The Relationship between the Quality of the Early Childhood Classroom Environment and Vocabulary...

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD

CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT AND VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT IN YOUNG

CHILDREN LEARNING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

by

CRYSTAL D. TORTI

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Texas A&M University-Commerce

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2 006

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3245241

Copyright 2006 by

Torti, Crystal D.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®UMIUMI Microform 3245241

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD

CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS AND VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT IN YOUNG


Approved:

■i oor 'Adviser . /K-.___

Hi,___tment Head

of the College

Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

i i


Copyright ® 2 006

Crystal D. Torti

i i i


ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF THE EARLY CHILDHOODCLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS AND VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT IN YOUNG


Crystal Torti, EdD Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2 006

Advisor: David L. Brown, PhD

The purpose of this study was to examine the

relationship between the quality of the early childhood

classroom environment and the receptive vocabulary

development of young children learning English as a second

language. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-

Revised edition (ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998)

was utilized to measure the quality of the classroom

environment. Additionally, the researcher administered the

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third edition (PPVT-III) (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) to measure the children's receptive

vocabulary. Aspects of the classroom environment (i.e.,

Space and Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language-

Reasoning, Activities, Interactions, Program Structure, and

iv


Parents and Staff subscales on the ECERS-R) were

investigated to determine if they served as predictors to

classroom quality and receptive vocabulary development in

English language learners. Further, demographic data were

collected on participants. Teacher attributes (i.e.,

ethnicity, years of experience, certification areas) and

student attributes (i.e., home language, gender) were used

for descriptive purposes.

Data were collected from a child development center

located in a small northeast Texas town. The child

development center was composed entirely of preschool and

Head Start classrooms. There were 2 7 classrooms in the

center, and 10 classrooms and their teachers were randomly

selected to participate in the study. In addition, 102

children were randomly selected from the 10 classrooms.

Results indicated that no significant changes occurred in

the composite scores on the ECERS-R over the course of the

school year. There were significant changes in student

scores on the PPVT-III from fall to spring. Further, the

composite scores on the ECERS-R were negatively correlated

to children's scores on the PPVT-III. The results of this

study also indicated that three out of seven individual

subscales from the ECERS-R showed a significant negative

correlation with children's scores on the PPVT-III.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This page is a tribute to those who have contributed

unconditionally not only to this part of my education, but

also to helping me to become a better person. Their

unending support and encouragement have made this journey

so much easier, and I owe a debt of gratitude to each of

them.

To my husband, C. J., words can never express my

feelings for your consistent patience and enduring love

throughout this journey. Not only were you always there to

listen to me complain, but you never complained about the

late night courses or weekend trips to meet with my

advisor. You are absolutely a wonderful husband, and I

would never have been able to make this amazing journey

without you by my side. I love you.

To my two girls, Quilla and Rocko, I love you. You

were always there to lick my face and snuggle with me after

long nights at class. I spent much more time away from you

than I would have liked, and I promise to make that up to

you now with plenty of trips in the back of the truck and

lots of new bones for you to chew!

My parents, Gary and Terry Bell and Reba Lindsey,

provided years of support of encouragement. You always told

me that I could accomplish anything that I wished... and I

vi


have! You made me believe that I could rise above and

succeed in life, and I thank you for that.

To my MeeMaw, you have been so supportive and loving.

I thank you for always being such a positive person in my

life. I am so glad that we are finally close together.

To Audrey, Richard, and Chelsea, I can never express

in words how much you have done for me. You have been a

second family to me, and I love you all.

A special thank you is also extended to my in-laws,

Mr. and Mrs. Chris Torti, Mr. and Mrs. Dominick Torti, and

Mr. and Mrs. Cruz Lopez and family, for their support and

encouragement. I love you all!

To my very best friends in the world and my fellow

doctoral students, Alison Jones, Yvette Carrasco, Kathy

Stephens, I thank you for easing the stress during these

past few months. Having you all for friends is a blessing,

and I truly could not have asked for better, more dedicated

people with whom to have gone through this program. I value

our continued discussions and shared insights, and I look

forward to continuing our journeys, as friends and colleagues.

To Dr. Chet Sample, who told me I could do it, I thank

you for your unending encouragement and support. You are a

wonderful teacher, mentor, and friend.


To my outside committee person, Dr. Lin Moore, I thank

you from the bottom of my heart for your continued

encouragement and for your valuable contributions to my

study. I am truly blessed to have had you on my committee,

and I can never express how much your kind words meant to

me during these last steps of the dissertation.

To my committee member, Dr. Martha Foote, I have truly

enjoyed knowing you as a friend and colleague. I have

learned so much from you, not only in the program, but also

from observing you as a teacher—and striving to become half

the teacher that you are. You have made my time at Texas A

& M University-Commerce fabulous. I hope to have the

privilege of continuing to work with you.

A wealth of gratitude is owed to my major advisor, Dr.

David Brown. Throughout this whole journey, you have taken

on the role as my advisor, my mentor, my friend. You always

had positive feedback for me, even during times when I am

sure you were ready to pass me on to someone else. You have

set an example for me as an educator, and I observe in you

the excellence that I can only hope to one day accomplish.

I thank you wholeheartedly for your continued support,

encouragement, and above all else, your guidance.


To Sharon Bradford, I thank you for taking on the

responsibility of data checking and editing. Your expertise

really was appreciated.

To Natalie Henderson, I thank you for the work that

you did as the Doctoral Coordinator. You truly cared about

us as students, and it was evident in your prompt attention

to our needs during stressful times. I can never thank you

enough for helping to alleviate some of that stress!

To my incredible colleagues at Farmersville

Intermediate School, John Clements, Da Renda Bush, Paula

Uland, Becky Shives, and Sandy Hemby, you have all been so

patient and supportive of me during these past few weeks. I

truly could not have asked for a better place to teach. I

am inspired every day by your dedication to our profession

and to our children. I idolize you all, and I thank you for

welcoming me into your school.

Finally, to the Elementary Education department at

Texas A & M University-Commerce, with whom I worked

throughout the doctoral program, I owe you a huge thank

you. The department was always supportive, and there was always someone there to help during the tough times. I

thank you for the experiences that you offered me as a

researcher and as a teacher, and I look forward to

continuing our relationships as colleagues. A special thank


you is extended to Maureen Preston and Priscilla Nichols

for their quick answers to my unending questions.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES................................................XV

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................ 1

Statement of the Problem....................................6

The Purpose of the Study....................................8

Research Questions.......................................... 8

Null Hypotheses........................................ 9

Significance of the Study.................................. 10

Current Student Populations.............................. 10

Early Literacy Skills.................................... 15

Classroom Quality......................................... 16

Vocabulary Development............ 21

Conclusion........ ,........................ 23

Method of Procedure........................................ 24

Assumptions of the Study................................... 25

Limitations of the Study............ 26

Delimitations of the Study.................................26

Definitions of Terms........................... 27

Organization of Remaining Chapters........................ 29

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................30

Student Population Trends.................................. 30

Second Language Learning Programs and Theoretical

Assumptions............................................... 31

x i


Assessment and Placement of English Language Learners... 36

Instruction for English Language Learners.............. 41

Classroom Quality and the Development of Literacy Skills

....................................................... 45

Qualities of Early Childhood, ELL classrooms........... 73

Teachers, Pedagogical Beliefs, and Teaching Methods 75

Vocabulary Development..................................... 81

Vocabulary Development and English Language Learners 87

Summary........................................................ 93

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES........................... 101

Design of the Study.............. :................ 102

Procedures..................................... 103

Setting and Participants.................................. 104

Instrumentation .......................................114

Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised

Edition............................................ 114

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition......... 118

Teacher Interviews...................................... 121

Collection of Data........................................ 122

Quantitative Data Collection............................123

Preliminary Data Collection........................... 123

Final Data Collection..................................126

Qualitative Data Collection............................. 128


Data Analysis.............................................. 129

Summary..................................................... 130

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF DATA..............................132

Treatment of the Data..................................... 133

Analysis Results...........................................134

Classroom Quality........................................ 134

PPVT-III...............................,.................. 139

Qualitative Data Analysis............................... 148

Summary................ 161

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................162

Summary of the Findings................................... 162

Classroom Quality and Receptive Vocabulary Development

...........................................................163

Limitations.............................................. 170

Implications............................................. 171

Future Research Directions.............................. 173

Summary.............................................. 176

REFERENCES........................................... 178

APPENDIX A: Superintendent's Approval Letter............ 200

APPENDIX B: IRB Approval Letter........................... 202

APPENDIX C: Principal Approval Letter.....................204

APPENDIX D: Teacher Consent Letter and Form.............. 206

APPENDIX E: Parent Consent Letter and Form.............. 210


xiv

APPENDIX F: Teacher Demographic Form.......................217

APPENDIX G: PPVT-III Test User Approval Letter...........2189

APPENDIX H: Classroom Schedules........................... 221

VITA................................... 224


XV

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of Students Enrolled in the Child

Development Center by Ethnicity..................... 105

Table 2: Distribution of the Teachers by Years of

Teaching Experience.................................. 110

Table 3: Distribution of Selected Students by Program

Type................................ 114

Table 4: Distribution of ECERS-R Mean Subscale Scores 137

Table 5: One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for

Student Scores on the PPVT-III...................... 141

Table 6: Correlations among the ECERS-R Subscales and

Children's Scores on the PPVT-III...................143

Table 7: Language-Reasoning Subscale and Item Scores

from the ECERS-R............................... 145

Table 8: Activities Subscale and Item Scores from

ECERS-R...............................................146


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Today's schools serve an ever-growing population of

students from various cultural groups. Naturally, this

means that teachers must be prepared to accept the demands

that this places on them. Multiculturalism frequently

brings a rich variety of languages into the classrooms, and

one of the demands for educators now becomes a search for

the best teaching practices to assist learners from non-

English speaking backgrounds.

According to the Office of English Language

Acquisition (OELA) 2000-2001 Summary Report (2002), the

population of foreign-born residents in the United States

was 31.1 million in 2000. This figure was up significantly

from previous years, placing an imminent need on schools

for a more comprehensive look at English as a second

language (ESL) instruction. California had the largest

Limited English Proficient (LEP) population with 1,511,646

students enrolled, and Texas had the second largest

enrollment of LEP students with 570,022 enrolled in public

schools. A report by the OELA (2002) noted that of all

students coming from non-English speaking backgrounds, 79%

of them were from Spanish speaking homes. The OELA also

reported that on average, only one teacher for every 44 LEP

1


students was certified to teach children learning English

as their second language.

According to Goldenberg (2 005), the trend in the

United States is that English Language Learners (ELLs) are

increasing dramatically, especially Spanish-speaking

children. Goldenberg estimates that there are approximately

5.1 million ELLs enrolled in public schools across the

entire nation, K-12, and that the largest population of

those children are from Spanish-speaking homes. The*

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2005)

reported that there are over 600,000 students who speak

languages other than English who are enrolled in Texas

public schools. NCES reported that there are approximately

1,895,000 Hispanic students enrolled in public schools

across Texas, compared to a national average of about

175,000, although it is important to note that Texas is a

large state. The NCES supported findings by the OELA (2002)

that a large majority of the second language learners

enrolled in public schools are from Hispanic backgrounds.

These statistics are an eye-opener for educators, as the

pressures increase for schools to provide early quality

instruction for all students, including those learning

English as their second language, in order to improve

academic achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).


In 1 9 7 4, Lau v. Nichols paved the way for English language services for children who are non-English

speakers. The court decision was brought about because a

school district in San Francisco refused to meet the needs

of 1,800 children of Chinese ancestry who did not speak

English. The school district's refusal to provide special

services to accommodate these children led to a suit in

which the court determined that this refusal of services

was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans

discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin"

(as cited in Lau v. Nichols, 1974). The suit was won by

Lau, and schools across the nation began to realize the

importance of providing services to those children who are

from non-English speaking homes. Additionally, the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated that school districts must

utilize allocated resources under Title III for the

services of students who do not speak English as their

native language. The act states that schools must provide

high-quality instruction based on scientific research to

students who are learning English as their second language.

This act allocated funds to provide professional

development to support teaching skills and instructional

practices for second language learners.


English as a second language is currently a hot topic

in education. Although there are many recommendations as to

how to best serve English language learners, a national

report by Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) supported the

position that children who enter school with limited

English proficiency need opportunities to develop their

native language skills while simultaneously learning skills

in English. There is controversy because many of the

programs in the United States emphasize the importance of

learning English as quickly as possible (Tabors & Snow,

2002).

As a result of increasing research on the importance

of classroom quality (Bryant, Maxwell, and Burchinal, 1999;

Cost, Quality, & Outcomes Study, 1995), many teachers are

facing pressures to increase the quality of early childhood

experiences. It was reported by NCES (2 005) that Texas has

a high number of children enrolled in preschool programs,

compared to the national average reported by states that

provide preschool services. Although it needs to be taken

into consideration that Texas has a larger population in

general, it was noted that Texas does have a large number

of children entering preschool.

According to the position statement on early literacy,

the International Reading Association (IRA) contends that


young children benefit greatly from quality preschool

experiences. Additionally, the position statement identified several areas that are predictors for later

success in literacy in young children. These areas are oral

language development, phonological/phonemic awareness,

alphabetic knowledge, print knowledge, and invented

spelling. Teachers and aides who are directly involved with

planning instruction for young children have the

responsibility to ensure that children receive quality

preschool experiences that will help to prepare them to

develop the skills needed to become literate. The people

who are directly involved in the education of young

children have the task of teaching children both academic

and social skills that the children will need for the rest

of their lives.

With the combined issues of second language learning

and early childhood education, teachers are faced with an

ever-growing concern for providing the best possible

education for each child. Researchers have also shown that

the classroom environment can have an impact on the vocabulary development of children (Dickinson & Tabors,

2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1990;

Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). By providing an environment

that is conducive to quality early childhood experiences


and vocabulary development, teachers can better help

children from diverse backgrounds. Consequently, the

present study attempted to investigate both classroom

quality and receptive vocabulary development of young

children learning English as a second language. The

researcher collected and analyzed the data to determine

whether there was a significant relationship between the

early childhood classroom environment and the receptive

vocabulary development of young children learning English

as their second language. The researcher utilized the Early

Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ECERS-

R) to measure the quality of the environment, and the

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III) to

measure the receptive vocabulary of the children.

Statement of the Problem

Early Childhood teachers are responsible for teaching

young children and preparing them to enter elementary

school. At the forefront of their responsibilities is to

guide young children toward the process of becoming

literate. In recent years, more children are entering

public preschools in Texas. As OELA (2 002) reported, there

are approximately 600,000 children enrolled in public

schools who do not speak English as their first language.


Thus, a large number of the children entering preschools

are also second language learners. This places an even

larger responsibility on teachers of young children, as

they have the task of teaching those children who are

native English speakers and those who are just beginning to

learn the English language.

Given the large numbers of preschool English language

learners and the recent pressures to raise academic

achievement of all students (U.S. Department of Education,

2 002), educators need to begin searching for types of

interventions that can be implemented to help schools

achieve this goal. Research has shown that classroom

environments in which students learn have an effect on

student outcomes such as early literacy skills, especially

vocabulary development (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart &

Risley, 1995; Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1990; Peisner-Feinberg et

al. , 2001). Specifically, certain aspects of the classroom

environment such as structural features, classroom and

caregiver dynamics, and staff attributes have been found to

be associated with child well-being (Love, Schochet, & Meckstroth, 1996). However, because of the lack of research

on second language learners and classroom environment,

further research is needed that addresses the relationship

between the quality of the classroom environment and its


effect on young children who are learning English as their

second language. This study was conducted to address these

issues.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether

there was a significant relationship between the quality of

the early childhood.classroom environment and the receptive


as their second language in a small, northeast Texas child

care center. This study also investigated whether specific

aspects of the environment (i.e., subscales on the

environmental rating scale) were related to receptive

vocabulary scores. Finally, analyses were run to explore

changes in ECERS-R scores or PPVT-III scores from fall to

spring.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this investigation:

1. To what extent does the quality of the early

childhood, ESL classroom change over the course of an

academic school year?

2. Do student scores on the PPVT-III change over the

course of the academic school year?


3. Is there a significant relationship between the

quality classroom environment (as measured by the

ECERS-R) and the receptive vocabulary (as measured by

the PPVT-III) of early childhood, English Language

Learners?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were used for testing the

statistical significance at the .05 level:

1. There are no significant changes in the composite

score on the classroom quality rating scale over the

course of the academic school year.

2. There are no significant changes in student scores on

the PPVT-III.

3. There is no significant relationship between the

composite score on the classroom quality rating scale

and student scores on the receptive vocabulary test.

4. There is no significant relationship between the

aspects of the environment (i.e., Space and

Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language-

Reasoning, Activities, Interactions, Program

Structure, and Parents and Staff subscales from the classroom quality rating scale) and student scores on

the receptive vocabulary test.


10

Significance of the Study-

Current Student Populations

The NCES (2 005) noted that more and more children are

entering public schools with limited English proficiency,

specifically in California and Texas. NCES also noted that

Texas had a significantly higher number of children

enrolled in preschool programs compared to the national

average of states who provided preschool. With these

numbers in mind, a main concern turns to what the school

system can provide to ensure academic success of these

children. According to the Texas Education Agency (TEA)

(2005), there is gap between the academic achievement of

Hispanic children and that of their Caucasian classmates,

although it is important to note that not all Hispanic

children are ELLs. The TEA reported that at third grade,

85% of Hispanic children met the state standard in reading

compared to 95% of Caucasian children. By the ninth grade,

however, this gap had widened to 75% and 93% respectively.

English language learners inherently face many hurdles

in the education system. Added to these issues is the

overrepresentation of ELLs in special education classes.

Researchers have reported that children from linguistically

and culturally diverse homes are grossly over represented


in special education classes (Brown, 2004; Cummins, 1986).

Brown (2 004) suggested that the reasons for this

overrepresentation include: an overreliance on standardized

tests; utilizing instruments that are culturally biased;

interventions that are reactive versus proactive; and

administrators' personal biases. Brown called for a

paradigm shift in the ways that educators view ELLs. A

concern voiced by Brown was that many educators do not

distinguish between language difficulties (as experienced

by ELLs) and language disabilities. This is the first step

in resolving this problem, but the education system must

also begin to see the importance of using high quality

testing instruments that have been widely used and proven,

as well as instruments that are culturally unbiased.

Because approximately 79% of English language learners

come from Hispanic heritage (OELA, 2 002), it is important

to note the current as well as ongoing trends associated

with children who come from Spanish speaking homes. In

2003, an alarming 3 9.4% of Hispanic students born outside

the United States were high school dropouts (Laird, Lew,

Deball, & Chapman, 2006; TEA, 2005) . Even first and second

generation Hispanics were much more likely to be high

school dropouts than their Caucasian or African American

peers. TEA (2005) further noted that approximately 10.6% of


high school dropouts were bilingual or students learning

English as their second language. As reported by students

who have dropped out of school, some reasons for this

include poor academic achievement, financial hardships, and

being older than their classmates. Laird et al. noted some

of the effects of dropping out of high school. For example,

those who finish high school or obtain their GED are more

likely to enter the American workforce; therefore their

incomes are reported as being significantly higher than

those who do not finish high school. Further, high school

dropouts are found to have more health problems later in

life, and high school dropouts represent a huge number of

prisoners. Somewhere along the way, the educational system

is failing these students and jeopardizing their futures.

Although there are factors that the schools can not account

for, educators can help to improve the academic achievement

of Hispanic ELLs, and hopefully encourage the attainment of

a high school diploma. Because early learning environments

have been found to have an effect on academic performance

(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hemmeter &

Kaiser, 1990; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001), providing

these quality environments to young children is a first

step toward achieving this goal.


A national report by Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998)

noted that a major goal of schools in the United States is

to teach children how to read printed English, and that

goal is significantly impeded by the large number of

children who come into school without even knowing how to

speak English. This means that children learning English as

their second language are at risk because of cultural and

language differences and these differences also create

other factors that contribute to these children's academic

risks. For example, this national report indicated that

Hispanic children typically follow in their family's

footsteps of being non-English speaking, low-income, and

poorly educated. This becomes a cyclical pattern, as these

children and their families often reside in communities in

which the families are in similar situations, and the

children often attend schools in which children are low

achieving and minority. This assumption is further

supported by ongoing research in Colorado, a state in which

there is also a growing number of ELLs. A study by

Escamilla, Chavez, and Vigil (2005) found that in schools

where the student body was at least 80% Hispanic in

ethnicity, almost all the schools were rated low or

unsatisfactory. Additionally, these schools served families

in high-poverty neighborhoods. The report by Snow et al.


(1998) indicated that,these characteristics are typical of

many minority populations, but specifically these factors

contribute to the low academic achievement of Hispanic

children who are learning English as their second language.

This report noted that "low English proficiency in a

Hispanic child is a strong indication that the child is at

risk for reading difficulty" (p. 123). However, it was also

pointed out that it is not the language differences alone

that put the child at risk, but rather the combination of

socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic differences.

Perhaps most powerful was the authors' indication that

school quality is an important factor in providing for the

academic achievement of these children.

Children who are native speakers of English are

entering school with the task of acquiring and developing

proficiency in their first language, whereas children who

are learning English as their second language have the

added task of learning two languages. Young children who

enter preschool with limited English proficiency have the

same developmental needs as their English speaking peers.

They enter school needing a high-quality, supportive

environment that will help them to develop early literacy

skills. The difference is that these children are in need

of specialized instruction that will help them to develop


15

and enhance their native language, while learning the

English language. In addition, when the overrepresentation

of ELLs in special education classes is taken into

consideration along with the academic achievement and

dropout rates for Hispanic children learning English as

their second language, attention must turn to the schools

to provide early and quality education for children.

Early Literacy Skills

Research has shown that young children must develop

early language and emergent literacy skills in order to be

successful in literacy later in life (Dyson, 1983; Ginsborg

& Locke, 2 002; Roth, Speece, & Cooper, 2002; Snow & Tabors,

1993; Stahl & Yaden, 2004). According to Hart and Risley

(1995), children need quality learning experiences before

they enter kindergarten. In a 2-year longitudinal study of

42 children conducted by the authors, it was found that

children's measures of accomplishment at three years of age

were strong predictors of language skills. The findings

indicated that what families did with the children when

they were 1 or 2 years of age was very strongly associated

with their academic accomplishments in later grades.

Findings such as these indicate that children need rich

learning experiences during their early years of life.


Additionally, Snow and Tabors (1993) noted that the

time period before kindergarten is the optimal time for

children to develop language and emergent literacy skills

that they need to help them develop future literacy skills.

Roskos and Neuman (2002) noted that until recently, the

environment in which young children learn had gone ignored

or had been treated as a "backdrop for intervention studies

rather than as a subject of analysis" (p. 281). More recent

studies have shown that the environment in which young

children learn has a great impact on their future academic

success (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995;

Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1990; McCartney, 1984).

Classroom Quality

In a 15-year study of over 70 low-income families and

their children conducted by Dickinson and Tabors (2001), it

was found that the literacy skills that children have at

the end of their kindergarten year were strong predictors

of their later success in literacy. Additionally, many of

these noted skills were obtained in the classroom.

Dickinson and Tabors further contended that aspects of the

classroom would greatly depend on teachers' beliefs about

pedagogy and responsibilities for the learning environment.

If they were truly to understand how the classroom


environment affected outcomes, they would also need to look

at these aspects of the teachers' belief systems. According

to Dickinson and Tabors, classroom teachers who follow

developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1987) are

more likely to have students with greater gains in literacy

development. In a definition offered by Dickinson and

Tabors, the philosophical principle guiding developmentally

appropriate practice (DAP) is based on the idea that "young

children learn best through direct manipulation of objects

and ideas in the world and the related notion that the role

of the teacher is to construct an environment in which

children can independently explore and manipulate objects

and ideas" (p. 149) . These teachers are also more likely to

engage the children in rich language experiences and

discourses by being an active part of conversations between

the child and the teacher, which has also been found to

increase children's language (McCartney, 1984). Dickinson's

and Tabor's study did, in fact, support the idea that early

learning experiences in preschool can be predictors of

later literacy learning. Of particular importance, the

authors found that language usage and teacher-child

interactions were very strong predictors of scores on the

receptive vocabulary test.


Hart and Risley's (1995) longitudinal study of 42

families and their one- and two-year old children aimed to

investigate the effects of socioeconomic status on literacy

and language development. The researchers followed the

children into their grade school years. The research team

was specifically interested in the amount of talk occurring

in the homes of the families, and data were collected over

several years from observations in the homes. Hart and

Risley concluded that young children in higher

socioeconomic homes were spoken to much more often than

children from lower socioeconomic homes. Moreover, the

vocabulary used in the higher socioeconomic homes was often

much more advanced. The research team also tracked the

children from the study into their third grade years and

found that their accomplishments in third grade were

strongly correlated with their experiences with language

before formal entry into school. Specifically, Hart and

Risley noted that certain aspects of these early

experiences proved beneficial to young children and

included Language Diversity, Feedback Tone, Symbolic

Emphasis, Guidance Style, and Responsiveness. In

conclusion, what families, did with their children before

three years of age was strongly correlated with the

children's accomplishments later in life.


Additionally, the Administration on Children, Youth,

and Families (2003) recently published its findings from a

longitudinal research study known as the Head Start Family

and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). This study began its

first phase in 1997, where 3,200 children and their

families were studied. The goal of the study was to

investigate the characteristics, experiences, and outcomes

of the children and families, all served by Head Start. The

study found sufficient evidence to suggest that aspects of

the school environment contribute to gains in students'

cognitive and social development. These aspects of the

environment included both program and classroom

characteristics such as teacher years of experience,

teacher educational attainment, and encouragement for

family involvement. This finding supported previous

findings by Buysse, Welley, Bryant, and Gardner (1999), who

contended that these aspects contributed to the overall

quality of the classroom environment.

Further, a study by Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, and

Howes (2002) examined the relationship between teacher

educational attainment and higher quality classrooms. In a

study of 553 child care centers, the researchers looked at

educational attainment and formal workshops attended by the

teachers. The ECERS-R was utilized to measure the quality


of the early childhood environment. Burchinal, Cryer et al.

(2002) noted that the educational attainment of teachers at

the baccalaureate level or higher showed a consistent link

to higher quality classrooms. Burchinal, Roberts, Riggins,

Zeisel, Neebe, and Bryant (2000) concluded that overall,

the quality of the childcare environment is significantly

related to children's developmental growth over time. These

are important findings that add to existing support for

educators to provide high quality environments to young

children. Further longitudinal studies were suggested to

provide a consistent link between the quality of the

environment and student outcomes.

The reviewed literature on classroom quality indicated

a gap in research addressing the quality of the classroom

environment and its influences on the receptive vocabulary

development of young children learning English as their

second language. With the increasing number of children

entering preschool, especially those learning English as

their second language, additional research should examine

the quality of learning experiences that children are

receiving before entering a kindergarten classroom.


21

Vocabulary Development

The National Reading Panel (2000) recently noted that

vocabulary was one of the five most essential elements that

a child needs to become a successful reader. A review of

research by Folse (2004) suggested that vocabulary

development was the single most important skill for

children learning English as a second language, and he also

noted that many elementary second language educators tend

to focus more on other aspects of the language learning,

such as grammar and writing. A longitudinal study of fourth

and fifth grade students conducted by McLaughlin, August,

and Snow (2000) suggested that English language learners

rely more on vocabulary knowledge when reading than do

native English speaking students. Other studies have

supported that vocabulary development is essential for

children learning English as their second language (Haynes

& Baker, 1993; Verhallen & Schoonen, 1993) . Further,

research has shown that in general, children who have

higher vocabulary knowledge are more likely to understand

text better; that is, vocabulary is positively correlated with higher comprehension (Nagy & Herman, 1987).

Stahl (1999) noted that children need opportunities to

learn words in context, rather than simply memorizing them.

He differentiated between simply knowing the definition of


a word and actually knowing a word, "When a person 'knows'

a word, they [sic] know more than the word's definition;

they [sic] also know how that word functions in different

contexts" (p. 19). He distinguished the definitional

knowledge of a word, which is what a student might find in

the dictionary, and the contextual knowledge of a word,

which would require knowledge of how to use the word in

various contexts. This idea was also supported in a

theoretical piece by August, Carlo, Dressier, and Snow

(2005). Further, Stahl noted that children typically

learned between 1,000 and 5,000 words per year, and in

order to accomplish this, it was necessary to provide some

direct teaching of words. Stahl recommended what he felt

was effective vocabulary instruction for all children:

teaching both the definitional and contextual meanings of

words, actively involving children in learning words, and

providing many opportunities for children to use the words

in meaningful contexts.

August et al. (2005) noted that ELLs who are slow in

their vocabulary development will tend to struggle more

with reading comprehension than their English speaking

peers in general. August et al. further noted that many

ELLs lack both a depth of vocabulary as well as a breadth

of vocabulary, but English and Spanish share cognate pairs,


or words that are both orthographically and semantically

similar in both languages. Therefore, it may be possible to

transfer existing knowledge to new words. The August et al.

findings supported the previous work of Stahl (1999) and

Nagy and Herman (1987), who contended that English language

learners need to learn both definitional and contextual

meanings of words, and they need plenty of opportunities to

use the words in meaningful ways. In addition, August et

al. stressed the importance of taking advantage of the

children's knowledge of their native language to help them

learn new words in English. Surprisingly, August et al. noted that "there are no reliable estimates of the breadth

of vocabulary of Spanish speaking English language learners

upon school entry or of the magnitude of their vocabulary

growth over a school year" (p. 55). Studies on English

speaking children are the only source for reliable

estimates of what children should know and what they need

to know (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001) . This suggests that

further research is needed in the field of vocabulary

development in children learning English as their second language.

Conclusion

Early childhood teachers have the responsibility of

providing instruction to young children to support their


24

development in literacy and language. Teachers of young

children who are learning English as their second language

have the added responsibility of ensuring that children

enhance their first language while learning English as

their second language. The reviewed studies provided a

background and an understanding of second language

learners, early childhood, classroom environments, and

vocabulary development and guided the present study.

Method of Procedure

Data for this investigation were collected during the

fall semester of 2005 and the spring semester of 2006 from

10 randomly selected early childhood teachers and their

classrooms and from 102 randomly selected students enrolled

in those classrooms. After obtaining permission to conduct

the study from the university, the researcher obtained

permission from the director of the early childhood

learning center. Teacher and parental consents were

obtained before any data were collected.

The researcher visited the center throughout the fall

and spring semesters and administered the ECERS-R in

individual classrooms, as well as administered the PPVT-III

to individual students. Additionally, the researcher also

conducted the interviews for the qualitative portion of


25

this study during November of 2005. Additional details

describing the method used in this study are presented in

Chapter 3.

Assumptions of the Study

The following assumptions served as the foundation for this

invest igat ion:

1. The E^irly Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised

edition is a valid and reliable instrument that will

accurately measure the quality of the classroom

environment.

2. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third edition is a

valid and reliable instrument that will accurately

measure the English receptive vocabulary of young

children.

3. Teachers' instructional practices will influence the

quality of the early childhood classroom.

4. Teacher participants included in the present study

will utilize the adopted curriculum for the school

district. The Child Development Center utilizes an

interactive and age appropriate curriculum known as

the Language Enrichment Activities Program (LEAP).


26

5. The data obtained by the sdhool district on the Home

Language Survey will remain unchanged over the course

of the academic school year.

Limitations of the Study

The following limitations were included in this

investigation:

1. This investigation will not attempt to control for

home influences on receptive vocabulary development.

2. This investigation will not attempt to control for the

socioeconomic status of the participants.

Delimitations of the Study

The following delimitations were a part of this

investigation:

1. This investigation will be delimited to children in

the preschool classrooms.

2. This investigation will be delimited to 102 preschool

students in 10 classrooms in a small, north east Texas

town.

3. Only students enrolled in Mt. Pleasant Independent

School District will be included in the present

investigation.

4. This investigation will be delimited to students who

are learning English as their second language.


27

5. The participants in the present study will only be

administered the English version of the receptive

vocabulary test.

6. Teacher participants with three or more years of

experience will be included in the present study.

Definitions of Terms

The following terms are defined according to their usage in

this study:

Academic School Year: The academic school year will be

defined from August to May in the present investigation.

Aspects of the Environment: The aspects of the environment

will be defined by the subscales on the ECERS-R (Space and

Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language-Reasoning,

Activities, Interactions, Program Structure, and Parents

and Staff).

Classroom Environment: Classroom environment will be

defined as the socio-physical atmosphere of each classroom,

and will be measured by the Early Childhood Environment

Rating Scale-Revised edition.

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition

(ECERS-R): This is a rating scale designed to measure the

quality of the early childhood classroom. This instrument

has seven subscales that measure the physical and social


aspects of the classroom: Space and furnishings, Personal

care routines, Language-Reasoning, Activities, Interaction,

Program Structure, and Parents and Staff.

ELL: ELL is an abbreviation for the term English Language

Learners.

ESL: This refers to the term English as a Second Language.

LEP: This term is defined as limited English proficiency,

and refers to young children who are limited in the English

language.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III):

The PPVT-III is an instrument that is designed to measure

the receptive vocabulary of young children. The children

are shown picture plates and asked to identify certain

pictures.

Prekindergarten Student: Prekindergarten student will be

defined as any child who has not yet entered kindergarten.

This will include children who are 3, 4, and 5 years of

age.

Receptive Vocabulary: The receptive vocabulary is the

collection of words that children can understand when heard or seen; this will be measured by the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test-Revised edition.


29

Teacher Certification Areas: Certification areas are

defined as the certification type held by the teachers

(e.g., ESL, Bilingual, Early Childhood).

Teacher Years of Experience: This refers to the number of

years the teacher has taught in a public school classroom.

Organization of Remaining Chapters

Chapter 2 reviews the existing literature and studies

related to this investigation. Chapter 3 details the method

and instrumentation for this study, and provides

information and characteristics on the participants. The

data are presented in detail in Chapter 4. Chapter 5

presents the summary, findings, conclusions, implications,

and recommendations for further research.


CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature review for this study begins with a

brief overview of the current demographics in Texas public

schools, followed by different program types that serve

English Language Learners (ELLs). Research findings

indicating a need for English as a Second Language (ESL)

instruction will follow. This is followed by research

findings supporting ways to prepare and support future

teachers of ELLs. Research in the field of early childhood

classroom environments and ELLs will be followed by

pedagogical beliefs and teaching methods. Finally, research

findings on classroom quality and the development of

literacy skills will be followed by both vocabulary

development and vocabulary development in ELLs. This

chapter will conclude with a summary of the reviewed

research and its relation to the current study.

Student Population Trends

The statistics reported by the Office of English

Language Acquisition (OELA) (2002) and the National Center

for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2005) paint the picture

of the current demographics in the state of Texas. There

are many children entering preschools, and many of the

30


children entering schools are from non-English speaking

homes. Teachers in early childhood settings are responsible

for teaching young children how to become literate. With

the large numbers of children coming to school from non-

English speaking homes, this responsibility becomes two

fold for early childhood teachers: to teach children how to

learn the English language, and to teach children how to

read and write. Earnest-Garcia (2 000) noted that there are

many terms used to describe children who are learning

English as second language, including "bilingual students,

English language learners, learners of. English as a second

language, second-language learners, and students who are

limited-English proficient (LEP)" (p. 813). The children

who are entering schools who are not native English

speakers have the task of learning to read and write, along

with the added pressures of learning English.

Second Language Learning Programs and Theoretical

Assumptions

According to Tabors and Snow (2002) , there are three

types of programs that typically serve early childhood classrooms with children who are learning English as a

second language. Depending on the school district, these

children will be served with one of the following programs.


32

The first-language classroom is guided by the theory that

children need instruction in their first language in order

to develop proficiency before learning English. This theory/

is supported by the work of Wong-Fillmore (1991) who

contended that young children who are placed in English

learning settings without continuing to develop their

native language may begin to lose the use of their first

language. In this type of program, the teacher conducts

instruction in the child's native language, therefore

giving support to the child by using the language in which

they are most comfortable.

The bilingual classroom is also guided by the theory

that young children need support in their native language.

However, in a bilingual classroom, young children receive

instruction in both their native language and in English.

The bilingual classroom is further broken down by how much

English and Spanish is actually used in the classroom.

According to the Center for Research on Education,

Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) (2003), 90/10 classrooms

are classrooms in which 90% of the instruction is conducted

in a language other than English. 50/50 are classrooms in

which English is used at least half the time in

instruction. The ultimate goal of the bilingual classroom

is to continually support and enhance the children's first


33

language, while developing skills in the English language.

Many researchers have contended that this type of program

is most beneficial to children (CREDE, 2003; Cummins, 1991;

Gerston & Geva, 2003; Gollnick & Chinn, 2002) .

The third type of program is the English-language

classroom. Tabors and Snow (2002) noted that this type of

classroom is by far the most heavily used in the United

States, and would encompass what is commonly known as the

ESL classroom. This type of classroom is guided heavily by

the theory that young children need to develop English as

quickly as possible. This type of program requires children

to develop through a sequence of developmental skills: Home

language usage, Nonverbal period in the new language,

Telegraphic and formulaic language, and Productive use of

the new language (Tabors & Snow). These stages are mastered

at different rates by different children, and are dependent

on a variety of factors. Genesee (1999) noted that this

type of program is also based on the theoretical assumption

that English language learners should be able to "acquire

content knowledge, concepts, and skills at the same time

that they improve their English language skills" (p. 13).

Gerston and Geva (2003), however, contended that children

need to acquire proficiency in their native language in

order to have the skills to be able to transfer some of


34

those skills to their new knowledge of the English

language.

Each program type designed to aide second language

learners has been guided by theoretical assumptions.

Researchers have long acknowledged that second language

learners need to learn English in order to efficiently

function in today's society, but they have differing

viewpoints of how second language learners go about

learning English. Cummins (1979) coined the term "mother

tongue" referring to the child's native language and the

need to be proficient in that language before the child

attempted to master a second language. A study by Cummins

(1991) found that children's first language proficiency

provided a basis for which to transfer new learning. This

provides schools with the evidence needed to provide

quality instruction in the child's native language before

attempting to teach them to read in a second language. In

their book Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic

Society, Gollnick and Chinn (2002) added that the most

important thought on ELL learners was that they must

develop proficiency in their native language before they

can gain proficiency in a second language. The authors

believed that early language acquisition occurred at home,

and developed somewhat naturally through the child's


interaction with friends and family members. These early

language experiences were essential in order for children

to master a second language. The authors concluded that

some of the same skills used in the native language can be

utilized in learning the second language. It was noted that

if a child's native language development was disrupted

before proficiency, several delays and losses in language

development might occur. This is important for teachers to

be aware of, particularly in today's schools where it is

essential to enhance the individual child rather than

squandering originality in trade for "Americanism."

Drucker (2 003) discussed ways that teachers of

children learning English could better assist them in the

classroom. It was noted that, "...students' second languages

can be viewed as an additive to the classroom environment,

rather than as a deficit that needs to be remedied" (p.

28). A study by Gersten and Geva (2003) confirmed that

children learn phonological skills in their first language

that could also apply to English. The authors concluded

that even though each language might carry its own

phonological characteristics, it was very important to give

children the opportunities to manipulate and play with the

sounds in their language. This could help children when

they were attempting to learn a second language.


Additionally, a longitudinal study by Collier and Thomas

(1989) found that children who enter the United States

without English proficiency did best in school when they

already had developed skills in their native language.

Although much research supports the need for students to

develop skills in their native language before attempting

to learn English, Tabors and Snow (2002) noted that most

schools in the United States utilize an English-only type

of program, in which students are encouraged to learn

English as quickly as possible and without support in their

native language.

Assessment and Placement of English Language Learners

In response to federal legislation, and in particular

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002), each school district is responsible for

identifying the English language learners in their district

through approved assessment. The Texas Education Agency

(TEA) (2005) has general guidelines for assessing and

placing English language learners into programs provided by

the district. These approved assessments might include:

standardized English language proficiency tests,

standardized tests in content areas, or state academic

assessments such as rubrics and checklists (Gottlieb,


37

2006). According to TEA (2 006), each campus must have a

Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) committee

which consists of an administrator, bilingual educator, and

one parent of a child who is learning English as their

second language. This committee is responsible for

interpreting assessments of English language learners and

making decisions as to the child's placement.

Initial identification of English language learners is

determined by an assessment known as the Home Language

Survey, which is designed to differentiate between children

who speak English all the time at home and those children

who are in homes where languages other than English are

spoken. If the answers on this assessment point to the

conclusion that the child speaks any language other than

English, the child is further screened. The exact

assessments given for further screening are at the

discretion of the school district, as long as the

assessment is approved by the state. Gottlieb (2006) noted

that it is extremely important to assess children in both

English as well as their native language to determine

strengths and weaknesses in each language. At this time,

the LPAC committee will convene to determine what

instructional program or placement will best serve the

individual child. If the child is recommended for placement


38

in an ESL or bilingual program, the parents have the right

to make the final decision, which can also include denying

placement into the program. A national report by Snow et

al. (1998) found that children whose parents deny services

are more likely to develop problems in literacy skills

needed for reading success.

There are measures used to determine a child's

language proficiency before formal placement into a program

occurs. According to Duncan and De Avila (1985) the Pre-LAS

is an English assessment and assesses general knowledge in

English such as the child's ability to follow instructions,

recognition of common household items, and story retelling.

This test can be administered by the classroom teacher or

other approved school personnel. Duncan and De Avila also

discussed the Pre-IPT, which is an oral assessment also

given in English that is designed to provide a low stress

environment for children who are unaccustomed to taking-

tests. This assessment gives an accurate reflection of the

child's abilities in English and is designed to help

schools decide on instructional and program placement for

English language learners. Additionally, the Pre-IPT is

used to initially designate children's proficiency in

English as Non, Limited, or Fluent.


Assessing ELLs has become another one of educations

hot topics. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S.

Department of Education, 2002) has mandated that all

schools assess, place, and meet the needs of ELLs. However,

there are so many aspects to consider when assessing

students, especially students from various cultural and

linguistic backgrounds. Au (2000) noted that students from

diverse backgrounds have to be held to the same high

standards as their peers, but they might need additional or

more intense instruction based on their needs as a student.

Au noted that research has shown that if standards are

lowered for children, the students will suffer. In terms of

standardized testing, much research has supported that it

has negative affects on students from diverse backgrounds.

Not only is there an issue with the material being tested,

but lower scores may lead these children into classes in

which they do not truly belong, a finding that has further

been supported by Brown (2004) and Jusenius and Duarte

(1982). Further, Au noted that many standardized test are

autonomous, or focus on specifics to a particular group of

people. From research, it is know that there are vast

differences in literacy practices between socioeconomic and

ethnicity. For example, students from a Hispanic background

may be able to translate material for their parents,


something that a simple, one-shot test would not have

recognized. Au called for a need to further investigate

assessments for students from diverse backgrounds, as there

are many things to consider when evaluating their

performance. Gutierrez-Clellan (2005) contended that

children from diverse backgrounds must be assessed using

multiple forms of assessment. Most importantly, when

assessing linguistically diverse students, assessments

should be conducted in both the child's native language and

their second language. This will give a more accurate

picture of the child's cognitive functioning. Additionally,

testing the child in only English might mask some important

abilities that the child possesses.

Many researchers have also supported using portfolios

to assess students from diverse backgrounds, rather than

relying on one test (Benson & Smith, 1998; Cook-Benjamin,

2001; Smith, Brewer, & Heffner, 2003) . Portfolios offer an

in-depth look at a student's performance and growth over

time, rather than a snap-shot of one day, which is what a

formal assessment would offer. Teachers can benefit greatly

from portfolio assessments. First, portfolios can

demonstrate growth in standards. They can also offer

anecdotal records of the child's performance, as well as

revealing environmental conditions in which a child best


41

work occurs. Portfolios can be kept and reflected on over a

time period that will allow the teacher to see how and why

they are growing.

With the growing concern for accountability comes

high-stakes testing, posing a serious risk to these

children. Teachers must consider every avenue for these

children, as well as possible threats to children's

success. These learners might be unsuccessful on formal

assessments for a variety of reasons, and teachers need to

consider this before relying on a single measure of

ability. The most effective way to accurately assess a

child's learning is to gather multiple forms of evidence

including the state and district mandated assessments, as

well as informal data that can support their growth and

direct future instruction.

Instruction for English Language Learners

A theoretical piece by Cummins (1986) helped to lay

the foundation work for bringing ELL and bilingualism into

classrooms by contending that educators can help to empower

minority students by respecting and valuing students' home

language and culture. In 1982, Jusenius and Duarte's study

found that the drop out rate for Hispanic students was 40-

50% as compared to only 14% for Caucasians. These findings


are concurrent with more recent findings by Laird, Lew,

Deball, & Chapman (2006) and TEA (2 005), which found that

Hispanics were still more likely to drop out of high school

compared to their Caucasian peers. Furthermore, Cummins

(1986) noted that Mexican-Americans were overrepresented as

learning disabled by 300 percent. Because of the

overrepresentation of ELLs in special education classes,

Cummins proposed an intervention framework. He argued that

a change must take place in the school systems in order to

accommodate second language learners, appreciate their

culture, and respect their home language so that these

students might experience success in American schools. He

also noted that a majority of the educational difficulties

within the language-minority students stemmed from a

transition from the language in the home to language in

school environments.

The opposition facing bilingualism in the early

eighties was based on the postulation that children who

were not proficient in English will benefit from maximum

exposure to English, rather than developing a proficiency

in their native language first. In his framework for

intervention, Cummins (1986) refuted both positions noting

that, "...students from 'dominated' societal groups are

'empowered' or 'disabled' as a direct result of their


interactions with educators in the school" (p. 21). This

claim placed responsibility not solely on language

differences between home and school, but on the way that

these differences were treated within the school

environment. He continued that educators must realize four

essential areas where attention is needed. These four areas

included adapting school curriculums to incorporate

cultural and linguistic differences of all students;

encouraging involvement from community members; guiding

minority students to develop intrinsic motivation; and

encouraging professionals to become advocates for minority

students. Moreover, Cummins noted that students who are

confident and comfortable with their language and culture

are more successful in school than those who experience

alienation from their cultural backgrounds.

Taking cultural and linguistic backgrounds into

account in schools is imperative to empowering minority

students and allowing them the chance to be successful in

school. Bilingualism is not only about second language

learning, but also about embracing cultural differences in

an effort to strengthen educational outcomes. Cummins

(1986) concluded by stating, "Educators who see their role

as adding a second language and cultural affiliation to

their students' repertoire are likely to empower students


44

more than those who see their role as replacing or

subtracting students' primary language and culture" (p.

25) .

In addition, Torres (2005) noted that the National

Head Start Association supported bilingual programs for

children. She contended that Head Start had very clear

guidelines addressing language development for children

that required a supportive and nurturing environment. The

association also has mandated Performance Standards for

developing and maintaining a program that celebrates

cultural and linguistic differences in children in order to

help them develop their own unique identities. In their

programs for young children who are learning English as

their second language, Head Start strives to ensure that at

least one teacher "speak the same language as the majority

of the children" (p. 21). Additionally, Gutierrez-Clellan

(2005) noted that a dual language assessment approach is

necessary to obtain an accurate picture of English language

learners' progress in language development. The author

added that assessments should be administered in both the

child's native language and in English whenever possible.

Head Start is a nationally known program that has

supported early learning for many years, and its support

for encouraging bilingualism, rather than pushing an


45

English-only environment, is in accordance with those who

support native language proficiency. Although research has

shown that children need to develop proficiency in their

native language and continue to enhance their first

language while learning English (Cummins, 1991; Gerston &

Geva, 2003; Gollnick & Chinn, 2002), further and more

current research is needed in this area.

Classroom Quality and the Development of

Literacy Skills

Research addressing the impact of the quality of the

early childhood environments and later success in literacy

has increased dramatically in the past few years (Burchinal

et al., 2000; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley,

1995; Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1990; McCartney, 1984). Research

has begun to give more attention to what a quality

classroom should look like, what constitutes a quality

environment, and how to accurately measure the quality of

the classroom environment. There are several instruments

designed to measure the quality of the classroom

environment. For this study, the Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ECERS-R) was

chosen to obtain a rating of the quality of the overall

environment. This instrument was also chosen based on its


46

extensive use in the field of education. The original

version of the instrument was developed in 1980, and was

designed to obtain an adequate view of the quality of the

early childhood classroom. The scale has been widely used.

In 1998, the authors (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998)

decided to revise the scale to fit current recommendations

and guidelines of the National Association for the

Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and to take into

account children with disabilities and cultural diversity.

According to Dickinson and Tabors (2 001), a key

feature of developmentally appropriate practice is "the

separation of learning goals for children into different

developmental areas (such as physical, socioemotional,

language, cognitive, aesthetic)" (p. 149). The ECERS-R is

divided into seven subscales, revolving around these

developmental areas for children.

Additional instruments designed to measure the quality

of the classroom environment include the Assessment Profile

for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1998),

the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO ) (Smith & Dickinson, 2002), and the Classroom

Observation Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta & La Paro,

2 003b). The Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs

is a scale that can be used with infants to school age


47

children. For each age group, there are specific dimensions

that are scored. For the preschool level, the dimensions

include safety and health, learning environment,

scheduling, curriculum, interacting, and individualizing.

For the most accurate results, the authors of this scale

recommend that data from three sources be collected:

observations, documentations, and conferences with the

teachers.

The ELLCO consists of checklists to check the

availability of literacy material in the classroom, as well

as an observational component in which the observer rates

the environment based on 14 aspects from the general

classroom environment, and language, literacy, and

curriculum standards. This instrument also includes a

teacher interview as well as an additional rating scale to

score the literacy activities that occur in the classroom.

This scale takes approximately 1-1% hours to complete.

Lastly, the CLASS was developed for use in classrooms

from preschool to third grade. The scale was developed

based on academic, social, and behavioral outcomes (Pianta

& La Paro, 2003b). The scale rates three aspects of the

environment: Emotional climate, Classroom management, and

Instructional support. The authors of the CLASS noted that


48

the scale rates classroom processes, rather than focusing

on materials.

Recent research in the areas of classroom quality and

early learning holds implications for educators, as this

sets forward the need to develop environments for young

children which will be most conducive to developing the

skills that children need for future success. Hart and

Risley (1995) undertook a longitudinal study of 1 and 2-

year old children, along with their families to gain an in-

depth look at what families did to help their children gain

language and vocabulary skills. Their start on this study

began in a project called the Turner House Preschool, which

was designed for research by applied psychologists. Hart

and Risley, who had experience with clinical language

intervention, designed a half-day preschool program at the

Turner House. Their intervention focused on the everyday

language, or spontaneous speech, that the children used.

Hart and Risley noted:

We wanted the children to know more, but we also

wanted to see them apply that knowledge, using

language to elicit information and learning

opportunities from their teachers in the preschool. We

watched what the children were doing to guide what we

were doing, (p. 5)


Extensive records were kept for each child, so that an

individual bank of words was compiled for each child. Hart

and Risley contended that vocabulary, by definition,

included not only the words that a person can understand,

but also the words that a person can use. It is a bank of

words that an individual "knows." They also noted,

"vocabulary continues to grow throughout life, increasing

with each gain in experience and understanding" (p. 6).

Hart and Risley (1995) extended their work into a

Laboratory Preschool, where the majority of the children's

parents were professors. This is in stark contrast to the

Turner House preschool, where the children were living in

poverty. Rather than referring to the children as black or

white, the researchers chose to refer to them as children

living in poverty and children whose parents were

professors to remind them of the critical difference

between the two groups: advantages of the professors'

children, and disadvantages of those living in poverty.

The authors found that children in both preschools talked

about much of the same things, however, the difference was

actually in how much talk was happening. They noted that

the professors' children talked nearly twice as much as

those from disadvantaged homes. After the authors made this

discovery, they intervened in the Turner House Preschool,


and encouraged teachers to use more language and

spontaneous speech with the children. They found that there

was an increase in the amount of talk happening in the

Turner House children. Perhaps the most important lesson to

be learned from this early study was that the growths in

vocabulary were temporary. The children in the Turner

House, who received intervention based on what was observed

with the advantaged children, benefited only immediately

and temporarily from the intervention. This led the authors

to theorize that children have unalterable vocabularies by

the time they were 4 years of age, and that the knowledge

that they came to school with must have come from their

home environments. This knowledge drove the authors to a

more recent study and the basis for Meaningful Differences'.

Meaningful Differences was based on a study that

included 42 families who were recruited based on two

priorities: a wide range of demographics and stability to

maintain them in the study. Hart and Risley (1995) noted

that these families were normal, "families who are coping,

who are fairly happy, and whose children are reasonably

well-behaved and working at grade level in school" (p. xv).

Observers were in the families' homes on a regular basis,

recording everything that occurred with their child, but

avoiding family interaction that did not involve the child.


The researchers noted that over the years, they became very

involved and connected to the families, because they spent

so much time with them and their children. Preliminary

findings indicated that children in higher socioeconomic

homes were spoken to more often and with higher vocabulary

that those children in lower socioeconomic homes.

Hart and Risley (1995) again extended their research,

and looked at the accomplishments of the children at three

years of age and later. The reason for this step in the

research was that the children, up to age three, were very

similar in their language usage. In order to analyze this

portion of the study, the researchers looked specifically

at measures of accomplishment, which they defined as

vocabulary growth, usage, and IQ score. These skills, the

authors added, were likely to be predictors of how well

children performed in language in later years. Vocabulary

growth was defined as words that children add to their

existing vocabulary, while vocabulary use was defined as

the words that children actually used in their settings.

The IQ test was administered by a professional psychologist

who was not associated with the study. The findings

indicated that vocabulary growth and vocabulary use were

strongly correlated, and that both growth and use were

significantly correlated with IQ score. Additionally,


vocabulary growth and vocabulary use were correlated with

socioeconomic status, but IQ was somewhat less strongly

correlated with socioeconomic status. These findings also

revealed with very strong correlations, that children's

home experiences are related to their later academic

accomplishments. The researchers extended this finding to

include which home experiences were most beneficial to the

children's later accomplishments. The researchers took the

features that were closely related to accomplishments were

organized into categories that included: Language

Diversity, Feedback Tone, Symbolic Emphasis, Guidance

Style, and Responsiveness.

Hart and Risley (1995) stated that they were amazed

when they followed the children from the study into the

third grade, because it was found that children's measures

of IQ and vocabulary accomplishment at three years of age

were strong predictors of language skills. The findings

indicated that what families did with the children when

they were one or two years of age was very strongly

associated with their accomplishments at age eight. Findings such as these indicate that children need rich

home experiences before the age of three. Research such as

the Hart and Risley study further supports the need for

early learning experiences in a quality environment;


53

however, further research should examine the amounts and

richness of the experiences occurring in the early years of

children's education.

Although there is tnuch research supporting the need

for high quality environments for young children, Burchinal

and Cryer (2003) noted that what constitutes quality is

often dependent upon cultural backgrounds. The researchers

reviewed the findings of two well-known studies, the Cost,

Quality, and Outcomes Project (1995), and the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

Study of Early Child Care (2000) to determine if a quality

environment was conducive to learning in children from

diverse backgrounds. The researchers were specifically

interested in determining whether learning was enhanced

when the childcare provider was of the same ethnicity, and

whether "mainstream measures of quality were less

predictive of children's outcomes for children of color"

(p. 405). The researchers concluded that a high quality

environment is a strong predictor of social and cognitive

development, as well as later academic success. In

addition, the analysis did not support a significant

difference when children and care provider's ethnicity differed.


54

The evidence that early language experiences are

crucial for later success in literacy is fairly new.

Dickinson and Tabors (2 001) contended that when they began

their pivotal research, known as the Home-School Study, the

idea that children needed early language experiences was a

more of an opinion that something that was supported by

research. Educators have since learned from research that

these early experiences with language in the home and

preschools are essential for children's later success with

literacy (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995).

Dickinson and Tabors (2001) study of 74 young children

from low-income homes found that children's skills attained

by the end of their kindergarten year were strong

predictors of later success in literacy. These skills are

attained both in the children's home and preschool

environments. The authors continued, "...we have a basis for

saying that that the features of home and preschool

classrooms that support children's literacy in kindergarten

help to pave the way for children's later reading success"

(p. 5) .

Dickinson and Tabors (2001) began collecting data for

the Home-School Study in 1987. The authors present the

findings from the study, and make a case for the importance

of high quality, early childhood classrooms as predictors


of later success in literacy. The study included 74 early

childhood children from low-income families. The authors

wanted to collect rich data that would paint a picture of

both the home and school environments that might be

conducive of literacy development. The researchers

collected data from both the home and school, through

observations in the children's natural settings. In the

classroom, the researchers collected data in three forms:

language data, which included conversations of the children

and the teachers; classroom curriculum data, which included

information about the curriculum and information obtained

from using the ECERS-R; and teacher interview data, which

included information obtained from individual interviews

with the teachers in each classroom. The researchers also

collected data on student outcomes with several

assessments, including the PPVT-III to measure the

receptive vocabulary of the children.

Dickinson and Tabors (2 001) contended that aspects of

the classroom would greatly depend on teachers' beliefs of

pedagogy and responsibilities to the learning environment.

If they were truly to understand how the classroom

environment affected outcomes, they would also need to look

at these aspects of the teachers' belief systems. According

to the authors, classroom teachers that follow


developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1987) are

more likely to have students with greater gains in literacy

development. In a definition offered by Dickinson and

Tabors, the philosophical principle guiding developmentally

appropriate practice (DAP) is based on the concept that

"young children learn best through direct manipulation of

objects and ideas in the world and the related notion that

the role of the teacher is to construct an environment in

which children can independently explore and manipulate

objects and ideas" (p. 149). These teachers are also more

likely to engage the children in rich language experiences

and discourses by being an active part of conversations

between the child and teacher. This notion was supported by

a study of classroom environment on student outcomes

(McCartney, 1984), where it was found that children greatly

benefited frpm having engaged conversations with adults.

Dickinson and Tabors (2001) used three types of

analysis to make sense of the data that was collected

during the study. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze

the information obtained from the interviews; correlational

analysis was used to analyze data which the researchers

wanted to know whether there was a significant

relationship; and finally, regression analysis was used to

analyze the data in which the researchers sought to find a


predictor for a certain outcome. In this study, regression

analysis was used to find out which aspects of the

environments predicted results on the assessments. The

Home-School Study found that high quality preschool

environments are strong predictors of the development of

language and literacy skills in young children. The

researchers noted, however, that certain aspects of the

environment are stronger predictors than others. For

example, interactions between teachers and children are

essential in the early childhood classroom. The researchers

concluded by noting that physical aspects of the

environment that are aesthetically pleasing, safe, and

friendly are no longer sufficient given the current

research supporting the need for educators to provide high

quality environments to help children develop the skills

that they will need for future academic success.

In a case study of a 3-year old child conducted by

Hemmeter and Kaiser (1990), preliminary evidence supporting

the need for quality literacy environments was presented.

The authors found that the child in the study responded to

the heightened attention to the environment. According to

the suggestions offered by the authors, the environment

that would be most conducive to language learning was one

that contained both physical and social features. For


58

example, young children must be surrounded with settings,

materials, and activities in which they directly engaged.

As well, children must be in an environment with people and

stimuli in order for communication. In this language-rich

environment, the caregiver must act as the mediator,

ensuring that the environment is arranged in such a way

that requires children to verbally request wanted materials

and that children respond to the settings. The caregiver

also serves as a role-model for young children, allowing

them to see and hear modeled language and gestures.

In a study conducted by Hemmeter and Kaiser (1990) , it

was found that arrangement of a home environment to support

language use resulted in higher interactions between the

child and the surroundings, thus enhancing the language use

of children. It was worth noting that Hemmeter's and

Kaiser's study had limitations. For example, only one

subject was observed on only two occasions. However, the

author was optimistic that an environment arrangement

requiring language usage would be highly beneficial in

helping children acquire language.

Children learn a great deal of language and the

functions of language through play experiences (Morrison &

Rusher, 1999) . Morrison and Rusher suggested that many of

these opportunities could be offered to children by


creating environments that are both playful and provoke

language development. The author also suggested that play

could help children develop and enhance some of the skills

needed for oral language development such as vocabulary and

listening. A practitioner piece by Lawhon (2000) presented

a discussion about literacy environments for young

children, and noted that preschool children benefited from

songs, rhymes, and jingles. Lawhon noted that preschool

children loved language and "seem to learn language

naturally" (p. 6). Children talked about anything and

everything, repeat stories, and mock adult language usage.

As well, the author suggested that providing an environment

that conveyed a meaning of the importance of literacy helps

children learn that literacy was important and valued, and

that language learning was an essential component to this

life-long process of becoming literate. This message can be

conveyed by reading to children and providing a print-rich

environment. Using "playful, enjoyable, no-pressure

strategies and activities" (p. 9) provided a surrounding

that encouraged oral language and helped children

understand the importance of language.

Additionally, a review of research by Pianta and La

Paro (2003a) found that kindergarten classrooms may vary in

terms of quality. In reviewing the findings from two major


research studies, a study of classroom features (NICHD,

2002) and the National Center for Early Development and

Learning's Six-State Prekindergarten Study (Bryant,

Clifford, Early, Howes, & Pianta, 2002), the authors found

that some teachers utilized group learning, while others

taught in whole-groups. Some classrooms showed much

involvement in learning from the beginning of class, while

others showed no involvement in learning for up to a half

hour following the start of school. The authors'

conclusions from the review indicated that although there

was much variability in the quality of the classrooms, each

classroom tended to demonstrate a positive social

environment.

In a longitudinal study of 401 childcare centers which

were selected through stratified random sampling with half

for-profit and half non-profit, it was found that quality

classroom environments contributed to children's language

skills from preschool to early elementary. The findings

were determined by collecting extensive data on both the

quality of the environment and on children's cognitive and

developmental outcomes (Cost, Quality, & Outcomes Study,

1995). Further, this study noted that North Carolina had

the largest percentage of poor quality early childhood

classrooms, as determined by the original version of the


Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms,

Clifford, & Cryer, 1980), which was used to measure quality

in the study. In response to this study, the North Carolina

Early Childhood Initiative, also known as Smart Start, was

developed. The Smart Start Initiative was designed to

target poor quality schools in North Carolina, and provide

funds to increase the quality of the classrooms in selected

schools. Currently, there are over 79 partnerships, or

organizations designed to improve instruction, receiving

funds to improve quality in the classrooms (Smart Start,

2006).

A very well-known study that utilized the rating scale

was conducted by Bryant, Maxwell, and Burchinal (1999) to

determine if Smart Start was improving the quality of early

childhood classrooms. The authors studied 180 classrooms

over the course of two years. Their findings indicated that

there were significant, positive differences in the quality

of the early childhood classrooms from 1994 to 1996. An

extension of this study also used the ECERS to measure the

quality of the early childhood classroom (Buysse, Welley,

Bryant, & Gardner, 1999). This study found that there are

three other significant predictors of high quality

classrooms: teacher education, professional experience, and

teacher self-ratihgs of skills and knowledge.


Another study utilized the ECERS in a comparative

study between Germany and Sweden. The ECERS was used in

conjunction with qualitative documentation of the

researchers' perception of the processes that underlie the

ratings of quality (Sheridan & Schuster, 2001). Cross

national comparative studies such as this one help

researchers to validate the quality ratings of the ECERS.

The qualitative documentation was later analyzed and

reconstructed, and gave insight into the country-specific

characteristics of a quality childcare environment.

Cassidy, Hestenes, Hedge, Hestenes, and Mims (2003)

carried out a study using the ECERS-R to determine the

possible relationships between aspects on the ECERS-R and

teacher experience, education, class sizes, and

teacher/child ratios. Data were collected from a large

sample of preschool classrooms in North Carolina. There

were 1313 classrooms in the study. The researchers

completed the ECERS-R in each of the classrooms, and also

collected information about teachers such as education and

experience in the classrooms. The researchers found that

there was a significant correlation between teacher

education and the composite ECERS-R scores. Additionally,

the authors separated education into 12 categories, and

with post hoc tests, found that the differences were in


high school degrees and all other levels of education.

There were no differences between community college degrees

and other levels of college, including graduate work and

the composite ECERS-R scores. The researchers concluded

their results section by noting that the composite ECERS-R

scores were correlated with teacher/child ratios, class

sizes, and teachers' years of experience, but the

correlations were relatively low. The researchers called

for future longitudinal research looking specifically at

teacher-child interactions in relation to education level.

Burchinal et al. (2000) conducted a study of 89

African American children ages 6-36 months who were

attending a center-based child care facility, with the

purpose of determining whether the quality of the

environment had an impact on their language development

longitudinally. Classrooms with children older than two

years were assessed using the ECERS. The assessment was

administered once a year in the spring for 3 years. The

researchers noted that structural quality was rated through

observations, and included information about class size,

number of adults, and teacher educational attainment.

Cognitive abilities of the children were assessed using

Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1993) and

language abilities were measured using the Sequenced


Inventory of Communication Development-Revised (Hedrick,

Prather, & Tobin, 1984). Both instruments were administered

by trained persons. Results from the study indicated that

as the age of children increased, so did the quality of

their environment. In addition, there was strong

correlation between high quality environments and better

cognitive development, language development, and skills in

communication. Burchinal et al. (2000) found that child-

adult ratios were related to children's expressive and

receptive language skills. The study found that teacher

educational attainment was not significantly related to

student outcomes, although children who had teachers with

more educational attainment did score slightly higher than

children whose teachers had less education.

A study by Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, and Howes

(2002) reexamined the relationship between teacher

educational attainment and higher quality classrooms. In a

study of 553 preschool classrooms which were randomly

selected from California, Connecticut, Colorado, and North

Carolina, the researchers looked at educational attainment

and formal workshops attended by the teachers in the

classrooms. In addition, the ECERS-R was utilized to

measure the quality of the early childhood environment.

These authors found that teachers' educational attainment


at the baccalaureate level or higher showed a consistent

link to higher quality classrooms. Burchinal et al. (2000)

concluded that overall the quality of the childcare

environment is significantly related to children's

developmental growth over time. These are important

findings that add to existing support for educators to

provide high quality environments to young children.

However, the authors suggested further longitudinal studies

in order to provide a more consistent link between the

quality of the environment and student outcomes.

Additionally, La Paro, Pianta, and Stuhlman (2004)

conducted a study utilizing the CLASS. The researchers'

main concern was the problem of having a definition of

classroom quality for the environment, but recent reviews

of literature seemed to suggest that the social and

instructional aspects of the early childhood classroom were

factors in determining quality. Some of the other measures

that were designed to measure classroom quality that were

presented by La Paro et al. included the ECERS-R, the

Assessment Profile, and the Classroom Practices Inventory.

The authors noted that the ECERS-R had received much

validation in the field of early childhood education,

however, they criticized the instrument for not focusing

more on the teacher-child aspects of the environment. The


authors' argument included a concern over publicly funded

classrooms rating higher because of the scale's heavy

attention to the physical environment. They contended that

these classrooms might receive a higher score because they

could afford more physical materials for the students. In

contrast, the authors contended, "the CLASS focuses on what

teachers do with the materials they have and on the

interactions they have with children" (p. 412), leading

them to their choice of instrument for the presented study.

However, five of the subscales from the ECERS-R were also

utilized for the study, and correlations were computed

after data collection to determine whether a relationship

existed between the CLASS and the subscales from the ECERS-

R. The authors found that there was a relationship between

the two scales, although stronger in some areas. The

results of this study indicated that on average, classrooms

were very mixed in terms of quality. These findings support

earlier research suggesting that early childhood classrooms

vary in terms of quality (Pianta & La Paro, 2003a). In

addition, the researchers found that very little negativity existed in the classrooms. Studies that utilize a variety

of instruments such as this study can help researchers in

deciding which instrument might best fit their needs.


In one of the few international studies utilizing the

original version of the ECERS, it was noted that the scale

was approved for use in Chile based on its high internal

consistency and validity. In the study, Herrera, Mathiesen,

Merino, and Recart (2 005) randomly chose 12 0 preschool

classrooms in Chile, with the purpose of determining

whether there was a significant relationship between the

quality of the environment and students' vocabulary growth

as measured by a vocabulary test in Spanish (Echevarria,

Herrera, & Vega, 1993). The researchers used the Infant and

Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) (Harms, Cryer, &

Clifford, 1990), the ECERS, and School-Age Care Environment

Rating Scale (SACERS) (Harms, Jacobs, & White, 1996) to

measure the classroom environment. The study found that as

children increase in age, the quality of the classroom

tends to decrease, contrary to the findings of Burchinal et

al. (2000) . In addition, the researchers found that there

was a significant relationship between the quality of the

environment and student outcomes, and that these effects

were sustained even as the children entered their primary school years.

Espinosa (2002) described what a high-quality

preschool classroom should look like, and why educators

need to be aware of the need for having quality


environments for young children. In her review of the

existing literature, Espinosa found that fewer than half of

the programs that were measured using the widely acceptable

ECERS scored in the "good" or "excellent" range. In this

rating scale, a score of 1 can be understood as

"inadequate" and a score of 7 can be understood as

"excellent," with the between numbers ranging from

"minimal" to "good." One of the largest issues in providing

quality experiences includes having a common definition of

quality. Espinosa used two terms to define quality. She

contended that process quality included "the actual

experiences that occur in educational settings" (p. 2).

This type of quality is most often measured through

observations. The ECERS is a common rating scale used to

measure process quality, where the environment is rated on

various dimensions of the programs. The author also used

the term structural quality to define quality. In this

aspect, the researcher would look at class size, teacher-

child ratios, building facilities, and teacher

qualifications to name a few. "The structural features of a program are thought to contribute to quality in more

indirect ways than process features" (p. 3). Structural

features are also more influenced by state and federal

regulations. Espinosa noted that these two aspects of a


69

program are essential to determining the quality of an\

early childhood environment, and they offer a starting

place for researchers to begin to look more in depth into

the quality of programs.

Espinosa (2002) reviewed several studies that utilized

the ECERS across the country. None of these studies

revealed an average ECERS score of above 5.0. Based on this

review of the existing literature, the author recommended

some basic elements that schools could offer children in

order to improve their quality. These recommendations

included ongoing opportunities for children to learn and

expand their knowledge, experiences that will capitalize on

children's natural curiosity, and offering varieties in

children's everyday school experiences. For teachers, the

author recommended a minimum four year degree from an

accredited university, ongoing staff development,

collaborative relationships with everyone involved in

children's learning, and providing a spacious room that is

well-equipped.

Research has shown that structural language was

directly related to reading, presuming that oral language

helps children derive meaning from print and learn

grammatical rules of written language (Liberman, 1983). A

study by Roth, Speece, and Cooper (2002) found that "oral


language ability contributes to early reading skills in

ways other than through the influence of phonological

awareness" (p. 263). Storch and Whitehurst (2 002) found

that oral language and early reading skills such as letter

recognition, phonemic awareness, and vocabulary were

strongly related during the preschool years. This placed a

responsibility on educators to develop and enhance language

skills, as those skills would ultimately help the child

acquire reading skills.

Minkel (2002) described an early intervention program

that included an idea for reaching out to parents who might

not be aware of the importance of early language learning.

Minkel recognized that parents might view learning as the

sole responsibility of the school. In truth, parents could

really help their children, develop early literacy skills by

singing, chanting, playing, and teaching simple concepts

such as up and down. "It's Never Too Early," a program

launched in Maryland, was developed to reach out and

educate parents and caregivers about providing adequate

language opportunities before their children entered preschool. The author noted:

Children from birth on need to hear stories and play

with words. They need to chant, rhyme, and sing...

children need to be exposed to language, and lots of


it. And they need to receive that exposure before they

enter kindergarten, (p. 38)

The program was developed by concerned school

officials in collaboration with librarians with the common

thought that, "too many childcare programs in private homes

and church basements allow toddlers and other youngsters to

sit idly in front of the TV all day" (p. 38), when these

situations can be taken advantage of, and used to enhance

the oral language development of children. Minkel (2002)

also suggested that children be exposed to more than one

language. According to the author, this would help children

to become familiar with the various phonemes that they will

encounter in learning a language. In addition, a review of

research by Ginsborg and Locke (2002) found that it was

widely recognized that children "who are slow to develop

spoken language are likely to be slow to develop written

language" (p. 20). According to the review, children who

enter school behind seldom tend to catch up. The gap seems

to widen instead of closing. From the authors'

perspectives, this was due to insufficient exposure to

spoken language. The authors also reported that children

from low-socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to

experience delays in learning to read and write because

they were often slower to develop spoken language, based on


a variety of reasons, but predominantly because of limited

exposures and opportunities to use spoken language. This

added a new responsibility for preschool teachers, as

language learning lays the foundation for literacy, which

required the involvement of everyone in the young child's

life. Further research is needed to understand the quality

of the childhood learning environment and language

acquisition, and specifically certain aspects of the

environment that could prove beneficial to learning

language.

More researchers have turned their attention towards

the importance of classroom environments for young

children, and research such as this is essential. For

example, policy makers must realize that schools need

funding in order to provide these high quality

environments, and school administrators must realize that

teachers need training in providing high quality

classrooms. Lastly, teachers must ultimately be concerned

with furthering their knowledge of the current research and

seek guidance to ensure that the children in their

classroom are getting the best education. Although many

studies are beginning to emerge on the topic of early

childhood classroom environments, further research is


73

needed in the area of classroom environments and student

outcomes.

Qualities of Early Childhood, ELL classrooms

In a discussion of early literacy by Rodriguez-

Valladares (2003), it was noted that almost one in five

children in the United States was Latino, and of those

five, three are living below the poverty line. The author

contended that many minority children in the United States

were not afforded the privileges of preschool and were

therefore well behind their peers when they entered school,

particularly if they did not speak English. As well, many

Latino parents did not realize the need for early learning

experiences and did not understand the importance of

getting a "head start" on learning a second language.

Research has shown that early learning experiences are

essential in learning a second language (Hudson & Smith,

2001; Liberman, 1983; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

A study by Riojas-Cortez (2001) found that teachers

can learn a great deal about the cultural and linguistic

backgrounds of young children through observations during

sociodramatic play episodes. The author found that by

watching children in the natural act of playing, they could

gain insights into the values that children learn from


their cultural upbringing, and they could use what they

learn to enhance the curriculum in the ELL classroom while

appreciating and valuing the children's culture and

language. The author found that culture is often displayed

during sociodramatic play episode, and that teachers could

help facilitate an environment that is conducive to this

type of play. As well as enhancing the physical appearance

of the ELL classroom, it was also necessary for teachers to

move past thinking of cultural appreciation as artifacts

such as food, decorations, and flags. As a teacher in a

small, South Texas town, the author noted:

... I often felt at odds with the school district's

notion of cultural relevancy. Since the school's

population was 99% Mexican American, some of the

administrators' notions of cultural relevancy referred

to artifacts such as paper flowers, papel picado,

mariachi hats, maracas, Mexican flags, pinatas, and

sarapes in order to reflect the children's culture.

(p. 35)

While Riojas-Cortez (2001) admitted that she agreed

with displaying artifacts that reflected her and her

students' cultural backgrounds, it was essential that

teachers take it a step further and actually investigate

the culture, including language and values within that


75

culture. This includes providing a classroom environment

that is conducive to sociodramatic play. It is then that

teachers can truly show an appreciation and understanding

of each child's background and help educate the child with

a deeper understanding of how they can best learn language

and literacy skills.

Teachers, Pedagogical Beliefs, and Teaching Methods

At the foundation of all learning is a qualified

teacher who is trained and knows how to effectively handle

situations in the classroom. In order to provide the best

instruction to ELLs, teacher education programs must first

provide effective instruction to pre-service teachers

(Pappamihiel, 2004). According to Hudson and Smith (2001)

60% of Hispanic fourth graders who were learning English as

their second language were reading below grade level,

suggesting that U.S. schools were not meeting the needs of

Spanish-speaking students. The Texas Education Agency

(2005) reported that 95% of Caucasian children met the

state standard on the mandated state test, but only 85% of

Hispanic children met the standard on the same test. Also,

the OELA (2002) estimated that only 22.7% of ELLs were

receiving instruction in their native language as a support

system for new learning. In this report, it was noted that


76

incorporating the native language into instruction was done

mostly in the primary grades. Although there are several

theoretical assumptions about teaching ELLs, many

researchers are supportive of children developing

proficiency in their native language before moving to

instruction in English (Cummins, 1991; Gerston & Geva,

2003; Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). In order to meet this need,

schools must provide instruction by trained teachers in

students' native languages as well as English.

In a practitioner piece by Hudson and Smith (2001)

suggested that teachers create a learning environment in

which students could transfer their skills from their

native language to English. Some ways to achieve this may

include rereading familiar stories, language experiences,

and keeping running records for documentation. The authors

added, "Young children whose first language is not English

and who are not proficient readers are not getting the type

and quality instruction they need in the language in which

they need it" (p. 36).

Mora and Grisham (2001) looked at preservice courses

geared for preparing teachers to work with language

minority students. The study was a qualitative study about

27 preservice teachers. The study indicated that teacher

candidates revealed a higher level of confidence in


teaching second language learners after undergoing a course

explicitly addressed strategies to help ELLs. The authors

noted that these type of courses should be a necessary part

of every teacher preparation program. Research in this area

is important for universities to utilize as it lends

evidence as to what types of courses work to teach ELLs.

Essentially, teachers need special training to be capable

of working with ELL students.

If universities are aware of the current research,

they can provide the latest instruction to ensure the

children in the schools are ultimately receiving the best

possible teaching by qualified teachers. Based on the

belief that teacher preparation for teaching second

language learners needs improvement, Grant and Wong (2003) •

argued that university teacher education programs need to

include courses in teacher preparation that will

specifically address the needs of minority language

learners, offer seminars on the topic, and "become strong

advocates for biliteracy" (p. 3 91). These suggestions were

given in hope that teacher education programs would begin

to prepare teachers for the rapidly changing world of

education and better prepare them to meet the needs of

second-language learners.


Recently, research has begun to look at the effects of

teachers' pedagogical beliefs on their teaching practices

(Cassidy, Buell, Pugh-Hoese, & Russell, 1995; Cassidy &

Lawrence, 2000; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Rimm-Kaufman,

Storm, Sawyer, Pianta, & La Paro, 2006; Schon, 1983;

Williams, 1996). The existing research concurred that

teachers' pedagogical beliefs do not necessarily directly

impact their teaching practices; rather, their belief

systems provide "a framework that organize meaning and

inform practices" (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2006, p. 142). For

example, Cassidy and Lawrence (2000) conducted a study of

12 preschool teachers selected from three childcare centers

in a large city. The study investigated teachers' beliefs

and rationales behind their teaching activities by

interviewing them while watching a previously recorded tape

of their classroom. The researchers found that teachers

focused mainly on socio-emotional and cognitive

development, and that teachers with a bachelor's degree

were more likely to provide rationales that focused on

cognitive development than were teachers with less

education. Surprisingly, very few teachers cited language

development as a rationale for activities in their

classroom, although this is a huge focus in early childhood

education. Also very interesting were the teachers'


inabilities to provide an influence to support their

rationale for activities in their classrooms. Cassidy and

Lawrence concurred with Schon's (1983) contention that some

teachers do not reflect on their practices, resulting in an

inability to communicate why they have provided certain

activities for the children. Dickinson and Tabors (2001)

also interviewed teachers in a study to link pedagogical

beliefs to practice. The findings from this study indicated

that teachers focused on social aspects, pre-academic

skills, language and book use, and integrating curriculum.

The data from this study also indicated that although

certain aspects of beliefs and attitudes seem to play an

integral part in children's development, there was no

single variable that accounted for much of it. Although

many researchers have undertaken the task to try to relate

teachers' beliefs with teaching practices, many have found

that no such relationship exists. Importantly, however, was

that the studies called for future research to examine the

teachers' pedagogical beliefs and the quality of their

teaching practices and overall classroom quality.

There are numerous researched strategies implemented

by teachers in the ELL classroom, and as with any

instruction, success will ultimately depend upon the

individual child. In a discussion of English learners,


Drucker (2 003) noted, "Students learn to read well when

they are engaged in reading materials that are not only at

an appropriate level but also interesting and relevant to

them" (p. 28). A study by Gersten and Geva (2003) has shown

that there were certain strategies and teaching styles that

could enhance the success of ELL students. The researchers

observed primary grade classrooms with the goal to "link

specific instructional strategies to reading growth among

English learners" (p. 45). Findings showed that teachers of

ELL students who were most successful demonstrated superior

teaching skills, tending to the child's individual needs.\

Successful strategies included writing activities that

embedded phonological awareness and extensive (but

interactive) vocabulary development. During the

observations, it was noted that teachers "did not stress

proper grammar and syntax" (p. 45), but instead rephrased

the child's attempts in order to include his thoughts in

the lesson. Teachers made lessons short and direct, and

they ensured that the children were actively involved in

their own learning. The researchers supported this positive

environment by using words such as lively and interactive

to describe some of the instructional strategies seen

during the study.


Vocabulary Development

Vocabulary development in the primary grades has been

extensively researched and has become the topic of some

controversy as research seek the most effective ways to

teach vocabulary to children. Most are in agreement that

vocabulary instruction can take many forms. However,

Biemiller (2006) reported that many studies do not focus on

vocabulary development before the mid-to-late primary

grades, as this is when the effects of low vocabulary

become evident because children's reading materials began

to increase in difficulty and require higher level

vocabularies for comprehension. The topic of vocabulary

development in the preschool years is somewhat less

evident, although there are several studies focusing on the

importance of early vocabulary instruction.

Vocabulary development in young children is essential

to their future academic success, especially in literacy as

it is a major predictor of reading comprehension

(Biemiller, 2006; & Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Biemiller

(2006) reported that children learn between 4,000 and 6,000

words by the time they reach the second grade, concurring

with a study by Nagy and Scott (2000) . The majority of the

vocabulary that young children know is based on learning

experiences at home, before they ever enter a formal school


setting. This vocabulary is acquired through informal

exposures and experiences. Biemiller has termed the period

before children begin reading texts with challenging

vocabulary the pre-literate period in a child's life. It is

during this preliterate period that children develop

problems with their vocabulary growth, creating a gap that

is often difficult to remediate. Snow et al. (1998)

supported the idea that educators should begin to look at

preventative measures rather than trying to remediate

problems after they develop. This requires providing high

quality environments that are rich in literacy and

language. Children who have such early experiences were

more likely to experience success in vocabulary

development, thus improving reading success (Snow et al.,

1998).

A study by Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) concluded

that children's vocabulary strengths in the primary grades

were strong predictors of reading success in high school,

again pointing to the need for early vocabulary

development. Storch and Whitehurst (2002) found that code

related precursors such as letter recognition, phonemic

awareness, word meanings, and comprehension were strongly

related to oral language development in young children. The

researchers concluded that educators should focus on


developing code-related precursors in order to prepare

students to be successful readers in the future, once again

stressing the importance of early instruction. Other

studies have supported the notion that vocabulary

development of young children begin with basic literacy

skills such as word identification, morphological

awareness, and simple dictionary skills (Biemiller, 2006;

McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, & Shu, 2005). McBride-Chang et

al. found that in particular, morphological structural

awareness and morpheme identification were strong

predictors of vocabulary growth in children from

kindergarten to second grade. These skills can be used

throughout life, but vocabulary development requires

continuing support from the teacher. Biemiller concluded

that early instruction in vocabulary development should

consist of a variety of strategies, including direct

explanations of new words and conversations about words

encountered. Perhaps most importantly, as research studies

concluded, is the development of root words (Biemiller,

2006; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001).

One of the main issues concerning vocabulary

instruction is the intense complexity of the subject. Nagy

and Scott (2000) noted that there were five aspects of this

complexity of word knowledge. These aspects included


incrementality, multidimensionality, polysemy,

interrelatedness, and heterogeneity. This is important for

teachers to know, as the traditional ways of teaching

vocabulary do not take this complexity into account.

Providing word lists and having children look up meanings

in the dictionary does not teach children how to make the

connections that are needed to fully understand the words.

In addition, instruction like this does not teach how to

utilize vocabulary skills, but rather teaches them to

merely find the answers. In an age where educators are

often torn between wanting students to think and be able to

find answers for themselves, and having the pressures of

the state mandated tests, attention turns to effective

vocabulary instruction.

Although there is some disagreement on how many words

should be taught to children and how to best teach

vocabulary, several researchers are in agreement that

vocabulary instruction should begin very early in

children's life at home or in a quality early childhood

environment (Biemiller, 2006; Biemiller & Boote, 2006;

Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997;

Storch & Whitehurst, 2 002). Cunningham and Stanovich

revisited 11th graders who were initially administered

reading tasks in first grade, 10 years earlier. The results


85

of their study indicated that reading abilities in first

grade were strong predictors of reading success in the 11th

grade.

Nagy and Scott (2 000) argued that students have to

utilize metalinguistic skills as they move into effective

word learning. Nagy and Scott contended that in order for

students to really understand words and use skills to

figure out word meanings, they needed to "reflect on and

manipulate the structural features of the written language"

(p. 274). The notion of students using metalinguistic

skills to learn new words concurs with conclusions from

Snow et al. (1998), who reported that skilled readers

process information on two levels: first, the reader uses a

literal level construction of meaning; secondly, the reader

relies on a metacognitive understanding of the text, where

they are conscious of what they are reading, and why they

are reading.

It is important to understand the complexity of

vocabulary and comprehension relationships because reading

material, even juvenile books, often contain much higher

level vocabularies than readers are accustomed to seeing or •

hearing in everyday communications (Rasinski & Padak, 2004;

Snow et al., 1998). Snow et al., however, noted that the

relationship between comprehension and vocabulary depended


largely on what type of instruction the readers had

received in word learning. For example, children will not

show improvements in comprehension if the vocabulary

instruction focused explicitly on definitional knowledge of

words. Instead, vocabulary instruction must teach words in

context, while making meaningful connections to children's

lives. This, in part, can be accomplished through the vast

collection of research-based strategies available to

teachers.

Making connections with children's lives is a common

theme across the reading field. Everything that teachers do

in the classroom should be aimed at making a meaningful

connection, something that the child can relate. This idea

is based on Schema Theory, presented by Anderson (1994) in

the fourth edition of Theoretical Models and Processes of

Reading. This theory presented the idea that readers have

existing compartments of information that helps the reader

to understand new text, by giving them something to connect

the new to the old. Anderson added, "the click of

comprehension occurs only when the reader evolves a schema that explains the whole message" (p. 473). Pressley (2000)

noted that readers must have schema before comprehension

can occur. Children must have prior knowledge before they

can truly understand what they are reading. This holds huge


87

implications for teachers, as so many of the children

entering schools are from disadvantaged homes, and may not

have the experiences needed to give them the background. In

addition, children from diverse backgrounds may lack the

cultural familiarity needed to develop schema. It is now a

teacher's responsibility to provide experiences, to take

children on virtual or real trips, and to take them to

adventurous places through reading.

Pressley (2000) suggested several implications for

instruction. First, teachers need to assess background, and

build background knowledge when necessary, keeping in mind

that children must have schema before comprehension can

occur. Secondly, Pressley urged teachers to incorporate

what children already know with their lessons, making it

familiar to them. Finally, he calls for further research,

specifically in the area of culturally diverse students and

their responses to readings.

Vocabulary Development and English

Language Learners

The National Reading Panel (2000) proposed five elements that contribute to reading success in English-

proficient students: phonemic awareness, phonics,

vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. According to those


who supported native language proficiency, the skills that

English-proficient students needed were similar to the

skills that English language learners will need

(Fitzgerald, 1995; Gersten & Geva, 2003; Wong-Fillmore,

1991). In a review of research, Folse (2 004) noted that

vocabulary was one of the most important skills in second

language learning. However, many second language programs

underestimate the importance of vocabulary, and instead,

put priority on other aspects such as grammar. Wilkins

(1972) emphasized the power of vocabulary in second

language learning by noting, "While without grammar very

little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be

conveyed" (p. 111).

A study of 61 Head Start teachers by Dickinson,

McCabe, and Clark-Chiarelli (2004) found that the teachers

less than 1% of their time to talking about language or

vocabulary words, although it is important to note that 71%

of the teachers in this study had less than a bachelor's

degree. Dickinson et al. noted that this supported the

theory that children from lower socioeconomic homes are

exposed to limited amounts and quality of vocabulary, and

suggested that teachers need to receive more support in the

form of professional development that will help them

deliver high quality environment and needs to the children.


89

This also holds implications for teachers of English

language learners, and points to the importance of

vocabulary development in children learning English as a

second language.

Limited research on the vocabulary development of

English language learners exists (August, Carlo, Dressier &

Snow, 2005) . However, in a 3-year longitudinal study by

McLaughlin, August, & Snow (2 000), it was found that

fourth- and fifth-grade English language learners rely more

on vocabulary knowledge when reading than do their native

English speaking peers. McLaughlin et al. suggested that

native English speakers relied more heavily on background

knowledge and inferential skills, but that English language

learners must have a strong vocabulary in order to be

successful in reading. Thus, vocabulary continues to be an

important factor in literacy success across the grades.

Concurrently, studies have suggested that vocabulary

was the most important skill that second language learners

need (Folse, 2004; Haynes & Baker, 1993; Laufer & Sim,

1985). Additionally, a study by Verhallen and Schoonen (1993) found that vocabulary delays in bilingual children

were not limited to breadth, but also included depth. The

authors found that bilingual children who experienced

delays in vocabulary were often delayed in both the number


of words that they knew, and also in the range of the words

that they knew. This was supported by August et al. (2005)

in their recent review of literature. In addition, August

et al. presented research supporting vocabulary development

in ELLs. For example, cognates, or words that are

orthographically and semantically similar in both languages

can be used to stimulate transfer in students learning

English as their second language. In addition, August et

al. suggested using various strategies that require

students to predict, learn, and apply word meanings. As

with others, (Baumann & Kame'enui, 2004; Folse, 2004) they

also suggested that vocabulary words be taught in context,

and that students be encouraged to use the newly learned

words in meaningful ways. In conclusion, August et al...

noted that educators can take advantage of the child's

first language, teach basic words first, and finally,

teachers should consistently review words and reinforce

concepts. This review of literature by August et al.

provided evidence that little research exists on the topic

of vocabulary and ELLs, and pointed to the need for further

research in this area.

The American Educational Research Association (AERA)

(2004) noted that previous policies to aid young children

learning English as a second language aimed to immerse them


91

in an English-only environment, giving little or no

attention to the child's native language. Since then,

studies (Cummins, 1979; 1991; Gollnick & Chinn, 2002) have

found that children's proficiency in their native language

can give them skills that they will need in order to

acquire a second language. Children will transfer skills

that they have learned in their native language when

learning English (Hudson & Smith, 2001).

On the topic of reading, English language learners

face more challenges than just learning the language.

Children must learn two aspects of reading: word

recognition and comprehension. According to a research

review by AERA (2004), young children who enter school with

limited English proficiency can be recognizing words and

learn to spell with similar accuracy as their English

speaking peers in just two years. AERA recommended several

ways to enhance this: phonological awareness, practice

reading, frequent assessment and support. This research

presented supported the notion that children who enter

school with limited English proficiency can catch up to

their peers in word recognition and spelling skills with

systematic teaching approaches.

Comprehension, however, is a different and much more

complex process that English learners must develop. AERA


(2 004) contended that understanding written text depends

greatly on developing proficiency in the English language.

There is a vast difference between conversational language

and academic language (Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2002). Many

educators may think that children have reached proficiency

by listening to the children talk to one another, when they

may struggle with higher levels needed for comprehension of

written texts.

In a review of research, AERA. (2004) delved into the

subject of vocabulary development of English language

learners, as a large vocabulary is needed in order for

these children to develop the skills necessary for academic

language. AERA found that children who speak English as

their native language typically enter preschool or

kindergarten with 5,000 to 7,000 words. In order to expand

and enhance second language learners' vocabularies,

teachers must encourage students to use words that they

encounter within academic language in meaningful and

interesting contexts. In addition, many strategies can aid

children in learning new vocabulary words. Activating prior

knowledge can also help these children learn new words that

they will need for comprehension of texts. Teachers must

move away from asking students to memorize word lists or

look up definitions in the dictionary, as these approaches


93

do not lean themselves to long term memory. Above all, AERA

found that discussions of texts are essential for helping

children develop vocabulary skills.

Teachers of children who are learning English as a

second language must act as a facilitator of lessons and

conversations that will allow these kids to enhance their

vocabulary banks. Children who are learning English as

their second language need the best teaching practices

possible, just as all children. However, teachers have the

added pressure of teaching children who do not yet possess

proficiency in English. Systematic teaching approaches can

help preschool children develop skills in word recognition,

spelling, and vocabulary that they so desperately need in

order to succeed in academic languages.

Summary

The demographic makeup of the United States is

changing quickly, inevitably leading to changing student

populations. Texas currently has the second largest public

school enrollment of children learning English as their

second language, topped only by California. Researchers

have begun to focus on how schools can best meet the needs

of ELLs, and schools have had to adjust their assessments

and programs in order to meet the needs of all students.


94

Additionally, research has also begun to shift focuses

toward the importance of classroom quality to student

development and academic success, particularly in literacy.

There are three major program types designed to serve

ELLs in public schools. The first language program

classroom consists of instruction in the child's native

language. This type of program is guided by the idea that

children must develop full proficiency in their native

language before trying to learn a second language. This

program is supported by many researchers, but most notably

by the work of Wong-Fillmore (1991). The bilingual program

classroom also supports the idea that children need to

develop proficiency in their native. However, in this type

of a program, children are using both their native language

and English, with the idea that children can continue to

develop and enhance their first language while learning

English. This type of a program can further be broken into

90/10 classrooms or 50/50 classrooms: 90/10 classrooms

teach 90% in the child's native language and 10% in

English, and 50/50 classrooms teach 50% in the child's native language and 50% in English. Finally, the English-

language classroom is guided by the theory that children

need to gain knowledge of English as soon as possible.

Although this contradicts many researchers' beliefs that


95

children need to develop proficiency in their native

language first (Cummins, 1991; Gerston & Geva, 2003; Wong-

Fillmore, 1991), this is the most common type of program in

the United States. This type of program would encompass

what is known as the ESL classroom.

There are numerous ways to assess ELLs, but schools

must step up to the responsibility of assessing and placing

ELLs into the appropriate and most effective program. The

LPAC is assigned by each campus and is responsible for

gathering data and deciding future instruction for each

individual child. This is done after a thorough screening,

beginning with the Home Language Survey and followed up

with additional screenings. There are many controversies

surrounding the assessment of ELLs, many of which focus on

the biases of the testing instruments. Although schools are

at the mercy of the state to administer approved

assessments, there are also additional ways to-assess and

document students' abilities and progress. The bottom line

in assessing all students is to rely on multiple forms of

assessment to obtain an overall picture of the child's

strengths and weaknesses. These multiple forms of

assessment can be instrumental in deciding instructional

goals for children.


Additionally, all children deserve a quality

environment in which to learn. Recent research has begun to

focus on the importance of providing children high quality

experiences in preschool. According to many studies,

quality experiences before children enter kindergarten are

instrumental in setting the foundation for future academic

success (Burchinal et al., 2000; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;

Hart & Risley, 1995). There are several researched

instruments designed to measure the quality of the early

childhood classroom environment. The ECERS-R, Assessment

Profile, ELLCO, CLASS, and are all measures that can

accurately measure the quality of the classroom. The

instruments are based on standards set by the NAEYC and

measure several aspects of the classroom including physical

arrangement, teacher/child interactions, academic

activities, and parental involvement. Because providing

high quality environments for young children has been found

to have an impact of their literacy development, this

should be of particular interest to early childhood

teachers, as young children need exposure to literacy and

language in their everyday lives. Hart and Risley (1995)

noted that children need to be exposed to both physical and

social features in a classroom that can help them develop

both motor skills as well as social skills. Mainly,


97

children need to learn language and literacy skills and

they need to the opportunities to use the skills in

meaningful situations.

Further, teachers of children who are learning English

as their second language have an additional responsibility.

Not only do these children need to learn how to read and

write, but they are also trying to learn the English

language. The importance of a high quality classroom

becomes even more important for these children, as they

need more support than their English speaking peers. In

developing a quality classroom environment, teachers must

be educated in how young children learn. In studies by

Schon (1983) and Cassidy and Lawrence (2000), it was found

that teachers are unable to articulate or rationalize how

their rooms are arranged and why they are providing certain

activities. However, teachers with at least a bachelor's

degree were able to provide more rationales focusing on

cognitive development than teachers with less education.

These authors concluded that teachers of young children

should have at least a bachelor's degree before schools can

expect them to provide high quality environments to the

children.

Children need to develop many skills in order to

become successful readers. These skills include phonemic


awareness, morphological awareness, and vocabulary.

Vocabulary development is one of the five essential

components of reading presented by the National Reading

Panel (2 000) . Researchers have found that early vocabulary

acquisition is a strong predictor of later reading success

(Biemiller, 2006; Cunningham Sc Stanovich, 1997) . Further,

many studies have concluded that vocabulary is the single

most important skill for ELLs (Folse, 2004; Haynes Sc Baker,

1993; Laufer Sc Sim, 1995). Vocabulary development in young

children is essential, and most of the vocabulary that

young children know is acquired at home during informal

experiences. However, preschool children should also be

learning words at school, with the teacher using various

strategies to introduce and develop understandings of the

words. At the preschool level, this can include reading

stories to the children followed by discussions of new

words, word walls, and conversations. Although there are

many disagreements on how to best teach vocabulary,

research is in consensus that words should be taught in

context, through meaningful situations for the children to

fully develop an understanding of the words. For children

who are learning English as their second language, this is

even more important. Research has shown that ELLs need to


99

develop both a breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge

(Verhallen & Schoonen, 1993).

Research has shown the need for educators to take a

more active stance in the education of ELL students.

Teachers wear many hats in the classroom, and with the

diverse population that is growing daily, educators must be

aware of the current research findings in order to best

meet the needs of all students. On the same note, educators

must be aware of the benefits that providing a high-quality

environment can offer to students. Many studies have shown

that children must have a classroom environment that is

conducive to language and literacy learning, and early

childhood, ELL classrooms must meet the needs of the

children who are in the process of acquiring English and

learning language and literacy skills. Language development

is a complex process that requires a supportive environment

and knowledgeable teachers. Children who are learning

English as a second language have the task of acquiring

language that is foreign to them. By understanding how

young children acquire language and how ELL children

acquire language, educators can tailor instruction for the

individual child to best enhance their learning. By

realizing that certain environments will prove advantageous

for ELL children and their language acquisition, schools


and families can work together to provide an atmosphere

that will best enable these children to learn and develop

language.


CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter describes the methods and procedures used

to explore the relationship of the early childhood

classroom environment and receptive vocabulary development

of young children learning English as their second

language. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-

Revised Edition (ECERS-R) was utilized to measure the

quality of the early childhood classroom environment. In

addition, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition

(PPVT-III) was utilized to measure the receptive vocabulary

of children learning English as their second language.

Demographic forms developed by the researcher were

collected from selected teachers and students. Further,

teacher interviews were conducted to elicit information

about the selected teachers' educational beliefs and

instructional practices.

The scores from the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III were

analyzed for a possible relationship. Subscales from the

ECERS-R (i.e ., Space and Furnishings, Personal Care

Routines, Language-Reasoning, Activities, Interactions,

Program Structure, and Parents and Staff) were analyzed to

determine the correlation of the subscales with receptive

vocabulary development. Further, an analysis was run to

101


102

investigate changes in receptive vocabulary scores over the

academic school year. Lastly, the teacher interviews were

coded on an ongoing basis to search for emerging themes in

the data.

Information on the setting and participants, as well

as a rationalization for the procedures utilized for this

study will be described in detail in the following

sections. Finally, the methods selected for the data

analyses will be described.

Design of the Study

The present investigation was a mixed design, pre/post

study. The quantitative portion of the study included data

collected with the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III, as well as

data collected from demographic forms completed by selected

teachers and children. The qualitative data were collected

with semi structured, open-ended individual interviews with

the selected teachers. Quantitative data were analyzed with

correlations, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and t tests.

Qualitative data were analyzed by transcribing and

searching for emerging themes in the data. Preliminary data

were collected with the ECERS-R, PPVT-III, and teacher and

student demographic forms. Individual teacher interviews


103

were also collected during the preliminary data phase. Post

data were collected with the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III.

Procedures

The superintendent of Mt. Pleasant Independent School

District granted permission to conduct the study on the

condition that the results from the study would be shared

with the principal of the selected school. The

superintendent provided a formal letter of approval to

conduct the study (see Appendix A)'. The researcher prepared

a formal protocol and submitted it to the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) at Texas A & M University-Commerce to

request permission to conduct the present study. Along with

the IRB, formal letters of consent for teachers and

students were developed by the researcher and submitted for

approval. The IRB granted permission to conduct the study

via a formal letter (see Appendix B).

During the fall 2005 semester, the principal at the

selected school was contacted for permission. She also

provided a formal letter of approval (see Appendix C). The

principal of the school took the responsibility of sending

and gathering letters of consent from each teacher at the

center (see Appendix D). In addition, the principal of the

school also sent letters home to parents explaining the


study and requesting a letter of consent (see Appendix E).

All letters and consent forms stated that participation in

the study was voluntary, and each individual had a right to

refuse to participate or withdrawal at any time. The

principal of the school collected the demographic forms on

each teacher in the school (see Appendix F). The principal

was involved in this stage of the data collection because

of her familiarity with the staff and parents. Demographic

data on the selected students were obtained by the

researcher from the attendance coordinator of the school

for the present study. Demographic data for selected

students included gender, ethnicity, birth date, and home

language.

Setting and Participants

The site for this study was a child development center

in small, public school district in Texas. This small

community in which this child development center is located

had an estimated population of 15,000 people. Approximately

42% of the population is Anglo, 41% is Hispanic, 16% is

African American, and 1% is Native American. The median income for a household is approximately $29,000, and

approximately 21% of the population lives below the poverty

line. The entire school district serves a total of 5,231


students. Table 1 provides information about the ethnicity

of the children enrolled in the child development center.

Table 1

Distribution of Students Enrolled in the Child Development

Center by Ethnicity

Ethnicity N Percentage

Hispanic 385 65.90

African American 102 17.40

Caucasian 96 16.40

Other 3 .30

Total 586 100.00

Demographic data were provided by the superintendent

of the school district. The child development center housed

586 students in 25 classrooms of Head Start and Pre-

Kindergarten students. The child development center was

located in its own building. The present study was

delimited to classrooms with 4-year-olds. Children's ages

ranged from 4.0-5.6. The children selected for

participation in this study ranged in age from 4.2-5.5

years. There were 286 children enrolled in the 4-year-old

classrooms with the average class size being 19. The child


106

development center housed both Head Start and preschool

classrooms. The early childhood center also included two

half-day preschool classrooms.

According to the Head Start Federal Guidelines

(National Head Start Association, 2005), families are

considered for Head Start when their income is at or below

the national level for poverty, which is currently at about

$19,000 for a family of four. The United States Department

of Agriculture sets the income guidelines for preschool

admittance, which is at or about $29,000. Although

preschool admission is based on this income level, children

who are learning English as their second language are also

eligible for preschool.

There was a process that the school in the present

study followed to place children into Head Start classrooms

or preschool classrooms. Before the 2005-2006 school year,

information was collected by the school district through

application forms submitted by prospective children's

families. The same information was collected on every child

that applied to attend the school. The main information

that school examine was family income. This information was

entered into a computer program through the school. At this

point, the program determined which children were eligible

for Head Start based on income requirements. However,


because of the high numbers of children eligible for Head

Start, the computer also assigned points to children with

highest priorities. For example, children who were from

single parent homes, victims of distress, or families who

receive special services from the Department of Human

Services received points. The children with the highest

points were then placed into Head Start classrooms.

Additionally, federal guidelines mandated that the school

reserved 10% enrollment for children with special needs.

After these children were assigned to Head Start, the

remaining children were placed into preschool programs,

meaning that some children in the preschool classrooms were

also eligible for Head Start. Further, students were

assigned to the two half-day classrooms based on their

parents' request.

Although the present study included classrooms

classified as both Head Start and preschool, there were no

differences in the classrooms according to information

obtained from the school district. The teachers received

the same professional development. In addition, the child

development center utilized the Learning Enrichment

Activities Program (LEAP) curriculum (Carvel-1, 1994). In

this curriculum, the focus is on developing and enhancing

language skills through interaction and multisensory


108

activities. Every teacher in the child development center

was required to utilize this curriculum, and all teachers

received the same preparation and training prior to and

throughout the school year.

All of the classrooms included both teacher directed

and child directed activities. For example, the full day

ESL, PK and Head Start classrooms began the day with table

toys and circle time in which the teacher would lead a

whole group of children in singing songs and movements. The

pledge and calendar activities were also included in circle

time. English was the primary language of instruction in

the ESL classrooms, although in every classroom there was

an educational aide who spoke Spanish and could help

clarify instructions or concepts to the children if needed.

Circle time was followed by breakfast, playground, and

restroom breaks. Center time was the pivotal time period in

the children's day, as this the time of day in which the

teacher was able to conduct informal assessments about the

children's understandings of important concepts from the

week. The centers included activities that allowed the

children to practice the skills that they had been learning

in class. Full day classrooms attended lunch and returned

for a quick circle time. This was followed by naps, which

took up the remainder of the day school day. The full day


bilingual classrooms utilized this same schedule, although

the differences in those classrooms came in the language of

instruction. The present school employed a 50/50 method of

bilingual instruction. The instruction in these classrooms

was conducted in both the child's native language (Spanish)

and English. This difference in the instruction was evident

during circle time especially, when the instruction was

conducted in both languages. Finally, the half day PK

classrooms included the same types of activities as the

full day classrooms, but the duration of the activities was

shortened considerably, as children were only there for

three hours in the morning class or three hours in the

afternoon class. For an example of a half-day and full-day

classroom schedule, see Appendix G.

The present study included 10 randomly selected, ESL

classrooms and the teachers in those classrooms. First,

teachers with less than 3 years of experience were

eliminated from possible selection for participation in the

study. This was done at the request of a school

administrator to minimize distractions in newer teachers'

classrooms. This served as a delimitation of the study. The

remaining teachers were selected for participation in the

study by random sampling. After delimiting for classrooms

with 4-year-olds and teachers with more than three years of


110

teaching experience, there were 16 classrooms left for

possible selection. The teachers' names in these classrooms

were entered into a box and 10 were randomly selected for

participation in the study.

The 10 selected teachers then completed demographic

forms and returned them to the researcher. The selected

teachers submitted information about their years of

teaching experience, ethnicity, and areas of certification.

The demographic data on the selected teachers is presented

in Table 2 which provides detailed information about the

participants' years of teaching experience (n:10).

Table 2

Distribution of the Teachers by Years of Teaching

Experience

Experience f Percentage

3 - 5 Years 3 30

6 - 1 0 Years 4 40

11 - -15 Years 3 30

Total 10 100

Further, demographic data from the teachers who

participated in the study revealed that 8 teachers (80%)

were Caucasian and 2 teachers (20%) were Hispanic.


Ill

Additionally, every teacher (n=10, 100%) included in the

present study had Elementary and Early Childhood

Certification. Some of the teachers held additional

certificates; two teachers (20%) had ESL certification, and

both teachers in the bilingual classrooms (2 0%) had

Bilingual certification. Of the ten selected teachers and

classrooms, eight (80%) of them were ESL classrooms, and

two of them (20%) were Bilingual classrooms.

According to the State Board for Educator

Certification (SBEC) (2006) , there are standards for each

certificate that each teacher has to meet in order to hold

that certificate. For Elementary Early Childhood Education,

teachers must have a basic knowledge in Art, Language Arts,

Health, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, Science,

and Social Studies. Under each area, teachers are expected

to be able to understand and teach certain skills that go

along with that area. Teachers who hold an additional

certificate for Bilingual education are expected to be able

to speak the language in which they are instructing, have

an understanding of the concept of bilingualism, know the

process of both first and second language learning,

understand the growth and assessment of literacy in the

students' primary language, and have a thorough

understanding of content area instruction in the students'


112

first and second languages. Teachers who hold an additional

certificate in English as a Second Language are expected to

be able to understand the conventions and functions of the

English language, know the foundations of ESL learning,

understand the process of first and second language

learning, understand assessments that can best serve ESL

learners, and serve as advocates for ESL education(SBEC,

2006).

In addition, 102 early childhood students who were

learning English as their second language were randomly

selected from the selected 10 classrooms. First, English

language learners were identified as the target population

for the present study. Students' names who did not have

consent to participate in the study were then removed from

possible selection. In addition, a school administrator had

requested that children with identified learning

disabilities were not included in study. After these

adjustments had beeri made, the codes for eligible students

from each classroom were entered into a randomization

website. Then, approximately 12 students were selected from each classroom to obtain approximately 12 0 students needed

for the study. Two classrooms had lower returns on consent

forms, so more students were randomly selected from other

classes. Both males and females were included in this


113

study. Demographic data indicated that there were equal

numbers of males and females selected for participation in

the study. Additionally, demographic data revealed that 101

of the selected students were Hispanic (98%) , and only one

student (2%) was categorized as other than Hispanic.

Home language scores were obtained from the school,

and represented scores from the home language survey. The

home language survey is data that is collected during the

application process for preschool or Head Start, and it is

collected on every child to determine their possible

placement in English language classes. Children from homes

where both English and Spanish were spoken were placed into

ESL classrooms, and children from homes where Spanish was

the sole language are placed into bilingual classrooms.

This information was collected in the student demographic

data that was provided to the researcher by the school

district. Table 3 able shows the breakdown of selected

students by program type.


114

Table 3

Distribution of Selected Students by Program Type

Program

Participant Count

N Percent

Head Start

Bilingual

4 0 0.0

Preschool 30 29.4

Head Start

ESL

12 11.8

Preschool 60 58.8

Instrumentation

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition

The ECERS-R was utilized by the researcher to measure

the quality of the classroom environment. The rating scale

has $n overall internal consistency of .92. Individual

subscales had internal consistencies ranging from .71 to

.92 (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998). This scale was

designed for use in settings with children ages 2M to 5

years. The scale consisted of broad categories pertaining

to the environment such as spatial, programmatic, and

interpersonal features that could affect the students and


115

teachers in the early childhood classroom. Under these

categories, there are seven subscales: Space and

Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language-Reasoning,

Activities, Interaction, Program Structure, and Parents and

Staff. The items are rated from 1 (Inadequate) to 7

(Excellent), based on the evidence of each indicator within

the subscale. This scale was designed to rate the

environment, not the individual child.

The accompanying user's manual provided notes and

clarifications as to what each indicator should look like,

thus minimizing bias in the scoring of the rating scale.

The scale was scored by following the scoring system of the

scale carefully. The rating scale provided detailed

instructions on scoring each item and subscales. To obtain

a score for the items, the researcher followed the

guidelines provided in the user's manual. To obtain a

subscale score, the sum of the item scores was divided by

the number of items scored. Finally, a final mean scale

score was obtained by taking the sum of all item scores for

the whole scales and divided by the number of items scores.

Although there are 43 items in the scale, it is

possible for this number to be reduced. For example, Item

11 (Naps/Rest), and some preschool programs do not offer

naps for the children. Additionally, Item 2 7 (Use of TV,


116

video, and/or computers), Item 37 (Provisions for children

with disabilities), Item 41 (Staff interaction and

cooperation) and Item 42 (Supervision and evaluation of

staff) can also be marked "NA." If any of these items were

not a part of the program, this item would be marked "NA"

and would not be counted in the total items scored.

Therefore, the final ECERS-R score for each classroom would

include scores for each subscale as well as a total mean

scale score for the entire rating scale.

All About the ECERS-R (Cryer, Harms, & Riley, 2003)

was consulted for clarifications throughout the

administration of the rating scale. This book provided

detailed information regarding scoring the items in the

scale and photographs to provide a visual representation of

aspects of the classrooms. After the researcher completed

the scoring of the scale, all of the scales were sent to a

data coordinator employed by the Head Start of Greater

Dallas. The data coordinator has extensive knowledge and

experience with the scoring of the ECERS-R, and verified

the accuracy of the scores based on the indicators checked

by the researcher.

This scale was originally developed in 198 0, and has

been used extensively in the field of early childhood

education. Harms, Clifford, and Cryer (1998) noted that the


117

validity of the revised instrument maintained the

predictive validity of the original version of the

instrument, which was well established. The extensive

studies utilizing the ECERS and ECERS-R gave the authors of

the instrument valuable information on the validity of the

instrument (Burchinal, Howes, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2002;

Burchinal et al., 2000; Diaz, Arthur, Beecher, McNaught,

2000; Helburn, Culkin, Morris, & Clifford, 1995).

The researcher attended three professional training

seminars to learn how to utilize and administer the ECERS-

R. The training sessions were designed to teach

participants how to score items. These training sessions

targeted scoring through hands-on training activities, in

which the participants first watched videos to score the

items, and then moved into actual classroom settings. The

training also consisted of discussions when the

participants came back together to discuss concerns and

questions that arose during the administrations of the

rating scale.

The rating scale was administered by the researcher,

through observations in each classroom. Completion of this

scale took a minimum of two hours per observational

setting. This instrument required the researcher to observe

the classroom setting, to score each indicator, and to


118

interview the classroom teacher on items that were not

observed in class.

Collection of baseline data for the ECERS-R occurred

in October and November of 2005, and post data collection

for the ECERS-R occurred in April of 2006. Further details

on the administration of the rating scale will be described

in Chapter 4.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition

The PPVT-III was utilized to measure the receptive

vocabulary of the child participants. The PPVT-III has an

internal consistency range of .61 to .81. Additionally, the

instrument had a test-retest range of .91 to .94 (Dunn &

Dunn, 1997). Administration of the test requires 10-20

minutes and is used to measure receptive vocabulary in

English. The test was designed for subjects 2M years of age

and older.

Participants are asked to identify the picture that

corresponds to the word stimulus presented by the examiner.

Dunn and Dunn noted that revisions were designed to

minimize sex and ethnic stereotyping in the third edition.

The PPVT-III is scored by determining a basal set for the

child. This is the lowest set in which the child made one

or no errors. In addition, a ceiling set is also obtained.

This is done by identifying the set in which the child


119

makes eight or more errors. The number of errors is then

calculated within the two sets to obtain a raw score, and

the Norms Booklet that accompanied the PPVT-III is

consulted to find the standard score with a mean of 100 and

a standard deviation of 15. To accomplish this task, the

researcher must cross reference the chronological age of

the child with the raw score to find the standard score for

each child. Dunn and Dunn (1997) noted that the validity of

the PPVT-III has been well established both qualitatively

and quantitatively. The PPVT-III has been used in numerous

studies since its latest revision.

The researcher underwent professional training to

administer the PPVT-III. The training consisted of an

overview of the instrument, administration and scoring

procedures, and actual field practice utilizing the PPVT-

III. Additionally, the researcher had the opportunity to

score the protocols and verify the scoring with the

trainer. This provided the researcher with a thorough

understanding of the instrument, and how to administer and

score the PPVT-III. According to an educational publishing

company known as American Guidance Service (AGS, 2006):

A central principle of professional test use is that

individuals should use only those tests for which they

have the appropriate training and expertise. AGS


120

publishing supports this principle by stating

qualifications for the use of particular tests, [sic]

and selling tests to individuals only if they have

those qualifications. (AGS, para. 1)

Further, according to the guidelines of AGS, an individual

must qualify as a Level B test administrator in order to

purchase and administer the PPVT-III. According to AGS

Publishing, a Level B test administrator is a "User [who]

has completed graduate training in measurement, guidance,

individual psychological assessment, or special appraisal

methods appropriate for a particular test" (AGS). The

researcher has undergone training and met the

qualifications as a Level B test administrator. This

confirmation was provided in writing from AGS Publishing to

the researcher prior to the purchase of the PPVT-III (See

Appendix G).

The PPVT-III was administered to individual children

by the researcher using parallel testing forms A and B.

Testing form A was used for baseline data, and testing form

B was used for final data collection. Collection of baseline data for the PPVT-III occurred during November and

December of 2005, and final data collection for the PPVT-

III occurred during May of 2006. At the conclusion of

scoring the PPVT-III, the testing forms were sent to the


121

data coordinator for the Greater Dallas Head Start. The

data coordinator also has extensive knowledge and

experience with the PPVT-III and verified the scores of

each individual testing form.

Teacher Interviews

Semi structured interviews with open-ended questions

were conducted individually with each of the ten

participating teachers during November of 2005. Researchers

have concluded that teachers are often unable to articulate

their teaching beliefs that reflect in teaching practices

(Cassidy & Lawrence, 2000; Schon, 1983). However, Rimm-

Kaufman et al. (2006) noted that although teachers' beliefs

may not directly influence practice, they do provide a

framework for understanding, organizing, and most

importantly, informing practice.

The researcher utilized semi structured, open-ended

interviews (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). In this type of an

interview, predetermined questions were asked to elicit

thoughts and feelings about the teachers' instructional

practices. In a semi structured interview, the same set of

questions is asked to each participant, and additional

questions can be asked to probe for further information.

The researcher developed the questions based on information


122

from previous research (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). The

questions that guided the interview were:

1. What do you see as the most important objectives

of preschool? Why?

2. What activities do you typically do during group

time? Why?

3. What activities do you typically prepare for

centers? Why?

4. How do you support the language development of

young children?


non-English speakers?

6. In what ways do you support children's

development of literacy skills such as reading

and writing?

Collection of Data

After the researcher had obtained permission to

conduct the study in the child development center from the

principal via a formal letter of approval, the researcher

visited the school in person and explained the details of

the study to the principal and teachers. The researcher

left an information packet for each teacher that included

information about the instruments that would be used, times


123

for data collection, and a consent form. The principal of

the school collected the consent forms from all of the

teachers. One hundred percent of the consent forms were

returned from the teachers at the child development center

with consent to participate in the study. In addition, the

principal sent formal letters to the parents requesting

consent for their children to participate in the study. The

principal also aided in collection of the consent forms.

Eighty one percent of consent forms for students were

returned.

Quantitative Data Collection

Preliminary Data Collection

Preliminary data collection occurred during the fall

of 2005. Because of the schedule of the researcher, it was

only possible to conduct research at the child development

center three days a week. The ECERS-R was conducted first.

Individual children were then administered the PPVT-III.

Additionally, individual teacher interviews were conducted

during the initial phase of data collection.

During October and November 2 005, the researcher began

collecting data on classroom quality with the ECERS-R. This

instrument required the researcher to observe in each

classroom. The order of the observations was based on

recommendations from the school principal. Each teacher was


124

notified a week before the observation took place. The

observations in each classroom lasted between three to four

hours.

The researcher arrived early on the morning of the

observation for each classroom. The researcher arrived at

7:30 to be set up in an obscure corner of the room to

minimally disrupt the daily routines in the classroom. In

addition, subscale number 7 (Parents and Staff) has an

indicator that rates parent and student greetings upon

arriving in the classroom. Therefore, it was necessary to

actually see the students arrive with their parents first

thing in the morning. While the children were out of the

classroom for any time, the researcher completed items that

required counts such as books in the library, art

materials, and center materials. Further, the researcher

visited the class during lunch and recess, as some items

required observing these settings for scoring.

Additionally, the rating scale required the researcher to

interview the classroom teacher to obtain any information

that was not observed during the course of the observation.

Because of the time constraints within the day, 8 of the

teachers' agreed to participate in the interviews during

their lunch period, when the children were napping. These 8

teachers were both Head Start and Preschool teachers. Two


125

teachers' classrooms were half day preschool classes, and

did not participate in nap time. Their interviews were

conducted during their lunch, the break between their

morning class and their afternoon class. The interviews for

the ECERS-R lasted between 30 and 45 minutes.

The researcher concluded preliminary data collection

with the ECERS-R in early November. At the conclusion of

the observations and interviews required for the ECERS-R,

the researcher began administering the PPVT-III Test Form A

to individual children from the classes. Before the test

was administered, demographic data obtained from school was

recorded on each testing form. This included the child's

code, gender, birth date, and home language. Further, the

testing date was included and was used to calculate the

chronological age of each child.

This administration lasted from November to December

2005. The test was administered in a conference room at the

request of a school administrator. The test consisted of

pictures for the child to identify after a word stimulus

was given by the researcher. The researcher visited

classrooms during the daily center rotations to be

minimally disruptive to the rest of the class. Because the

conference room was down the hall from the classrooms, the

researcher was able to talk with each child and establish a


rapport with them before the beginning of the test. At the

onset of the test, the child was shown two practice sets to

identify. This allowed the researcher to explain the test

and show the child how to point to each picture. Many

children, particularly during the initial data collection,

were withdrawn and reluctant to interact. The researcher

utilized knowledge of preschool children who were learning

English as their second language to encourage them to

interact and participate. In addition, stickers were

provided for the children at the conclusion of the test.

Final Data Collection

The final data collection efforts ran more smoothly

than the preliminary data collection efforts. In addition,

the final data collection efforts took much less time. The

researcher was better organized and the experience of the

preliminary data collection efforts served as a learning

experience to guide the final data collection efforts. The

researcher returned for final data collection in April and

May 2006. The teachers' classrooms were revisited in the

same order as in the preliminary data collection. In April,

the ECERS-R was administered in each class. The PPVT-III

was administered individually to child participants in May.


The ECERS-R was administered for final data collection

in April. This was conducted to measure the stability of

the quality of the classroom environment throughout the

course of the academic school year, and to find any changes

that may have occurred. The teachers were visited in the

same order as in the preliminary data collection. This was

done to make sure that the same amount of time had passed

between each collection for each teacher. The researcher

again arrived early on the mornings of observation, scored

the items in the classrooms, and conducted the teacher

interviews that were scheduled the same day as the

observation at a time that was convenient for each teacher.

The scale was again sent to- the data coordinator at the

Head Start of Greater Dallas for verification of the

scoring.

The PPVT-III was administered to individual children

in May. The researcher administered the final test using

Test Form B. As opposed to the preliminary administration

of the PPVT-III, the children were more engaged and more

willing to interact with the researcher. The final test was

administered in a conference room, as was the preliminary

test. The final administration of the PPVT-III was

conducted to have an accurate view of the growth of the


128

receptive vocabulary of the children over the course of the

academic school year.

Qualitative Data Collection

Teacher interviews aimed at eliciting thoughts and

feelings about teachers' instructional practices were

conducted during November 2005. Because of time constraints

and the busy daily schedules of the teachers, scheduling

time to conduct the interviews was challenging. The

teachers agreed to meet at the conclusion of their day,

after the children were gone and everything was taken care

of for the following day. Although the teachers' official

conference period was from 3:00-3:45, some of the

interviews began late and ran past 3:45.

The interviews were conducted in the hallway, outside

the teachers' classrooms. Outside each classroom, there was

a small conference table used for working with individual

children. The researcher utilized these tables to conduct

the interviews. Although the interviews were conducted

outside the classrooms, the environment was quiet and

teachers were attentive to the researcher. The interviews were recorded with an electronic recording device. Each

teacher was asked a pre determined, open-ended question,

followed up with probing questions such as "why" and "how."


129

These interviews were transcribed and coded on an ongoing

basis to search for emerging themes and codes.

Data Analysis

Data collected were analyzed using both quantitative

$nd qualitative analysis. Data collected from the ECERS-R

and the PPVT-III were analyzed using Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a statistical software

program for quantitative analysis. Three types of

quantitative analyses were employed. Correlational analysis

was used to investigate whether a relationship existed

between the composite scores and subscale scores on the

ECERS-R and the student scores on the PPVT-III. An ANOVA

was used to investigate changes in the pre- and post-scores

on the PPVT-III. In addition, paired sample t tests were

used to investigate any changes in the composite scores on

the ECERS-R over the course of the school year.

The qualitative portion of the data, teacher

interviews, was coded on an ongoing basis to look for

themes in the data. Descriptive analysis was utilized to

describe the data collected during teacher interviews.

Interviews were transcribed and coded to search for

emerging themes that identified the teachers' beliefs and

instructional practices. The qualitative analysis of the


130

study was guided by the work of Creswell (1998) and Rubin

and Rubin (2005). These authors helped to clarify the

process of qualitative interviewing by explaining the

transcription and coding of interviews. This process

involved transcribing each interview as it occurred, and

then searching through the transcriptions for recurring

themes. The themes emerged from the data, and were used to

organize and provide a framework for the data obtained from

the interviews.

Summary

This chapter described the method and procedures

necessary to determine whether a relationship existed

between the early childhood classroom quality and the

receptive vocabulary development of young children who were

learning English as their second language. The ECERS-R

measured the quality of the classroom quality of the ten,

classrooms selected for participation in this study. The

scale focused on seven subscales: Space and Furnishings,

Personal Care Routines, Language-Reasoning, Activities,

Interactions, Program Structure, and Parents and Staff. In

addition, the PPVT-III measured the receptive vocabulary

development of young, ELLs. Further, teacher interviews

were conducted to obtain information about the teachers'

instructional practices; Demographic data on teacher


131

attributes (i.e., ethnicity, years of experience,

certification areas) and student attributes (i.e., gender,

home language) were collected and used for descriptive

purposes to help the reader understand the sample utilized

in the present study.

Given the changing demographics of public schools, and

the increasing pressures to increase the quality of

educational experiences from the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), educators

have the task of searching for ways to improve instruction

for all students. This study can provide information to

help guide future' instruction and educational experiences

to best enable the students in public schools to become

academically successful.


CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

This study investigated the possible relationship

between the quality of the early childhood classroom

environment and the receptive vocabulary development of

young children learning English as their second language.

Ten randomly selected classrooms were measured for

classroom quality with the Early Childhood Environment

Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ECERS-R), and the receptive

vocabulary development of 102 randomly selected children

was measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third

Edition (PPVT-III). The scores on the ECERS-R and the

scores on the PPVT-III were analyzed to explore a possible

relationship between the two variables. Additional analyses

were run to explore changes in ECERS-R scores and PPVT-III

scores from fall to spring.

Data were collected during the 2005-2006 school year.

Data sources for the study included the ECERS-R, PPVT-III,

Teacher Interviews, and Teacher/Child Demographic Forms.

The scores from the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III were sent to a

data coordinator to verify the accuracy of the scoring

prior to being entered into an Excel spread sheet.

Demographic data from the teacher and child demographic

forms were entered into an Excel spread sheet. All

132


quantitative data was then transferred and analyzed using

SPSS statistical software package. The main analyses

utilized for the quantitative data are outlined below and

described in further detail in this chapter. Correlational

analysis was used to investigate the possible relationship

between the composite scores and subscale scores on the

ECERS-R and the student scores on the PPVT-III. An Analysis

of Variance (AISTOVA) was run to explore the possible changes

in scores on the receptive vocabulary test from fall to

spring. Finally, paired sample t tests were run to

investigate any changes in classroom quality that occurred

over the academic school year. According to Gall, Gall, and

Borg (2003) acceptable levels of significance for the

social sciences is normally <.05 or <.001. For the present

study, all quantitative data were analyzed at the .05 level

of significance. For the qualitative data, teacher

interviews were transcribed and coded to search for

emerging themes. Creswell (1998) and Rubin and Rubin (2005)

provided the framework for analyzing the qualitative data.

Treatment of the Data

Before the data was entered into SPSS and analyzed,

the researcher conducted a raw screening of the data. A

pre- and post-test was conducted to measure the stability


134

of the quality of the classroom environment over the course

of the academic school year. In addition, six of the 102

children moved during the school year, resulting in the

attrition rate of six percent. Also, one child was not

testable during the final phase of data collection. The

PPVT-III scores from these seven children were not used in

the analyses, resulting in 95 PPVT-III scores being used

for analyses.

Analysis Results

Classroom Quality

Research Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be no

significant changes in the overall quality of the classroom

over the course of the academic school year. The mean

composite ECERS-R score for all the classrooms for the fall

semester was 5.44 with a standard deviation of .41, and the

mean composite ECERS-R score for the spring semester was

5.38 with a standard deviation of .31. The total composite

ECERS-R scores for each teacher were moderately high in

both the fall and the spring semesters with a range of

4.60-6.12 in the fall, and 4.93-5.88 in the spring.

Because the present study collected both pre- and

post-data with the ECERS-R to measure the consistency of

the quality of the environment, a paired sample t test was

conducted to evaluate whether changes in the quality of the


135

classroom occurred over the course of the academic school

year. The results indicated that the mean for the pre-

ECERS-R (M= 5.44, SD= .414) was not significantly greater

than the post-ECERS-R (M= 5.38, SD= .314), t(9)= .611, p=

.556. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference

between the two ratings was .165 to .287. Thus, no

significant changes occurred in the overall quality of the

classroom environment over the academic school year.

The ECERS-R consisted of seven subscales (i.e., Space

and Furnishings, Personal Care Routines, Language-

Reasoning, Activities, Interactions, Program Structure, and

Parents and Staff) that are rated to obtain the total

composite score for the scale. Space and Furnishings rated

areas of the classroom utilized during routines such as

meals/snacks, play, and instructional activities. Personal

Care Routines rated regular occurrences throughout the day

such as greetings, nap/rest, toileting, and health/safety

practices. Language Reasoning rated the availability of

books and pictures, teachers' encouragement of

communication, and the use of informal language in the

classroom. Activities rated routines such as fine motor,

art, music, blocks, sand/water, dramatic play, science, and

math. Interaction rated supervision of children,

discipline, and child/staff interactions. Program Structure


rated scheduling, free play, and group time. Parents and

Staff rated provisions, staff interaction, and

supervision/evaluation of staff. Paired sample t tests were

utilized to investigate whether any changes occurred in

mean subscale scores over the course of the academic school

year. Further, paired sample t tests were utilized to

investigate differences in the individual subscale scores

from fall to spring. Table 4 represents the mean subscale

scores, standard deviations, and results from the paired

sample t tests.


137

Table 4

Distribution of ECERS-R Mean Subscale Scores

M SD t P

Subscale Fall Spring Fall Spring

1. Space and

Furnishings 5.34 4 . 93 .44 .41 3 . 04 0.014*

2. Personal Care

Routines 5.14 4.99 .96 .81 0.98 0 .351

3 . Language

Reasoning 4 . 63 4.40 .90 1.05 0.69 0.510

4. Activities 4 . 70 4.56 .76 .36 0.52 0 . 615

5. Interaction 6.20 6.76 1. 01 .47 -2 .23 0 . 053

6. Program

Structure 5.63 5.81 1. 02 1.22 00in01 0.575

7. Parents and

Staff 6 . 92 6.98 .26 .05 -1. 00 0.343

* Significant at .05

Results from the paired sample t tests revealed that

that the subscale Space and Furnishings was the only

subscale with significant differences between fall and

spring, t(9)= 3.04, p= .014, with the 95% confidence


interval between the subscales mean differences being .105

and .719. There are eight items under Space and

Furnishings, and includes indicators such as the furniture

in the classroom, the spacing of classroom items, and

lighting and ventilation. The findings indicate that this

subscale had significant changes over the course of the

year. Specifically, there were five classrooms that

received lower scores in the spring under item 5 (Space for

privacy). This item rated whether areas for privacy were

available, the time the privacy areas were available to

children, and whether specific activities were set up for

children to use in privacy areas. This finding indicated

that more privacy areas were available and for more time in

the fall semester than in the spring semester. This

indicated that some teachers had decreased time available

or eliminated privacy areas from the classrooms.

Additionally, three classrooms received lower scores in the

spring for items 3 (Furnishings for relaxation), 6 (Child-

related display) , and 8 (Gross motor equipment) .

The changes in the remaining six subscale scores

(i.e., Space and Furnishings, Personal Care Routines,

Language-Reasoning, Activities, Interactions, Program

Structure, and Parents and Staff) were not significant.

Although there was one subscale with significant


139

differences, these findings indicated that there were no

significant changes in the overall quality of the

classrooms from fall to spring, and research Hypothesis 1

failed to be rejected.

PPVT-III


significant in student scores on the PPVT-III over the

course of the academic school year. Selected students were

administered the PPVT-III to examine their receptive

vocabulary in English in the fall and spring semesters. As

explained in the treatment of data section of this paper,

95 children's PPVT-III scores were used for analyses in the

present study.

Standard mean scores on the post PPVT-III were higher

for all classrooms with the exception one. It is important

to note that PPVT-III standard scores were used for

analyses, since these scores have been adjusted for ages

with the mean being 100, SD= 15. The fall standard class

mean scores ranged from 50.54-82.83, (M= 70.24, SD= 18.66).

The children in these classes ranged in age from 4.2 to 5.5

years. The spring standard class mean scores ranged from

60.94-94.10, (M= 76.69, SD= 19.04). The children in these

classrooms had aged over the semester and ranged in age


from 4.7 to 5.11 years. This change from fall to spring

indicated that the mean scores on the PPVT-III for the

classrooms had increased by 6.45 points. To explore the

whether a significant change occurred in overall student

scores on the PPVT-III from fall to spring, an ANOVA was

utilized for the analyses. The ANOVA indicated that there

was a significant difference in mean PPVT-III scores from

fall to spring, F(l,94)= 21.71, p=.000. Therefore, research

Hypothesis 2 was rejected. For descriptive purposes,

student scores were also computed and broken down by the

types of classrooms. Table 5 provides detailed information

about students' scores on the PPVT-III.


141

Table 5

One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for Student Scores on

the PPVT-III

M SD______ F £

Fall Spring Fall Spring

Overall 70 .33 76.51 18.71 19.02 21.72 . 000*

Bilingual 54 . 83 61.24 13 .76 16.11 7 .12 . 013*

ESL 77 . 04 83.12 16 . 50 16 .23 14 .41 . 000*

Half-Day 57 . 63 66.50 17.18 16 .11 13 .31 . 001*

Full-Day 74 .57 79.85 17.32 18 . 84 11.36 . 001*

* Significant at p^ .05


significant relationship between the composite score on the

ECERS-R and student scores on the PPVT-III. Initially, data

obtained from the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III were checked to

meet the assumptions for running a bivariate correlational

analyses. The data were checked for normal distribution by

using a scatter plot, and they were also determined to be

independent of each other. Because the assumptions were

met, correlation coefficients were computed between the

composite scores on the ECERS-R and the students' final


standard mean PPVT-III scores. A p value of less than .05

was required for significance. The results of the

correlational analyses indicated that composite scores on

the classroom quality scale were found to have a

significant negative correlation with mean scores on the

receptive vocabulary test, r(94)= -0.382, p= .000. In

general, the results suggested that if scores on the

classroom quality scales were high, the mean scores on the

receptive vocabulary test tended to be lower. Therefore,

research Hypothesis 3 was rejected.


significant relationship between the aspects of the

environment (i.e., Space and Furnishings, Personal Care

Routines, Language-Reasoning, Activities, Interactions,

Program Structure, and Parents and Staff subscales from the

classroom quality rating scale) and student scores on the

receptive vocabulary test. A correlational analysis was run

to explore the possible relationships between post

individual mean subscale scores and post scores on the

PPVT-III. Specifically, the subscales Language-Reasoning

and Interaction were the focus, as these subscales have

been found to have a positive relationship with receptive

vocabulary scores (ACYF, 2003). Results from the


143

correlational analyses for individual subscales are

displayed in Table 6.

Table 6

Correlations among the ECERS-R Subscales and Children's

Scores on the PPVT-III

Subscales PPVT-III p

Space and Furnishings -0,.229 0 .. 026

Personal Care Routines -0 ,.231 0 .. 024

Language Reasoning -0 ,.403 0 .. 000*

Activities -0 ,.346 0 .. 001*

Interaction -0 .. 039 0 .. 706

Program Structure 0 .. 031 0.,901

Parents and Staff - 0 ..315 0 ., 002*

* Significant at p^ .007

Correlation coefficients were computed among the seven

ECERS-R subscales and children's scores on the post PPVT-

III. Using the Bonferroni method to control for Type I

errors across the correlations, a p value of less than .007

was required for significance (.05/7). The results of the

correlational analyses presented in Table 6 show that three

out of seven correlations were statistically significant


and were greater than or equal to .32. The subscales that

showed a statistically negative significance were Language

Reasoning, Activities, and Parents and Staff, r(94)= -.403,

p= .000; r (94)= -.346, p= .001; and r(94)= -.315, p= .002,

respectively. These subscales were negatively correlated,

meaning that in general, the higher the subscale scores,

the lower the PPVT-III scores. The results indicated that

the subscales Space and Furnishings, Personal Care,

Interaction, and Program Structure were not significantly

correlated with PPVT-III scores. Because three of the seven

subscales were found to be significant at the p^.05 level,

research Hypothesis 4 failed to be rejected.

For descriptive purposes, and because the subscales

Language-Reasoning and Activities were negatively

correlated with PPVT-III scores, and were of particular

interest to the present study, the following tables show

the subscales along with the fall and spring means and

standard deviations for specific items. The information

provides a clear depiction of the classroom environment in

terms of two subscales that have items that may be related

to vocabulary development. Table 7 shows the scores for the

subscale Language-Reasoning, along with the items under

that subscale.


145

Table 7

Language-Reasoning Subscale and Item Scores from ECERS-R

Items Fall

M

Spring Fall

SD

Spring

1. Books and pictures 5.2 4.3j 1. 55 .95

2. Encouraging children

to communicate 5.8 5.5 1.32 1.58

3. Using language to

develop reasoning skills 3.2 3.6 1.81 1.26

4. Informal use of language 4.3 4.2 1. 06 1. 75

The information depicted in table 7 shows that "Using

language to develop reasoning skills" was "moderate" for

both the fall and spring. Since this item rates aspects

related to develop language such as talking about logical

relationships and using reasoning throughout the day, it

was of particular interest. Also, although slightly higher,

Informal use of language was also "moderate" in both the

fall and spring. This item rated aspects such as staff-

child conversations and encouraging children to ask

questions and provide more complex answers. These findings

indicated that the classrooms in the present study,

although overall were "good," may need improvement in these


146

important areas that could contribute to vocabulary

development of children. Additionally, Table 8 shows the

scores for the subscale Activities, along with the items

under that subscale.

Table 8

Activities Subscale and Item Scores from ECERS-R

Items Fall

M

Spring Fall

SD

Spring

1. Fine Motor 5.2 4.6 1.55 1.26

2 . Art 4.5 3.8 1.78 .42

3. Music/movement 3.7 3 . 7 1.56 . 95

4. Blocks 4.8 4.2 1. 03 .63

5. Sand/water 6.1 6 . 0 .32 . 00

6. Dramatic play 4 . 7 3 . 9 1. 16 .32

7. Nature/science 3.4 3 . 9 1.65 .32

8. Math/number 4 .1 4 . 0 . 74 . 00

9. Use of TV, video,

and/or computers 6.4 7.0 1. 58 . 00

10.Promoting acceptance

of diversity 4 .1 4.5 .32 1.08


;<As shown in Table 8, "Fine motor," "Sand/water," and

"Use of TV, video, and/or computers" were "good." This

indicated strengths in these areas. "Music/movement" and

"Nature/science" were "moderate" in both the fall and

spring semesters. "Music/movement" rated aspects of the

environment such as music materials available to children

and music available as both a free choice and group

activity. According the ECERS-R, early childhood classrooms

need to have musical experiences available for children. As

indicated in Table 8, however, the majority of classrooms

lacked in "Music/movement" indicators needed to score

"good" or "excellent." Additionally, "Nature/science" rated

aspects such as developmentally appropriate games from at

least two science or nature categories daily and

nature/science activities that require more input from

staff. As indicated in Table 8, this was also an item that

scored only "moderate" in both the fall and spring

semesters. Because activities that teachers provide can

help to enhance the learning environment, the subscale

Activities and its individual items were important to this

study. These findings indicated that in the present study,

classrooms may need improvement in these areas to best

enhance learning and possibly vocabulary growth.


148

Qualitative Data Analysis

Ten classroom teachers were interviewed during the

preliminary data phase, and they provided comments and

responses about their teaching beliefs and instructional

practices. Descriptive analysis was utilized to organize

the findings from the qualitative portion of the data, and

was guided by the analyses suggestions of Creswell (1998)

and Rubin and Rubin (2005) . Because the purpose of this

study was to examine the receptive vocabulary of selected

children, the information collected in the interviews was

connected to students' scores on the receptive vocabulary

test. Connections were also made to the mean ECERS-R1

subscale scores in which some of the instructional

practices indicated in the responses may have appeared.

Scores for the subscales were rated on a seven point scale

(1= Inadequate, 3= Minimal, 5= Good, 7= Excellent).

Structured interviews with open-ended questions (Gall,

Gall, & Borg, 2003) were utilized in this study. The

questions were developed by the researcher, and were

conducted to elicit teachers' feelings about their instructional practices and beliefs about teaching young

children. The following questions were used in the

interviews that were conducted individually with each

teacher:


149

1. What do you see as the most important objectives

of preschool? Why?

2. What activities do you typically do during group

time? Why?

3. What activities do you typically prepare for

centers? Why?


young children?


non-English speakers?

6. In what ways do you support children's

development of literacy skills such as reading and

writing?

What do you see as the most important objectives of

preschool? Why?

Ten teachers responded to question 1 (n =10). The

following codes were identified as themes in this interview

question: Social Interaction; Kindergarten

Preparation/Academic Skills; Supportive Environment;

Creating Independence; and Other. Of the 10 responses to the question, 100% (n =10) of the responses included an

answer that focused on social development. Responses such

as "learning how to work in groups, and learning how to

communicate"; "social skills-kids come to school with very


150

little social skills at all"; "Socialization"; and "Kids

have to learn social skills- they need to be able to work

together" guided the development of the theme Social

Development.

Of the responses, 80% focused on Kindergarten

Preparation and Academic Skills (n =8). Responses that

guided the development of this theme included: "I hope that

children are prepared for kindergarten, as well as meeting

the standards that we have to meet"; "...we are helping them

to develop the skills that they will need to be successful

in kindergarten" ; "vocabulary...and background knowledge...

this will help to prepare them for kindergarten"; and "we

have the responsibility to prepare these children for

kindergarten." Because background knowledge is an integral

part of learning vocabulary (Ewers & Brownson, 1999) this

response was seen as important, and may have contributed to

the growth in vocabulary from fall to spring. The ECERS-R •

subscale Activities (M =4.56) included indicators that

rated instructional practices related to the development of

background knowledge.Of the responses, 4 0% focused on providing a

Supportive Environment (n =4). Some of the responses that

helped to develop this theme were: "to teach kids and to be

loving"; "developing a positive attitude about school... it


151

is sometimes up to us to provide a positive environment for

them and to help them become comfortable in the school

setting"; and "I see the most important goal to be

providing a secure, confident setting so that children will

want to come to school... opportunities to learn in a safe

place."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Creating Independence

as the most important goal of preschool (n =20). Responses

included: "creating independence and self-help skills" and

"they need to learn to take care of themselves."

Of the responses, 30% focused on Other topics (n =3).

These responses focused on separate topics and were not

identified as a specific category or theme. Responses in

this category included: "we need to teach kids how to solve

problems"; "develop an imagination"; and "fine motor

skills."

What activities do you typically do during group time? Why?

Ten teachers responded to question 2. The following

themes were developed based on the responses to the

questions: Academics/Cognitive Skills, Fine/Gross Motor

Development, Curriculum, and Other. Of the responses to

question 2, 100% focused on Academic or Cognitive Skills (n

=10). Responses that guided the development of this theme

included: "we work on attendance (math), calendar, sounds,


and letter recognition"; "early reading skills"; "oral

language development"; "we work on vocabulary, letter

recognition, word identification, reading, ABCs, phonemic

awareness, rhyming, singing..."; and "it's a time for me to

review and reflect, and to help me to plan what we learned

and what we didn't get to." This theme could be seen as an

important indicator of the receptive vocabulary growth from

fall to spring as well, as many of the responses focused

around building early literacy skills, which encompasses

vocabulary development. The ECERS-R subscales in which

these responses may have been reflected in practice include

Activities (M= 4.56), Interaction (M= 6.76), and Parents

and Staff (M= 6.98). The mean subscale scores indicated

that teachers likely were implementing the instructional

practices that their responses indicated.

Of the responses, 3 0% focused on Fine/Gross Motor

Development (n =3). Responses that guided the development

of this theme included: "ball toss, dance, movement, music

and rhythm"; and "things that help children develop fine

and gross motor skills that are goals for Preschool and Head Start."

Of the responses, 3 0% focused on Curriculum as a large

group activity (n =3). For example, teachers had theI

following responses to the question: "These activities are


153

based on our curriculum"; and "we use many of the

activities presented in the curriculum (LEAP). There are

certain things that each child has to know, and some of

these are worked in during group time."

Of the responses, 3 0% focused on Other topics (n =3).

Examples of responses included: "I use methods from Reading

Recovery like clapping out the words and counting the

syllables"; and "I base my group time on the needs of the

children."

What activities do you typically prepare for centers? Why?

Ten teachers responded to question 3. The following

themes were developed based on the responses to the

question: Social Interaction, Academics/Cognitive Skills,

Fine/Gross Motor Development, Curriculum, Assessments, and

Other. Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Social Interaction

(n =2). Responses that guided the development of this theme

included: "the goal of the centers is for children to... play

alongside each other"; and "some children are only children

at home, and these children may not know how to function

with other children. This makes it very important for me to build social skills."

Of the responses, 100% focused on Academic or

Cognitive Skills (n =10). Responses included: "these areas

are built to help them [children] work on concepts from


154

science and math to writing and reading"; "we do science,

math, writing, ABCs sand/water, dramatic play, and library

centers"; and "I see it as an opportunity for children to

practice what we are learning."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Fine/Gross Motor

Development (n =2). This theme was developed based on the

following responses: "The other centers help children with

skills such as fine/gross motor development like the art

and block center"; and "Gross motor development is very

important and a big part of our centers."

Of the responses, 80% focused on the Curriculum as

activities for center time (n =8). Responses that guided

the development of this theme included: "we provide these

based on the current LEAP themes and the Head Start

guidelines for children"; "During our center time, I

promote the goals of preschool and Head Start"; and "the

materials [in the centers] are rotated according to LEAP."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Other topics (n =2).

Responses to the question were: "we use the Dial III to

help us guide what we put into our centers"; and "more

listening activities need to be added."


155

How do you support the language development of young

children?

The following themes were identified based on the

responses to question 4: Exposure/Experiences, Expression,

Value, Modeling, Reinforcements, ESL, Native Language

Development, and Individualized Instruction. Of the

responses, 40% focused on Exposure or Experiences when

supporting the language development of children (n =4).

Responses included: "Language posters and pictures of fall

things... environmental print, word wall, and symbol charts";

"Experiences are necessary for them to learn. If they do

not have experiences, I have to provide them"; and "they

need something to connect it to- real life experiences."

Of the responses, 30% focused on Expression (n =3).

Responses that guided the development of this theme

included: "I am trying to get them to use their language...

to communicate"; and "to be able to express their thoughts

and feelings through their language." These responses might

have had an influence on the growth in vocabulary from fall

to spring. In addition, these responses were likely

reflected in the subscale Language-Reasoning (M =4.40), in

which teachers encourage children to use language and

develop reasoning skills.


156

Of the responses, 30% focused on Value (n =3).

Responses included: "the more that we give them, the more

empowered they will be"; and "they need to know what they

say and how it is important."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Modeling (n =2).

Responses included: "I use lots of modeling for them"; and

"I do a lot of modeling, especially for second language

learners."

The remaining categories each had only one response,

but were noteworthy and therefore deserved a theme of its

own. One teacher's response focused on Reinforcements. She

said: "I also reinforce their language attempts, because we

want them to use the language that they have." Another

teacher's response focused on ESL. Her response was: "we

have a specific time set aside for ESL work." Anotheriteacher's response focused on Native Language Development,

and her response was: "I am a big supporter of children

needing to learn their native language before they learn

English." The final teacher's response focused on

Individualized Instruction as a support for language development in her classroom. Her response was: "I do a

rotation with them where I meet one-on-one with each child

and talk with them during the day."


157

How do you support the language development of non-English

speakers?

The following themes were identified based on the

responses to question 5: Same/Almost the same as English

speakers, Modeling, Individualized Instruction,

Experiences/Exposure, Expression, Transition to English

Smoothly, and Immersion in English. Of the responses, 70%

focused on Same or Almost the same as English speakers (n

=7). Responses that helped guide the development of this

theme included: "my view doesn't really change"; "mostly I

support these children the same as the regular ed

students"; "I feel the same about second language learners.

They need to use the language in order to develop and

enhance it"; and "A lot of it is the same."

Of the responses, 3 0% focused on Modeling as a support

for non-English speaking children (n =3). Responses

included: "As a teacher, I know that I have to provide

concrete examples"; and "they need more pictures to make

concrete connections, and they need it explained more

sometimes."

Of the responses, 3 0% focused on Individual

Instruction (n =3). Responses that guided the development

of this theme included: "My assistant with the children who


158

are not fluent in English"; and "I do a lot more support in

small groups with these children."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Experiences or

Exposure (n =2). Responses included: "requires them

to...actively engage in conversations on a daily basis"; and

"They have to have exposure to the language."

Of the responses, 2 0% focused on Expression (n =2).

Responses that guided the development of this theme

included: "they need to have the need to use the language";

and "they need to use the language in order to develop and

enhance it."

Of the responses, 20% focused on Transitioning to

English Smoothly (n =2). Responses included: "I teach in

both English and Spanish, but the children get into their

comfort zone and are afraid to move out it into more

English. I strive to make sure that they are challenged to

make this move into English"; and "most importantly, we

have to help them clarify any language confusion that they

may develop as they move into their new language."

The remaining categories, Reinforcement and Immersion

in English each had only one response but were considered

themes. One teacher's response focused on Reinforcement as

a support for non English speakers. She said: "I may repeat

instructions to them in both language, so that they


159

understand, but this also reinforces the English that we

want them to learn." One teacher's response focused on

Immersion in English, and her response was: "The world

functions in English... these kids have to learn English. I

believe in a total immersion into the language, an

environment in which they have to use the language to get

by."

In what ways do you support children's development of

literacy skills such as reading and writing?

The following themes were identified based on’the

responses to question 6: Daily Activities, Special

Programs/Teacher Training, Kindergarten Preparation, and

Reinforcement. Of the responses, 100% focused on Daily

Activities to support children's development of reading and

writing skills (n =10). Responses that guided the

development of this theme included: "Centers, group time,

reading books to the children, asking questions, and

talking to the children"; "We read books and provide

opportunities for writing every day"; "The activities that

are rotated into the centers are also aimed that helping

enhance reading and writing skills"; and "Group time,

circle time, one-on-one, reading books, and modeling."

Because question 6 was closely linked to the purpose

of this study, the responses were of particular interest to


the researcher. Other studies have noted the importance of

using books to develop vocabulary (August et al., 2005;

Ewers & Brownson, 1999), using prior knowledge to teach new

words (Ewers & Brownson, 1999), and exposure to the new

words which children are learning (Rosenblum & Pinker,

1983). Because these were identified as major focuses of

teachers' instructional practices from the data collected

in the interviews, it may be important to note that these

activities may have played a role in the growth of

receptive vocabulary from fall to spring. Additionally, the

subscales of the ECERS-R, in which these items may have

appeared, were Language-Reasoning (M =4.40), Activities (M

=4.56), and Program Structure (M =5.81). Thus, the scores

on the ECERS-R might indicate that teachers were actually

incorporating some of the instructional practices that they

said they used.

Each of the remaining categories had only one

response. One teacher's response focused on Special

Programs/Teacher Training. She said:

I am trained in reading recovery. We read lots of

stories, and I use many of the strategies learned from

reading recovery such as counting words, syllables,

and clapping. This type of instruction really taps


161

into various learning styles and gives the children

something that they can move and learn with.

Another teacher's response focused on Kindergarten

Preparation as a support for children's development of

reading and writing skills. She said: "Everything that we

work on are all things that children will need to move into

kindergarten." Lastly, a teacher's response focused on

Reinforcement. Her response was: "Our group work also helps

them to build on what they already know."

Summary

Overall, these statistical results showed that

classroom quality scores did not show a significant changed

over the course of the school year. However, there was one

subscale, Space and Furnishings, that did decrease by .41

points from fall to spring. Although this changed in this

particular subscale was significant, the composite scores

on the ECERS-R and overall mean subscale scores were not.

Further, analyses indicated that the overall mean scores

for the PPVT-III did show a significant change from fall to

spring, these changes were to be expected, as children

experienced normal growth in vocabulary. Composite scores

from the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III were analyzed to search

for a possible relationship, and the analysis revealed that


there was a significant, negative correlation between the

two variables, thus indicating that the higher the

classroom quality, the lower the receptive vocabulary

scores. Correlational analyses were also utilized to search

for relationships between the individual subscales on the

ECERS-R and student scores on the PPVT-III. Results from

these analyses indicated that 3 out of the 7 subscales were

found to have a significant, negative relationship with

receptive vocabulary scores. These results also indicated

that the higher the individual subscale scores, the lower

the children's scores on the PPVT-III. Finally, teacher's

interviews gave insight into what their instructional

practices looked like in the classroom. This gave the

researcher a better understanding of what type of

activities the teachers were actually applying daily in

their classrooms. The responses from the interviews were

connected to students' receptive vocabulary growth from

fall to spring, as well as ECERS-R mean subscale scores.


CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study were collected with the intent of

exploring a possible relationship between the quality of

the early childhood classroom environment and the receptive


as their second language. In addition, this study

investigated changes that occurred in both classroom

quality and receptive vocabulary over the school year, and

the possible relationship between individual subscales on

the classroom quality rating scale and student scores on

the receptive vocabulary test.

This chapter begins with a summary of the findings,

followed by the original research questions and an

interpretation and discussion of the findings. This is

followed by a discussion of the limitations of the study.

Next, conclusions and implications are discussed, followed

by recommendations for future research. A summary concludes

this chapter.

Summary of the Findings

Current educational pressures, particularly from the

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002), have left educators with the task of

163


164

increasing academic testing scores for students in public

schools. The mandates have also put the pressure on to

increase the quality of school experiences for children,

namely the quality of the classroom in which young children

are learning. Further, given the drastic increase in second

language learners in public schools (National Center for

Educational Statistics, 2005), teachers have to discover

the best ways to deliver quality instruction so that all

students will benefit.

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised

Edition (ECERS-R) is a widely used environment rating scale

for early childhood classrooms. Further, the Peabody

Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III) is also

widely used to assess young children's receptive

vocabulary. Seeking to investigate the possible

relationship between classroom environment and vocabulary

development of young children learning English as a second

language, this study attempted to provide some insights

into this issue.

Classroom Quality and Receptive Vocabulary Development

Based on the findings presented in Chapter 4, there

were no significant changes in the overall classroom

environment over the course of the academic school year.


165

Paired sample t tests were utilized in the present study to

explore any changes that may have occurred in the quality

of the classroom over the school year. Data were collected

in the fall and spring. The analyses indicated that no

significant changes occurred in the overall quality of the

classroom environment; however, there was one subscale,

Space and Furnishings, which decreased from fall to spring

by .41 points. This subscale addresses aspects of the

environment related to physical space and furniture

available for children to use in the classroom.

Specifically, the items which showed a decrease from

fall to spring were items 3 (Furnishings for relaxation and

comfort), 5 (Space for privacy), 6 (Child-related display),

and 8 (Gross motor equipment). Some possible reasons for

the decrease in quality from fall to spring in item 3 may

have included wear and tear on furnishings. For item 5, the

decrease indicated that teachers may have decreased the

time that privacy areas were available or eliminated areas

for privacy. Item 6 may have decreased from fall to spring

because of teachers removing items from the room in

preparation for the summer. Finally, item 8, which included

indicators such as the general repair of gross motor

equipment, also included an indicator which stated that the

gross motor equipment must be available to children for at


166

least one hour per day for an full-day class, or thirty

minutes per day for a half-day class. The findings

indicated that, in general, children were not spending the

required amount of time using gross motor equipment during

the spring.

Although this one subscale (Space and Furnishings)

decreased over the school year, the overall quality of the «

environment did not show a significant change. This finding

is supported by previous research using the ECERS-R which

found very little change in the overall quality of the

classroom over the school year (Moore & Brown, 2 006) .

Data were collected on the children's receptive

vocabulary in the fall and spring semesters. An ANOVA was

computed to explore any changes in PPVT-III scores that

occurred over the school year. The analyses indicated that

there was a significant change from fall to spring in

overall mean PPVT-III scores. The Administration on

Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) (2003) conducted a

national study of 4 0 Head Start center known as the FACES

and reported that national mean standard norms for

vocabulary tests for children entering preschool or Head

Start was about 101. Thus, data from the present study

indicated that the children were below average. Average

children of this age learn about 1,000 words per year and


therefore their vocabulary would be expected to increase

over the course of the school year (ACYF, 2003; Biemiller,

2006). Further, Brabham and Villaume (2002) noted that

children learn and grow in vocabulary each day simply from

incidental learning. Therefore, it could be assumed that

the children in the present study would have a natural

increase in their vocabulary over the course of the school

year, leading to the belief that the significant increase

from fall to spring in the present study was due to this

natural growth. However, it is also important to note that

"in the past 25 years, there have been very few quasi-

experimental or experimental studies focused on English

vocabulary teaching among elementary school language-

minority children" (August et al., 2005, p. 52), and that

educators might not be able to draw comparisons based on

previous research studies conducted with English speaking

children.

Additionally, teachers' instructional practices might

have had an influence on the increase in receptive

vocabulary. The questions asked during the individual

teacher interviews aimed to elicit information about

teachers' instructional practices that might help to

develop literacy skills of the children. Many of the

responses focused on kindergarten preparation/academic


168

skills, cognitive development, social development, and

experiences.

For example, one teacher's response to the question

How do you support the language development of young

children? responded, "Experiences are necessary for them to

learn. If they do not have experiences, I have to provide

them". Another teacher responded, "I want them [children]

to be able to express their thoughts and feelings through

their language". These responses indicate that the teachers

are helping children to gain the experiences that they need

for background knowledge, and to actually use the words

that they are learning every day. The ECERS-R subscales in

which these types of practices may have been rated were

Language-Reasoning (M =4.40) and Activities (M =4.56).

Additionally, teachers' responses to the interview question

What activities do you typically prepare during group time?

included "early reading skills" and "it's a time for me to

review and reflect, and to help me to plan what we learned

and what we didn't get to". These responses indicated that

early reading skills were being taught, as well as self-

evaluations. These practices may have been rated in

Activities and Parents and Staff (M =6.98) subscales. As a

reminder, the ECERS-R is scored on a seven point rating

scale: 1 (Inadequate), 3 (Minimal), 5 (Good), and


169

7 (Excellent). This finding could be interpreted as what

teachers said in their interviews is actually what is

appearing in their instructional practices in the

classroom.

Although studies have found that teachers are often

unable to articulate why they are providing certain types

of activities (Cassidy & Lawrence, 2000; Schon, 1983), the

findings from the present study may support findings by

Dickinson and Tabors (2001), that teachers' beliefs about

instructional practices may actually play a role in the

development of a high quality classroom.

Correlational analyses in the present study indicated

that a significant negative correlation existed between the

scores on the ECERS-R and the PPVT-III at .05. This

finding was atypical of what previous research studies have

found. Previous studies have found that higher ECERS scores

are positively correlated with higher language development

(Burchinal et al., 2000; Herrera et al., 2005). The

findings from the present study were surprising and

unexpected, as one would expect for the correlation between

classroom quality and student's vocabulary growth to be

positive. Additionally, correlation coefficients were

computed for each of the seven subscales from the ECERS-R

to explore a possible relationship between the subscale


scores and student's scores on the PPVT-III. The results of

this analysis indicated that three of the seven subscales

were found to significantly impact students' scores on the

receptive vocabulary test; however, the correlations were

all negative.

It is important to note that two of the classes in the

sample were bilingual classrooms in which instruction

occurred in both English and Spanish. Some researchers have

supported the idea that children do, in fact, need native

language development that bilingual classrooms offer in

order to be more successful in learning English (CREDE,

2003; Cummins, 1991) . However, it would make sense that

preschool children in bilingual classrooms would be

speaking predominantly in their native language, not in

English. According to Garcia (2000), children who are

receiving bilingual services may need up to seven years to

acquire proficiency in English. Therefore, the children in

the present study might not have had the time necessary to

develop vocabulary in English. Further, an ANOVA computed

for the two bilingual classrooms indicated that children in

these classrooms did gain in receptive vocabulary; however,

the gain was less than children in the ESL classrooms,

F(l,28) = 7.12, p= .013. This is an important aspect of the

present study, as these two classrooms may have impacted


171

the overall correlations of ECERS-R and PPVT-III scores,

but because of the random sampling procedure, they were

included in the analyses.

Limitations

Because the present study was planned and conducted by

the sole researcher from beginning to end, there were

certain limitations placed on the study. Perhaps the most

powerful of these limitations was the small number of

classrooms utilized for the study (n =10). The researcher

conducted testing for the present study using both the

ECERS-R and the PPVT-III, as well as conducting the teacher

interviews. This small number of classrooms was necessary

because of time constraints on the researcher. This small

number of classrooms limited the amounts and types of

analyses that could be run with the data, thus affecting

the power of the analyses.

Additionally, the researcher only administered the

English version of the PPVT-III, and although this was a

study of English language learners, it is important to note

that researchers have noted that it is crucial to assess ELLs in both their native language and in English to obtain

an overall view of their academic abilities (Brown, 2004;

Espinosa, 2003) . Further, a study by Biemiller (2003) noted


172

that many children's delay in vocabulary development may

not be evident until later elementary grades. The children

in the present study were assessed in the fall and spring

of their preschool year.

Finally, the researcher only utilized two instruments

for the present study. The ECERS-R was chosen to measure

the quality of the classroom and the PPVT-III was chosen to

measure the receptive vocabulary development of the

children. There are many tools available for measuring both

the quality of the classroom and the vocabulary development

of young children. Dickinson (2003) suggested that

researchers carefully consider the selection of a

environmental rating scale. Also, previous researchers have

stressed the importance of using more than one assessment

to obtain an accurate portrayal of children's academic

abilities (Rasinski & Padak, 2004) .

Implications

Educators can utilize the information from the present

study in many ways. Most importantly, researchers have

found that children benefit greatly from quality early

childhood experiences (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart &

Risley, 1995; Hemmeter & Kaiser, 1990; Peisner-Feinberg et

al. , 2001) . Although the present study indicated


significant negative correlations between the classroom

environment and receptive vocabulary scores, it is possible

that this have been due to the small number of classrooms

used in the study. Educators need to focus on creating

environments that go beyond the aesthetically pleasing, and

move into environments that are educationally stimulating

and offer more chances for cognitive and language growth.

Research has also shown that vocabulary growth is strongly

correlated with later academic success, particularly in

reading (Biemiller, 2006; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997;

Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). The data collected from the

qualitative teacher interviews in the present study

indicated that teachers were concerned with creating an

environment that was conducive to vocabulary learning. For

example, teachers indicated that they prepared activities

that helped children prepare for kindergarten, learn social

and cognitive skills, obtain experiences and exposures to

reading materials, and challenge those who are non-English

speakers to move into using more English. Studies have also

shown the importance of providing high quality literature

for children to learn from in the classrooms (August et

al., 2005; Ewers & Brownson, 1999). The ECERS-R subscale

which would have supported this was Language-Reasoning (M

=4.40).


The information gained from the present study can be

utilized by schools and policy makers alike. Research

studies discussed above should encourage schools to develop

and implement high quality classrooms for young children.

Policy makers might heed the importance of a high quality

classroom as well, and consider implementing standards on

quality. In addition, the evidence on the importance of

vocabulary development presented previously should also

encourage schools to implement strong vocabulary practices

into their curriculum, as well as adequate instruments to

assess the vocabulary development of young children.

Future Research Directions

Lessons learned in the present study provide a strong

direction for future research. First, although the number

of children was acceptable (n =102) , the numbers of

classrooms used in the present study were very small (n

=10). Many of the analyses could not be run in the typical

fashion for not meeting the assumptions because of the

small numbers. Because of the importance of this topic,

future researchers should replicate the study using many

more classrooms and schools, and select schools from

various regional areas to increase the power of the

findings. It is also recommended that future studies vary


175

the conditions under which a study is conducted. For

example, researcher may want to employ an experimental

design with the use of a control group that would allow the

researcher to examine the effects of an intervention on

receptive vocabulary development. It would be beneficial to

study the effects of early childhood curriculums on student

outcomes, particularly the vocabulary development of second

language learners. This would give an alternate perspective

on the study. Also, it would be beneficial to conduct a

study that lasted longer and collected data over the course

of a calendar year instead of an academic year.

Additionally, there are many instruments available to

assess the classroom environment. The ECERS-R was chosen

for the present study to gain an overall view of the

quality of the classroom. Certain other instruments, like

the ELLCO (Smith & Dickinson, 2002), may provide a better

picture of the actual interactions that may be more

important in helping children to increase their

vocabularies. Other measures should be carefully considered

when conducting a study exploring classroom quality and

student outcomes to ensure the most powerful findings.

Future studies may also utilize the Spanish version of

the PPVT-III. Experts in the field of second language

learning have long argued that English language learners


should be assessed in their native language to give an

accurate representation of how much they are truly learning

(Kochnoff, 2003; Espinosa, 2003). Although the present

study strictly looked at vocabulary development in English,

it may be beneficial for researchers to assess in both

English and Spanish to explore the possibility of a

relationship between classroom quality and student outcomes

of second language learners. As Espinosa (2003) said, "The

assessment results for language proficiency and native

language ability can be misleading and underestimate the

child's true language competency" (p. 6).

Finally, future studies should reexamine the

qualitative aspects of the study. The present study

utilized teacher interviews in an attempt to connect their

teaching practices to their classroom quality scores.

However, some studies have argued that teachers are often

unable to articulate why they are providing the types of

experiences in a classroom setting (Schon, 1983; Cassidy &

Lawrence, 2000). The questions utilized for this purpose

should be carefully planned and field tested prior to being

used in the actual study. Careful consideration would allow

the researcher to obtain richer information from the

participants in the study.


Summary

This chapter has presented a summary of the research

findings, interpretations and discussions, implications,

and recommendations for future research. Although this

study found a significant negative correlation between the

early childhood classroom environment and receptive

vocabulary growth, it is the belief of the researcher that

this occurred due to the small number of classrooms

employed for the present study. The reasons for this small

number were discussed previously, and recommendations for

future research included using a larger sample.

It has been found that both classroom quality and

vocabulary development are important predictors of future

academic success (Biemiller, 2006; Dickinson & Tabors,

2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

Studies investigating this topic should be of utmost

importance for educators and policy makers.


REFERENCES

Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. (1998). Assessment profile

for early childhood programs: Research edition II.

Atlanta, GA: Quality Counts.

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2003).

Head Start FACES 2000: A whole child perspective on

program performance: Fourth progress report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. Retrieved June 25, 2006, from

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports

/faces00_4thprogress/faces00_title.html

American Educational Research Association (AERA) . (2004) .

English language learners: Boosting academic

achievement. Research points: Essential information

for educational policy, 2, 1-4.

American Guidance Service (AGS). (2006). Assessments for

specialized education needs: User qualifications

policy. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from

http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/assessments/test_use

r_form2.asp

Anderson, R. C. (1994). Role of the reader's schema in

comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell,

M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models

178


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports

http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/assessments/test_use

179

and processes of reading (4th ed. , pp. 469-482) .

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Au, K. (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for

improving literacy achievement: Equity and excellence.

In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.

Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (3rd ed., pp.

835-852). Mahwah, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressier, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The

critical role of vocabulary development for English

language learners. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 20(1), 50-57.

Baumann, J. F., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2004). Vocabulary

Instruction: Research to practice. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley II scales of infant development.

New York: Psychological Corporation.

Benson, T. R., & Smith, L. J. (1998) Portfolios in first

grade: Four teachers learn to use alternative

assessment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(3),

173-179.

Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if more children

are to read well. Reading Psychology, 24, 323-335.

Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and

instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D.


K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), The handbook of

early literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 52-63). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective model for

building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal

of Educational Research, 98, 44-62.

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word

vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged

populations: Evidence for a common sequence of

vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 498-520.

Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Vocabulary

Instruction: Concerns and visions. The Reading

Teacher. 56, 264-71.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate

practice in early childhood programs serving children

from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brown, C. L. (2004) . Reducing the over-referral of

culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLD)

for language disabilities. NABE Journal of Research

and Practice, 2, 225-243.

Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., Howes, C. & Pianta, R.

(2002, November). What is prekindergarten? Preliminary


findings from a six-state prekindergarten study.

Seminar conducted at the meeting of the National

Association for the Education of Young Children, New

York, NY.

Bryant, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., & Burchinal, M. (1999).

Effects of a community initiative on the quality of

child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14,

449-464.

Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care

quality, and developmental outcomes. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 18, 401-427.

Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C.

(2002) . Caregiver training and classroom quality in

child care centers. Applied Developmental Science,

6 (1 ), 2 -1 1 .

Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S.

(2 002). Development of academic skills from preschool

through second grade: Family and classroom predictors

of developmental trajectories. Journal of School

Psychology, 40, 415-436.

Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S.

A., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D. (2000). Relating the

quality of center-based child care to early cognitive


and language development longitudinally. Child

Development, 71, 339-357.

Buysse, V. , Wesley, P. W., Bryant, D., Sc Gardner, D.

(1999). Quality of early childhood programs in

inclusive and noninclusive settings. Exceptional

Children, 65, 301-314.

Carvell, N. (1994). Language Enrichment Activities Program

(LEAP). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from

http://www.leapsandbounds.org/curriculum.htm

Cassidy, D. J., Buell, M. I., Pugh-Hoese, S., & Russell, S.

(1995) . The effect of education on child care

teachers' beliefs and classroom quality: Year one

evaluation of the TEACH early childhood associate

degree scholarship program. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 10, 171-183.

Cassidy, D. J., Hestenes, L. L., Hedge, A., Hestenes, S., Sc

Mims, S. (2005). Measurement of quality in preschool

child care classrooms: An exploratory and confirmatory

factor analysis of the early childhood environment

rating scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20,

345-360.

Cassidy, D. J. , Sc Lawrence, J. M. (2000). Teachers'

beliefs: The "whys" behind the "how tos" in child care


http://www.leapsandbounds.org/curriculum.htm

classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood

Education, 14(2), 193-204.

Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and

Excellence. A national study of school effectiveness

for language minority students' long-term academic

achievement (Research Brief #10). Retrieved June 25,

2006, from

www.use.edu/dept/education/CMMR/CollierThomasComplete.

pdf

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can

immigrants become proficient in school English?

Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority

Students, 16(1), 187-212.

Cook-Benjamin, L. (2001). Portfolio assessment: Benefits,

issues of implementation, and reflections on its use.

Assessment Update, 13(4), 6-7.

Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study. (1995). Cost, quality,

and child outcomes in child care centers, technical

report. Denver, CO: Department of Economics, Center

for Research in Economic and Social Policy, University

of Colorado at Denver.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and research

design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.


http://www.use.edu/dept/education/CMMR/CollierThomasComplete

Cryer, D., Harms, T., & Riley, C. (2003). All about the

ECERS-R: A detailed guide in words and pictures to be

used with the ECERS-R. Lewisville, NC: PACT House

Publishing.

Cummins, J. (1979). The language and culture issue in the

education of minority children. Interchange on

Educational Policy, 10(4), 72-88. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EJ233079)

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A

framework for intervention. Harvard Educational

Review, 56(1), 18-35.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-

language proficiency in bilingual children. In E.

Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual

children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge1

University Press.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading

acquisition and its relation to reading experience and

ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33,

934-945.

Diaz, C.J., Arthur, L., Beecher, B., McNaught, M. (2000).

Multiple literacies in early childhood: What do

families and communities think about their


185

children's early literacy learning? Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy, 23, 230.

Dickinson, D. K. (2003). Are measures of global quality

sufficient? Educational Researcher, 32, 27-28.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2004).

Preschool-based prevention of reading disability:

Realities vs. possibilities. In C. A. Stone, E. R.

Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of

language and literacy (pp. 209-227). New York: The

Guilford Press.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning

literacy with language: Young children learning at

home and school. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes

Publishing.

Drucker, M. J. (2 003). What reading teachers should know

about ESL learners. Reading Teacher, 57(1), 22-30.

Duncan, S. E. & DeAvila, E. A . (1985). How to administer

Pre-LAS. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997) . Peabody picture

vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, M N : American

Guidance Service.


Dyson, A. H. (1983). The role of oral language in early

writing processes. Research in the Teaching of

English, 17, 1-30.

Earnest-Garcia, G. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In

M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (3rd ed., pp. 813-

834). Mahwah, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Echeverria, M. S., Herrera, M. O., & Vega, M. (1993). Test

de vocabulario en imagenes: TEVI. Concepcion, Chile:

Universidad de Concepcion.

Escamilla, K., Chavez, L., & Vigil, P. (2005). Rethinking

the "Gap": High stakes testing and Spanish-speaking

students in Colorado. Journal of Teacher Education,

56(2), 132-144.

Espinosa, L. M. (2002). High-quality preschool: Why we need

it and what it looks like. Preschool Policy Matters,

1-11. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early

Education Research.

Espinosa, L. M. (2 003). Assessing and improving outcomes

for Head Start children. NHSA Dialogue Briefs, 8, 5-6.

Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). Kindergartners'

vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs.

passive storybook reading, prior knowledge, and


working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 11-

2 0 .

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English as a second language

instruction in the United States: A research review.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 115-152.

Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second

language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor,

MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P, & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational

research: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Garcia, G. N. (2000). Lessons from research: What is the

length of time it takes limited English proficient

students to acquire English and succeed in an all-

English classroom? National Clearinghouse for

Bilingual Education, 5, 1-15.

Genesee, F. (1999) . Program alternatives for linguistically

diverse students (Educational Practice Reports).

Center for Research on Education, Diversity &

Excellence. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from

http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/edupractrpts/eprl

Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early

language learners. Educational Leadership, 60, 44-49.

Ginsborg, J. , & Locke, A. (2002). Catching up...or falling

behind? Literacy Today, 32, 20-22.


http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/edupractrpts/eprl

188

Goldenberg, C. (2005, August/September). An interview with

Claude Goldenberg. Ready Today, 8-9.

Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Multicultural

education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, N J : Pearson Education.

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners:

Bridges from language proficiency to academic

achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Grant, R. A., & Wong, S. D. (2003). Barriers to literacy

for language-minority learners: An argument for change

in the literacy education profession. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 386-395.

Gutierrez-Clellan, V. F. (2005). Assessment of English

language learners: Challenges and strategies. Head

Start Bulletin, 78(1), 47-49.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1980). Early

childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (1990) .

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early

childhood environment rating scale (Revised edition).

New York: Teachers College Press.


Harms, T., Jacobs, E., & White, D. (1996). School-Age Care

Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in

the everyday experiences of young American children.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Haynes, M., & Baker, I. (1993). American and Chinese

readers learning from lexical familiarization in

English contexts. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady

(Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary

acquisition (pp. 130-152). Norwood, N J : Ablex.

Hedrick, D., Prather, E., & Tobin, A. (1984). Sequenced

inventory of communication development (2nd ed) .

Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Helburn, S.- W. , Culkin, M. L. , Morris, J. R., & Clifford,

R. M. (1995). The cost, quality, and child outcomes

study theoretical structure. In S. W. Helburn (Ed),

Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers

(Technical Report, pp. 11-29). Denver, CO: Economics

Department, University of Colorado at Denver.

Hemmeter, M. L., & Kaiser, A. P. (1990). Environmental

influences on children's language: A model and case

study. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 331-

347.


Herrera, M. 0., Mathiesen, M. E., Merino, J. M., & Recart,

I. (2005). Learning contexts for young children in

Chile: Process quality assessment in preschool

centres. International Journal of Early Years

Education, 13(1), 13-27.

Hudson, R. F., Smith, S. W. (2001). Effective reading

instruction for struggling Spanish-speaking readers: A

combination of two literatures. Intervention in School

& Clinic, 37, 36-40.

International Reading Association. (2005). Literacy

development in the preschool years: A position

statement of the International Reading Association.

Retrieved January 26, 2 006, from

http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/psl066_pres

chool.pdf

Jusenius, C. & Duarte, V. K. (1982). Hispanics and jobs:

Barriers to progress. Washington, DC: National

Commission for Employment Policy.

Kochanoff, A. T. (2003). Assessing culturally and

linguistically diverse preschoolers. NHSA Dialogue

Briefs, 8, 1-3.

Laird, J., Lew, S., Deball, M., & Chapman, C. (2006).

Dropout rates in the United States: 2002 and 2003


http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/psl066_pres

(NCES 2006-062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The

classroom assessment scoring system: Findings from the

prekindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal,

104, 409-420.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Laufer, B, & Sim, D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the

reading threshold needed for English for academic

purposes texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405-411.

Lawhon, T. (2000) . Creating language and print awareness

environments for young children. Contemporary

Education, 71(3), 5-10.

Liberman, I. (1983). A language-oriented view of reading

and its disabilities. In H. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress

in learning disabilities (pp. 81-101) . New York: Grune

& Stratton.

Love, J. M., Schochet, P. Z., & Meckstroth, A. (1996). Are

they in real danger? What research does-and doesn't-

tell us about child care quality and children's well

being. Plainsboro, N J : Mathematica Policy Research.

McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Shu, H. (2005).

The role of morphological awareness in children's


vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 26, 415-435.

McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care

environment on children's language development.

Developmental Psychology, 20, 244-260.

McLaughlin, B., August, D., & Snow, C. (2000). Vocabulary

knowledge and reading comprehension in English

language learners: Final performance report.

Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Minkel, W. (2002). It's never too early. School Library

Journal, 48{1), 38-42.

Moore, L., & Brown, D. L. (2006, April). Classroom quality

and student outcomes: Are they related? Paper

presented at the annual Bill Martin, Jr. symposium,

Texas A & M University-Commerce, Commerce, Tx.

Mora, J. K., & Grisham, D. L. (2001). !What deliches

tortillas! Preparing teachers for literacy instruction

in linguistically diverse classrooms. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 28, 51-70.

Morrison, G. S., & Rusher, A. S. (1999). Playing to Learn.

Dimensions of Early Childhood, 27(2), 3-8.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of

vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and


instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.),

The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-36).

Hillsdale, N J : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes.

In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.

Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 269-

284). Mahwah, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). State

education data profiles. Retrieved August 14, 2 005,

from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

Early Child Care Research Network. (2000) . The

relation of child care to cognitive and language

development. Child Development, 71, 958-978.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

Early Child Care Research Network. (2 002) . The

relation of global first grade classroom environment

to structural classroom features and teacher and

student behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 102,

367-387.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read:

An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles

194

for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Office of English Language Acquisition, Language

Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited

English Proficient Students. (2002). Survey of the

state's limited English proficient students and

available educational programs and services: 2000-2001

summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse

for English Language Acquisition & Language

Instruction Educational Programs.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2004). Hugs and smiles: Demonstrating

caring in a multicultural early childhood classroom.

Early Childhood Development & Care, 174, 539-549.

Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M.,

Culkin, M. L., Howells, C. L., Kagan, S. L., &

Yazejian, N. (2001) . The relation of preschool child

care quality to children's cognitive and social

developmental trajectories through second grade.

Child Development, 12, 1534-1554.Pianta, R. C., & La Paro, K. (2003a). Improving Early

School Success. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 24-30.

Pianta, R. C., & La Paro, K. (2003b). CLASS: Classroom

assessment scoring system. Charlottesville, NC:

University of Virginia.


Pressley, M. (2000) . What should comprehension instruction

be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B.

Mosenthal, P. D.. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook

of reading research (pp. 545-561). Mahwah, N J :

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rasinski, T. R., & Padak, N. (2004). Effective reading

strategies: Teaching children who find reading

difficult (3rd Ed). Upper Saddle River, N J : Pearson

Education.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta,

R. C., & La Paro, K. M. (2006). The teacher belief Q-

sort: A measure of teachers' priorities in relation to

disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and

beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology,

44(2), 141-165.

Riojas-Cortez, M. (2001). Preschoolers' funds of knowledge

displayed though sociodramatic play episodes in a

bilingual classroom. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 29(1), 35-40.

Rodriguez-Valladares, M. (2003) . From the beginning...there

needs to be light. Hispanic, 16(1), 20-24.

Rosenblum, T., & Pinker, S. (1983). Word magic revisited:

Monolingual and bilingual children's understanding of


word-object relationship. Child Development, 54, 773-

780.

Roskos, K. , & Neuman, S. (2002). Environment and its

influences for early literacy teaching and learning.

In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of

early literacy research (pp. 281-294). New York:

Guilford.

Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A

longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral

language and early reading. The Journal of Educational

Research, 95, 259-272.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative

interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schon, D. (1983) . The reflective practitioner: How

professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sheridan, S., & Schuster, K. (2001) (. Evaluation of

pedagogical quality in early childhood education: A

cross-national perspective. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 16{1) , 109-125.

Smart Start and the North Carolina Partnership for

Children: What is Smart Start? (2006) . Retrieved

October 3, 2006, from http://www.smartstart-

nc.org/about/whatissmartstart.htm


http://www.smartstart-

Smith, J., Brewer, D. M., & Heffner, T. (2003). Using

portfolio assessments with young children who are at

risk for school failure. Preventing School Failure,

48(1), 38.

Smith, M. W. , & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). User's guide to

the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation

toolkit: Research edition. Newton, MA: Brookes

Publishing.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).

Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., & Tabors, P. 0. (1993). Language skills that

relate to literacy development. In B. Spodek, & 0.

Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood education

(4th ed). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Brookline, MA:

P. A. Hutchison.

Stahl, S. A., & Yaden, D. B., Jr. (2004) The development of

literacy in preschool and primary grades: Work by the

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading

Achievement. Elementary School Journal, 205(2), 141-

165.

State Board for Educator Certification. (2006). Retrieved

September 17, 2006, from www.sbec.state.tx.us


http://www.sbec.state.tx.us

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language

and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from

a longitudinal structural model. Developmental

Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.

Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2002). Young bilingual

children and early literacy development. In S. B.

Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early

literacy research (pp. 159-179). New York: The

Guilford Press.

Texas Education Agency. (2005). Secondary school completion

and dropouts in Texas public schools, 2003-04

(Document No. GEO5 601 07). Austin, TX: Texas

Education Agency.

Texas Education Agency. (2006). Student assessment

division: LPAC decision-making process for the Texas

assessment program (Grades 3-12) . Retrieved October

21r 2006, from

http://www. tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resource

s/guides/lpac/

Torres, E. M. (2005). Creating a vision for supporting

English language learners. Head Start Bulletin, 76(1),

21-2 2 .

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110-Jan.8, 2002,


http://www

115STAT.1425- 115STAT.2094. Retrieved June 2, 2004,

from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-

110.pdf

Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Vocabulary knowledge

of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied

Linguistics, 14, 344-363.

Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching.

London: Edward Arnold.

Williams, L. R. (1996). Does practice lead to theory?

Teachers' constructs about teaching: Bottom-up

perspectives. In S. Reifel, & J. Chafel (Eds.),

Advances in Early Education and Day Care (pp. 153-

184). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language

means losing the first. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 6, 323-346.

Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to

know about language. In C. Temple Adger, C. E. Snow, &

D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about

language (pp. 7-43) . McHenry , IL: Center for Applied

Linguistics and Delta Systems.


http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-

Appendix A

200


September I S, 2005

Crystal TortiTexas A&M University-Commerce Department of Elementary Education P.O. Box 3011 Commerce, TX 75429

Dear Ms. Torti:

This letter is to serve as formal approval for you to do research at the Child Development Center under the direction of Ms, Deborah Cody. Please make arrangements with Ms. Cody for the collection of foe research.

Sincerely,

Superintendent of Schools

W t P * flex I t 17 Mount Pteuttnl, Texas 75456-1117

(903)575-2000 lax (903) 375-2014


Appendix B


203

Crystal Torti:

Let me begin with an apology; although we were prompt in holding the Full Board meeting, I am aware that we have not been prompt in finalizing your approval.

At any rate, the Texas A & M University - Commerce IRB has now reviewed your submission "The relationship between the quality of the early childhood classroom environment and vocabulary development in young children learning English as a second language" and is pleased to approve it contingent upon all your materials being received by Natalie Henderson in a form suited to her needs. This may already have been done, but please verify the matter with Natalie.

Please be advised that this approval is for a period of one year and that any substantive changes to your protocol during this period should be submitted for additional review to the University IRB. If you study extends beyond one year, you should submit a request to the IRB for a continuation. This continuation must be approved by the IRB before the research can proceed. If your participants encounter any adverse events during the execution of your research protocol, you must promptly report these to the IRB.

Tracy Henley, IRB Chair


Appendix C


205

m i i m i u j i t murmur school bijtbict

Terry Myers, Superintendent of Schools

September 12,2005

Crystal TortiTexas A&M Universlty-Commarce Department of Elementary Education P.O. Box 3011 Commerce. TX 75429

Efoar Ms. ToriJ:

I have discussed your proposal to conduct research for your dissertation at the Mt Pleasant t.S.D. Child Development Center with Mr. Terry Myers, Superintendent of Schools. He has given me permission to go forward with your plans to Study the preschool classrooms In our district.

I also grant you permission to conduct this study and I will look forward to meeting you in the near future.

Respectfully,

Deborah Cody, Principal [email protected] PtMtant Independent School District Chid Dsvatopmsnt Center 1802 West Ferguson Road P.O. Boa 1117Mt. Pleasant, Texas 76456-1117 903478.2092 903475.2077 Fax


mailto:[email protected]

Appendix D


207

Dear Preschool Teacher:I am a graduate student studying for my Doctorate in Elementary Education in Supervision, Curriculum, and Instruction with an emphasis in Reading. This letter is written to request permission to conduct a study which involves young children who are learning English as their second language in your classroom. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent in which classroom quality influences the acquisition of vocabulary and language development of young children learning English as their second language. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale- Revised Edition (ECERS-R) will be used to measure the classroom quality. Further, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) will be used to measure the language development of students. In addition, interviews with the teachers of the children will be conducted in order to elicit educational philosophies of teaching English Language Learners.There are several anticipated benefits of the study. For example, educators and parents can gain better insight into which environments prove conducive to language development. The results can also offer help in designing preschool environments and instruction to best ensure language acquisition in young children learning English as their second language. Finally, educators can offer suggestions for home environments that will encourage language development at home for young children.

Please understand that there is a minimal risk factor anticipated in this study, which is not greater than that ordinarily encountered in daily life. Participation■in this study is voluntary, and information gained about children will be considered confidential and private, and will not be shared with anybody who is not directly involved with the research effort. In addition, the names of the children will not be used in the information gathered for the study. The results of this study will only be shared as aggregated summaries, and no individual responses, identities, or identifying information will be shared.

If you can, please sign and return the attached consent form. I would greatly appreciate a timely response to this request.

Thank you for your interest.


208

Sincerely,

Crystal Torti

Mailing Address:Texas A & M University- Commerce Department of ELED PO Box 3011 Commerce, TX [email protected]

If you have any questions, please contact the Chairperson of the University IRB;Tracey Henley, Ph. D.University Protection of Human Subjects Committee Department of Psychology and Special Education Texas A & M University- Commerce Email: [email protected]




209

CONSENT FORM FOR PRESCHOOL TEACHER

It is understood that __________ agrees to participate inthis study and hereby authorizes Crystal Torti to use information obtained during the survey for educational purposes. It is understood that participation in this study is completely voluntary. It is also understood that the teachers' and students' names will be kept confidential and private. Furthermore, the information provided about the children will not be attached or connected to either my name or the children's names. It is further understood that any information shared about the children and me will not be shared with anyone who is not directly involved with the study. Also, the results of the study will only be shared as aggregated summaries and no individual responses, identities, or identifying information will be shared.

Signature: _______

Date: ____ _/_____ /


Appendix E


211

Dear Parents:

I am a doctoral student at Texas A & M University Commerce. I am interested in conducting a study in your child's preschool classroom. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects that a quality classroom environment has on second language acquisition in a preschool classroom. This study will involve two measures or instruments.

The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised is a scale designed to rate the environment in the preschool classroom. This measure is designed to look at the classroom environment and the interactions of the children. The second measure is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Revised. This scale will measure the vocabulary words in English that your child knows. This scale will be administered individually in the classroom setting. Your child will be shown a booklet containing pictures that he/she will be asked to identify.

Please understand that your permission is voluntary, and that you are free to withdraw your child from participation in the study at any time without penalty. The risk factor anticipated in the study is not greater than those encountered in every day life. Any information gathered about your child will be considered confidential and private, and will not be shared with anybody who is not directly involved with the research effort. In addition, the name of your child will not be used in the information gathered for the study. The results of this study will only be shared as collective summaries. No individual responses, identities, or identifying information will be shared. Please keep in mind that your consent has a critical role for me to reach my purpose.

There are several anticipated benefits of the study. For example, educators and parents can gain better insight into which environments prove conducive to language development. The results can also offer help in designing preschool environments and instruction to best ensure language acquisition in young children learning English as their second language. Finally, educators can offer suggestions for home environments that will encourage language development at home for young children.


212

The only thing that you need to do is sign and return the attached consent letter to your child's teacher.

Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely,

Crystal Torti

Mailing Address:4203 CR 4413 Commerce, TX 7542 8 [email protected]

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Chairperson of the University IRB;Tracey Henley, Ph. D.University Protection of Human Subjects Committee (IRB) Department of Psychology and Special Education Texas A Sc M University- Commerce Email: [email protected]




213

CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS

It is understood that ________ agrees to participate in thestudy and hereby authorizes Crystal Torti to use information obtained during the survey for educational purposes. It is understood that my child's participation in this study is completely voluntary, and I have the right to refuse to give consent for the use of.my child as a subject. It is further understood that I am free to withdraw my child from participation in the study at any time without penalty. It is also understood that my child's name will be kept confidential and private. Furthermore, the information gathered will not be attached or connected to my child's name. It is understood that any information about my child will not be shared with anyone who is not directly involved with the study. Also, the results of the study will only be shared as aggregated summaries and no individual responses, identities, or identifying information will be shared.

Signature: _____________________ -Child's Name:______________________

Date : _____ /_____ /_____

Crystal Torti Mailing Address:4203 CR 4413 Commerce, TX 75428 [email protected] you have any questions, please feel free to contact Chairperson of the University IRB;Tracey Henley, Ph. D.University Protection of Human Subjects Committee (IRB) Department of Psychology and Special Education Texas A & M University- Commerce Email: [email protected]




214

(Spanish Letter and Consent)A LOS PADRES

Estimado ______

Soy un estudiante universitario de Texas A & M - Commerce estudiando para sacar mi doctorado. Estoy interesada en conduciendo un estudio en el salon preescolar de su hijo/a. El proposito de este estudio de para examinar los efectos del clima y del ambiente en la adquisicion de un segundo idioma en la clase preescolar. Este estudio usara dos tipos de instrumentos para medir los resultados.

El primero de los dos instrumentos que se usaran es la Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised esta escala de grado esta disenada para medir el ambiente del salon preescolar. Esta escala esta disenada para observar el ambiente y las interacciones de los ninos. El segundo instrumento es el Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Esta escala mide el vocabulario que su hijo/a ya sabe en ingles. Este instrumento de escala sera administrado individualmente en la clase. Se le ensenara a su hijo/a un libro que contiene dibujos que se le pedira que identifique.

Por favor comprenda que su permiso es voluntario. La probabilidad de algun elemento de riesgo anticipado con este estudio no es mas que el elemento de riesgo que hay en la vida diaria. Participacion en este estudio es completamente voluntario y cualquier informacion que se recibe de su hijo/a sera totalmente privada y confidencial y no sera compartida con ninguna persona que no esta directamente envuelto en el estudio universitario. Ademas, el nombre de su hijo/a no va ser usado en la informacidn juntada para el estudio. Los resultados del estudio solamente van a ser compartidos como una coleccion de resumenes. No se van a compartir respuestas individuales, la identidad o cualquier otra informacion en la cual se pueda identificar su hijo/a. Por favor recuerde que su permiso es critico y de suma importancia para yo poder completar mi proposito.

Hay varios beneficios anticipados con este estudio. Por ejemplo, educadores y padres podran aprovechar/ganar un mejor discernimiento del amiente que es mas conducente al desarrollo del segundo idioma. Los resultados podrdn ofrecer ayuda para mejor disenar ambientes e instruccidn


215

preescolar que asegurara la adquisicion del idioma para estudiantes de ESL (Ingles como Segundo Idioma).Finalmente, educadores podrdn ofrecer sugerencias para el ambiente del hogar que anima el desarrollo del idioma en ninos pequenos que estan aprendiendo ingles como un segundo idioma.

Lo unico que necesita hacer es firmar y regresar la forma de consentimiento al maestro de su hijo/a.

Gracias por su interes.Sinceramente,

Crystal Torti Mailing Address:4203 CR 4413 Commerce, TX 75428 [email protected]

Si tiende algunas preguntas, favor de comuniquese con el presidente de IRB de la universidad;Dr. Tracy HenleyComite de la proteccion de sujetos humanos (IRB) Departamento de psicologia y educacion especial Texas A & M University- Commerce Correo electronico: [email protected]




216

Es entendido que _______________________________ , esta deacuerdo de participar en este estudio y por este medio autoriza a Crystal Torti de usar la informacion obtenida durante este estudio con el proposito educacional. Es entendido que la participacion de mi hijo/a en este estudio es completamente voluntaria y tengo el derecho de negar permiso de la participacidn de mi hijo/a como sujeto en este estudio. Tambien es entendido que el nombre o cualquier otra informacion que se pueda usar para poder identificar a mi hijo/a no sera compartido o conectada con mi hijo/a de cualquier manera. Comprendo que la informacion obtenida no va ser compartida con ninguna persona que no este directamente envuelto con el estudio. Finalmente, los resultados del estudio solamente van a ser compartidos como una coleccidn de resumenes. No se van a compartir respuestas individuales, identidades o cualquier otra informacion que se pueda usar para identificar al hijo/a.

Signature: __________________________Child's Name:______________________

Date : _____ /_____ /_____

Crystal Torti Mailing Address:4203 CR 4413 Commerce, TX 75428 [email protected]

Si tiende algunas preguntas, favor de comuniquese con el presidente de IRB de la universidad;Dr. Tracy HenleyComite de la proteccion de sujetos humanos (IRB) Departamento de psicologia y educacion especial Texas A & M University- Commerce Correo electronico: thenley@tamu-commerce



Appendix F


218

Torti Research Study Teacher Demographic Survey

Date:---------------------- First Name:---------------------------- Last Name:------------------

Center: MPISD CDC1. Sex: Male — Female 2. Age: Under 30----- 30-39------- 40-49------ 50-59----.. 60+----

2. Ethnicity: African American Hispanic Caucasian Asian------Other--------3. Total years experience as a Teacher: 0-5---- 6-10------ 11-15------ 16-20-----21+ — —

4. Years of experience as a preschool/Headstart teacher:0-5-- 6-10--- 11-15--- 16-20--- 21+—

5. Total Years with LEAP Curriculum: Total Years —6. Do you have a Teacher Assistant? Aide? Yes No Part Time—

7. Number of full time teachers in center-----------------

8. Language of Instruction: English-------------- Spanish---------------- Other-------

9. Average number of children in your class? Number of teachers for theclass ------

10. Certification area (check all that apply):

Early Childhood-------- Elementary Education-------Special Education---------- Bilingual/ESL Education--------- Other------

11. Identify the highest degree or Certificate you currently hold:

Bachelors Masters— — Masters+ Other:— ----


Appendix G


220

May 31, 2005

Dear Crystal Torti,

Thank you for completing the AGS Test Qualification Form. AGS Publishing is committed to maintaining professional standards in testing. To reduce the possibility of test misuse, we adhere to the principles presented in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing published by the AERA, APA, and NCME. In particular, test users are responsible for limiting their use of tests to those for which they have appropriate training and experience.

Your credentials meet our qualifications to purchase Level B test materials. You may purchase any Level A or Level B test.

If you are not currently qualified to purchase higher level test materials, and you complete additional coursework in individual psychological assessment in the future which you feel would qualify you to do so, please resubmit the Test Qualification Form with the additional information.

Thank you for your interest in AGS Publishing test materials!

Sincerely,

Fran TompkinsAGS Customer Service


Appendix H


Half-Day Classroom Schedule

AM Class8:00- 8:20 Breakfast8:20- 8:25 Transition8:25- 10:10 Instructional Time10:10- 10:25 Recess10:25- 10:50 Lunch10:50- 11:00 Prepare for dismissal11:00 Dismissal

11:00- 12:00 Teacher Lunch/conference

PM Class12:10- 12:45 Lunch12:45- 1:05 Recess1:05- 2:55 Instructional Time2:55- 3:00 Prepare for dismissal3:00 Dismissal


Full-Day Classroom Schedule

7:45- 8:30 Table Toys/Bathroom8:30- 8:45 Circle Time/Wash Hands8:45- 8:55 Bathroom8:55- 9:15 Breakfast9:20- 9:40 Playground9:40- 9:55 Circle Time/Head Start- Brush Teeth10:00- 11:30 Centers11:30- 11:50 Story Time/Singing11:53- 12:18 Lunch12:20- 12:40 Playground12:40- 12:50 Bathroom/Story Time12:50- 1:00 Circle Time1:00- 2:10 Naptime2:10- 2:30 Wake up/Bathroom/Wash Hands2:30- 2:40 Snacks2:40- 2:50 Story Time/Singing2:50 Kids to bus/Outside


VITA

Crystal Torti was born on July 27, 1978, in

Hobbs, New Mexico. The daughter of Reba Lindsey and

Gary and Terry Bell, Crystal grew up in west Texas and

graduated from Chapel Hill High School in Tyler,

Texas. She moved back to west Texas to attend Sul Ross

State. University. She received her Bachelor's degree

in Interdisciplinary Studies and received her Master's

degree as a Reading Specialist from Sul Ross. She

taught third grade in Presidio, Texas. In 2003,

Crystal and her husband relocated to Commerce, Texas,

so that she could pursue her Doctorate in Education.

She worked as a full time Graduate Assistant at Texas

A & M University-Commerce while pursuing her

Doctorate. During her tenure as a GA, she taught

Reading courses in the Elementary Education Department

and served as an editorial assistant for the Journal

of Literacy Research. Crystal Torti is currently a

fifth grade reading teacher at Farmersville

Intermediate School in Farmersville, Texas. In 2001,

Crystal married C.J. Torti of Wimberley, Texas. They

have two dogs, Quilla and Rocco. Crystal enjoys

spending time with her husband and their two dogs.

224


Permanent Address: 1424 Reiger DriveGreenville, Texas 75401


The Relationship between the Quality of the Early Childhood Classroom Environment and Vocabulary...

Education

Transcript of The Relationship between the Quality of the Early Childhood Classroom Environment and Vocabulary...