M. Jeanne Wilcox, Kathleen M. Murphy, Shereen Thomas, & Catherine K. Bacon

1. Evidence-Based Language Teaching Practices in Head Start Preschools: A Professional Development Model M. Jeanne Wilcox, Kathleen M. Murphy, Shereen Thomas, & Catherine K. Bacon Infant Child Research Programs Arizona State University,Tempe, Arizona Contact: kmurphy@asu.edu or mjwilcox@asu.edu

2. Promising Trends & Current Needs • Scientific inquiries have yielded a broad base of effective language facilitation strategies • The early childhood classroom can be an optimal setting for promoting first and second language acquisition • Profiles of early childhood classrooms, including Head Start, indicate limited teaching behavior that supports language development • Substantial gaps between existing and emerging scientific knowledge and the realities of the preschool classroom language environment

3. Purpose • Develop and implement action research methods to promote evidence-based language teaching practices in Head Start preschool classrooms • Evaluate outcomes in terms of changes in teacher and child behavior

4. Formal & Experiential Knowledge Educational Practice Optimal Assessment and Intervention Practices AppliedResearch Formal & Experiential Knowledge Science-Practice Model

5. Specific Research Questions • To what extent does an action research model promote the use of validated language facilitation practices by Head Start classroom personnel? • Relative to questions #1 to what extent can changes in the children’s language behavior be documented? • What is the perceived value and feasibility of participation research methods? In particular, does action research facilitate a sense of commitment and ownership? Does it actually allow for adjustments to accommodate practice needs? Does it result in interpretable and useful findings?

6. 6 experimental and 6 control classrooms participated Random assignment by program Typical child subjects were selected by lottery across the participating class (pool of 206 children) All child subjects with language disorders were included in the research A total of 23 teachers and teaching assistants (TA) were videotaped during free play. There was one Spanish and one English speaking adult model per room. Intervention provided to experimental classes during the school year Control classes were provided with a placebo (i.e., the experimenters spent the same amount of time with control teachers as they did with experimental teachers) Experimental Design

7. Child Participants(Sample Sizes and Ages)

8. Procedures: Experimental Classes • Biweekly team meetings were held for all classroom personnel (teachers, aides, special educators, other support personnel) and the university researchers • The team discussions focused on language teaching practices, language development, and sharing of ideas to implement in the curriculum. • The classroom observation tool emerged from these discussions at the biweekly team meetings, researcher observations of the classrooms, and established principles of language development. • Each teacher & TA was observed monthly by an SLP Researcher, using the developed classroom observation tool (Biweekly observations of each class) • Following each observation, the teachers received feedback from the SLP on use of targeted strategies. The feedback emphasized use of effective strategies, and collaborative “brainstorming”

9. Procedures: Control Classes • Control participants were also provided with biweekly meetings. Those in attendance were the same categories of personnel as described for the experimental classes. The teachers were encouraged to use the biweekly meeting time as desired. Personnel were told that the University researcher participants were experts in language and promoting language development and would be available as a resource as needed. The University personnel answered any questions that were directly addressed to them but did not initiate any topics. • Classroom observations were conducted biweekly. However, no feedback sessions were held.

10. Child Language Goals For Experimental Classes • Developing personal storytelling skills • Increasing complex reasoning • Talking beyond the “here and now” • Increasing peer interactions • Learning new words and concepts • Second language acquisition

11. Language Teaching Strategies to Achieve Goals • Creating opportunities for communication • Teacher responses to increase child discourse • Facilitating peer interactions • Teaching new vocabulary • Supporting second language acquisition • Overall interaction style

12. What? Relate events with a beginning-middle-end. Relate events with a specific sequence of events related by time or causal action. Include the story elements. Why? Important to be able to communicate a personal event with details to another person who is unfamiliar with the event and was not there to witness the event for himself/ herself. Link to later writing stories and essays. Increases general length and complexity of language. When? One-on-one; during meal time, sharing opportunities during circle How? Being an interested conversational partner. Model personal stories. Provide opportunities to practice. Support children’s efforts: expand, probe/ prompt, scaffold attempts, make comments, ask questions. Practice retelling familiar stories. Developing Personal Storytelling Skills

13. What? Be able to provide explanations, make best guesses or predictions, make interpretations and judgements, relate and compare experiences with remote events to increase understanding . Why? Basis of analytical thinking and the scientific method. When? Facilitated discussions in small group activities, hands on demonstrations to teach concepts in science and math. How? Ask open-ended questions. Comment on problems and problem solving opportunities. Describe actions as performed. Add written language and numeracy. Tie current classroom experience/ observation to remote events and experiences. Increasing Complex Reasoning

14. What? Talking beyond here and now; extending beyond concrete thought. Why? Facilitates abstract thought and perspective-taking. When? In the dramatic play area during free choice (best); add pretend dimension to concrete play. How? Become the ultimate playmate—have fun! Adopt pretend role with script during play. Create interesting environments for play by periodically changing/ adding props to centers. Talking Beyond The “Here and Now”

15. What? Peers talking to each other, sharing and requesting information. Why? Peers provide great language learning practice opportunity Strong communication skills are critical for later school success. When? During mealtime and free play. How? Be sensitive to children’s nonverbal attempts to join an interaction. Invite children to join group. Prompt a child to ask another for help or an object instead of fulfilling a child’s request. Encourage group discussion by making comments, asking for opinions and questions. Don’t be afraid to assign roles during pretend play to make it easy for someone to join ongoing play. Facilitating Peer Interactions

16. What? Increase vocabulary and general concept knowledge. Why? Important foundation for learning. When? New concepts and core words during group/circle settings; spontaneously when opportunity arises. How? Define words verbally; Provide examples or comparisons. Demonstrate concepts/words with prop use Incorporate gestures. Use synonyms or vary word use to expand word choice. Label to novel actions and objects. Identify opportunities for children to expand relational and categorical concepts;introduce appropriate words to assist children in making these relationships and in organizing thoughts. Learning New Vocabulary Words and Concepts

17. What? Improve understanding and use of English Learn social dialogue and routines to improve success in basic social scenarios. Why? Increased proficiency in English is fundamental for later academic success. When? Throughout daily routine; adopt English-only use in selected activities. How? COMPREHENSION: Use English and reduce rate of speech. Rephrase to simplify message. Incorporate redundancy in key phrases and words to improve message clarity. Translate when several other attempts fail. EXPRESSION: Encourage use of English Praise attempts. Repeat, expand and/or correctly restate children’s utterances. Second Language Acquisition

18. Preschool Language Scale –3 All children given the PLS-Receptive pre/post PLS-Expressive given to children in their respective native languages at pre/post PLS-Expressive given to Native Spanish speakers in English and Spanish at post-intervention PPVT-III Expressive Vocabulary Test (English) (given to all children who established a basal with no more than one error on the PPVT) Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test – Spanish\ Pre-Post Child Measures: Standard Tests

19. Pre-Post Child Measures: Language Samples • Pre-Post experimenter-child language samples (audio-taped) • Experimenter had native fluency in each child’s native language • Standard set of toys were provided • For the Spanish speakers, pre-test language samples were obtained only in Spanish, post-test samples were obtained in Spanish and English

20. Measures Derived from Language Samples (based on 100 utterances per child) • MLU (words) • Total number of words in sample • Number of different words • Type-Token Ratio

21. Pre-Post Measures: Teachers • Pre-and post-test videotaped samples were collected of the teachers to evaluate use of strategies to promote language development • The videotaped samples were independently analyzed by research assistants trained to identify teacher use of language teaching strategies. 20-min segments were selected from pre and post-intervention videotapes. • Inter-coder reliability of 90% was achieved.

22. Results • Teachers in the experimental classrooms demonstrated greater use of specific language enhancement strategies • The children in the experimental classrooms showed significantly greater gains in their language scores as measured on the Preschool Language Scale-3 and the EVT. No differences were noted on the other standard measures or on any of the measures derived from the language samples. • There were no effects for disability. Children with and without language disorders benefited equally in the experimental classrooms, and made similar gains in the maturational control classes. • Both first and second language gains were observed in both groups; however, the experimental group demonstrated greater change over time.

23. Changes in Teacher Behavior(Mean Frequency per 20-min) *p<.05

24. Pre-Post Child Test Data Note: *=p<.05

25. Teachers’ Subjective Impressions of Benefit • Teachers reported that they learned: • More about language development • How all the different areas in the classroom can be used for language learning • To increase their expectations of language and literacy skills for preschoolers • Activities that teachers felt were beneficial • Regular meetings to plan and share ideas for language learning in their classrooms • Feedback from the classroom observation tool as to how to increase their use of language facilitation practices • Changing small group activities to center around one book for an entire week • Adding opportunities for children to tell personal stories during lunch

26. Conclusions • The action research procedures were highly successful in modifying language teaching behavior in the experimental classrooms. • Changes in teaching behavior were accompanied by children’s language gains as measured by standard tests. • Language gains were not apparent (beyond maturation) for measures derived from the language samples. This may mean: • We need to rethink ways to measure change when analyzing children’s language samples, especially for bilingual speakers. • Perhaps the biggest change was in more global aspects of language (reception and expression) and would not be expected to captured in specific language sample measures.

27. Conclusions (continued) • Children with typical and atypical language development (Spanish and English speakers) benefited equally from the enhanced language teaching: • It would seem that SLPs served as a resource for teachers to address the language needs of all the children in the classroom (including those with typical language development) • For the Spanish speaking children identified as language-impaired, it is possible that they may have been more typical than not, given widely acknowledged difficulties with accurate identification and the fact that they were learning a second language. This possibility would account for the fact that their language gains were comparable to their typical peers.

28. For further information, please visit our web site. http://icrp.asu.edu Infant Child Research Programs Arizona State University P.O. Box 871908 Tempe, Arizona 85287-1908 PHONE (480) 965-9396 FAX (480) 965-0965