

Hadaway, Vardell, Young (2004). What every teacher should know about English language learners.P.3. Allyn & Bacon Publisher.

Hart, B. and Risley, T. (2003). The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3. AmericanEducator, Spring 2003. P. 8.

Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., & Farest, C. (l988). Literature-sharing strategies in classrooms servingstudents from economically disadttaged and languge different home environments. Yearbook ofthe National Reading conference, 37, 331-337.

Justice, L., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B., Pianata, R. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction inpreschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils.Early Childhood Research Quarterly (23), p.63.

Kramer, V. R., & Schell, L. M. (l982). English auditory discrimination skills of Spanish-speakingchildren. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28(1), 1-8. In August, D., and Shanahan, T.(2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panelon language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

Lesaux, N.,and Geva, E. Synthesis: Development of Literacy in Language-Minority Students. InAugust, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Reportof the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. p.53. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Morrow, L. M. (2008). Language and vocabulary development. P. 98-116. InLiteracy development inthe early years: Helping children read and write. (6th ed). Columbus, OH: Allyn & BaconPublisher.

Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early

reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51 (2), l87-219.NAEYC (1996). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving

Children from Birth through Age 8. In Principles of child development and learning that informdevelopmentally appropriate practice. In Position Statements of NAEYC. Retrieved September7, 2008 from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/dap3.asp.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000).Report of the National ReadingPanel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research

19
http://www.tr.wou.edu/perc/documents/indirectlanguagestimulation.pdfhttp://www.edpro.com/changes.shtmlhttp://www.tr.wou.edu/perc/documents/indirectlanguagestimulation.pdfhttp://www.edpro.com/changes.shtml


20/22

literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups.National Reading Excellence Initiative. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Pp.4-1, 4-3, 8, 16, 20.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nelson, K. E., Welsh, J., Camarata, S. M., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (l996). Effects of imitativeand conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific

language impairment and younger language normal children.Journal of Speech and HearingResearch, 39, 850-859.

Owens Jr., R. E. (2008).Language-Learning and Teaching Processes and Young children. In LanguageDevelopment. Pearson, Inc. p.185.

Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002).Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Researchinto practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 85-111. In August, D., and Shanahan, T.(2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panelon language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers.Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Logitudinal study of structured English immersion

strategy, early-exit and late-exittransitional bilingual education programs for language-minoritychildren. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Executive Summary and Vols. I andII. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Rossi, R.J. & Stringfield, S.C. (1995). What we must do for students placed at risk, Phi Delta Kappan,77, 73-76. In Morrow, L. M. (2008), p. 71. Literacy development in the early years: Helpingchildren read and write. (6th ed). Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon Publisher.

Saville-Troike,M. (l984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement?

TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 199-219.Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for generalized causal inference. Bostom: Houghton Mifflin. InExperimental Design and SomeThreats to Experimental Validity: A Primer. In Skidmore, Susan (2008), p. 11-16. ExperimentalDesign and Some Threats to Experimental Validity: A Primer. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans. February 6, 2008.

Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A., Escamilla, K., Fischel, J., Landry, S., Lonigan, C., et al. (2006).Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel.National Institute forLiteracy.

Snow, C. (l983). In Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. P. 210. InManami, M. & Kennedy, B. P. (l998). Language issues in literacy and bilingual/multiculturaleducation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Snow, C. E; Burns, M. S.; Griffin, P. (1998). Studies of Language Environments in Preschools. InLanguage and Literacy Environments in Preschools. Study funded by the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0020.Adapted from Snow, Catherine E., Burns, M. Susan, & Griffin, Peg (Eds.). (1998). Preventing

20


21/22

reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council. RetrievedSeptember 7, 2008 from http://www.kidsource.com/education/lang.lit.preschool.html

Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? TheNeed for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners.Educational Researcher. 37 (4), 196.

Tinajero, J. V., Hurley, S. R., & Lozano, E. V. (l998). Developing language and literacy in bilingualclassrooms. In M. L. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J. V. Tinajero (Eds.), Educating Latinostudents: A guide to successful practice (pp. 143-160). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishingcompany. In third Grade Video Script #3 Texas Demographics. Retrieved May 15, 2008 fromhttp://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Third/video_chunk/ThirdPDF/3TexasDemo.pdf

Tsybina, I., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2006, October). Recasts Used withPreschoolers Learning English as their Second Language.Early Childhood Education Journal,34(2), 177-185. Retrieved May 14, 2008, doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0110-2

Vukelich, C.; Christie, J.; & Enz, B. (2008). Oral Language Development. In Helping Young childrenLearn Language and Literacy: Birth Through Kindergarten. Pearson Education, Inc.

Wilcox, M. J., & Murphy, K. M. (2003). Facilitating use of evidence-based language teaching practicesin preschool classrooms. In L. Girolametto, &L E. Weitzman (Eds.),Enhancing caregiverlanguage facilitation in childcare settings (pp. 8-1-8-10). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The HanenCentre.

Yero, J. L. (2001-2002). The meaning of education.Teachers Mind Resources. Retrieved August 1,2007 from: http://www.TeachersMind.com August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developingliteracy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-

minority children and youth. p.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

AUTHORS

CAROLYN DAVIDSON ABEL is a professor of reading in the Department of Elementary Education atStephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas; [email protected] Her teaching and researchinterests focus on early childhood education and literacy development, educational policy, technologyand distance learning, field-based teaching, and brain research.

21
http://www.teachersmind.com/http://www.teachersmind.com/


22/22

DOROTHY LEE GOTTSHALL is assistant professor of reading in the Department of ElementaryEducation at Stephen. F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas; [email protected] Herteaching and research interests center on literacy and language development, international fieldexperience, distance education, and brain research.

JANNAH WALTERS NERREN is an assistant professor of early childhood education in theDepartment of Elementary Education at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas;[email protected] Her teaching and research interests include literacy and language developmentin early childhood education, gender issues in early childhood education, and field based learning forteacher candidates.

LEE W. PAYNE is an assistant professor of political science in the Department of Government, andDirector of the Center for Applied and Social Research (CASRE) at Stephen F. Austin State Universityin Nacogdoches, Texas;[email protected] His teaching and research interests include research andquantitative methods, public opinion and survey research methods, and environmental politics/policy.

22

abel paper draft

Documents