Transcript Slide 1

Impact of professional development training in indirect language
stimulation techniques on language development in Head Start
ESL preschool children
Presented by Jannah Nerren, PhD
Head Start's 10th National Research Conference
Abstract
June 21-23, 2010
This pretest-posttest randomized study researched the effect of training for
Head Start preschool teachers in indirect language stimulation techniques
on English language development in ESL preschool students. The
constructivist-based techniques taught in the training are for utilization in
school settings, and in informal routine conversation between teachers
and students. Impact was determined using the PPVT-4 and EVT-2. A 2
day training workshop was provided to a random half of Head Start
teachers of 4 year-olds in a rural county in Texas. After controlling for pretest expressive and receptive scores there was no significant difference
between ESL students in classrooms in which the teacher received
language training (n=10) and those ESL students in classrooms in which
the teacher did not receive language training (n=15). This lack of
significant differences is likely due to a lack of power to detect differences
between the two groups.
Source
1
Mean
Squares
726.94
35.70
1
35.70
Error
1717.69
22
78.08
Total
168453.00
25
PPVT Pretest
Scores
Intervention
Sum of
Squares
726.94
df
Washington, DC
F
p
9.31
.46
Partial Eta
Squared
.006
.297
.506
.020
Note. R2=.307
Theoretical Framework
It is widely known that language supports reading which in turn
holds the key to future learning and success in school (National
Reading Panel, 2000). Language develops best in a rich
environment with many opportunities for practice (Dickinson,
2001). Children who do not develop basic language skills by
age 3 may be more at risk for failure when they enter
kindergarten (Morrow, 2008). Schools can attempt to influence
how these children learn language. It is well known among
early childhood educators that when young children are
exposed to a sensitive nurturing environment where adults
interact with students, comment on what the child says, and
model and extend the language the child uses, language
development is facilitated (Morrow, 2008).
Research Question(s):
Phase 1: To what extent does a two-day teacher training improve
the teachers’ knowledge and skill in the use of indirect language
stimulation techniques?
Phase 2: To what extent does teacher implementation of the
indirect language stimulation techniques into classroom teaching
improve the development of receptive and expressive oral
language development in treatment groups?
Methodology
This pre-test/posttest randomized control group research project was
conducted in two phases: Phase I (teacher training) and Phase II (classroom
implementation). During Phase I, a 2 day language development training
workshop was provided to a random selection of Head Start teachers of 4
year-olds in a rural county in Texas. The teachers were trained and
assessed in an interactive, hands-on format to use indirect language
stimulation techniques with preschool learners during daily routines and
activities. During Phase II, the trained teachers integrated the newly learned
language techniques into their regular classroom teaching. Researchers
monitored program fidelity on a monthly basis with planned observations
using a researcher-designed teacher observation form. Receptive language
was measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and
expressive language was measured by the Expressive Vocabulary Test
(EVT-2) prior to beginning the intervention and 6 months after
implementation. The results were analyzed using an analysis of covariance,
controlling for pre-test scores and intervention status.
Source
1
Mean
Squares
1501.47
209.78
1
209.78
Error
1868.36
21
1868.36
Total
131058.00
24
EVT Pretest
Scores
Intervention
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to test the impact of indirect
language stimulation techniques on preschoolers’ early
language development.
The Training
The language stimulation techniques used in the training are
grounded in the social theory of language acquisition, which
recognizes that language learning is facilitated through
interactions with mature language users (Bohannon &
Bonvillian, 2000; National Reading Panel 2000). The training
program of five sequential video tapes from Educational
Productions demonstrates how to stimulate language
development in normally developing and language-delayed
children who are three, four, and five years of age. These
language
stimulation
techniques
are
developmentally
appropriate for all children in their use of strategies that relate
directly to what the child is interested in and extend what the
child says (Snow, 1983). The training for this study emphasizes
the importance of closely following the child’s lead and limiting
extensions of the child’s language using indirect and less
complex techniques for the youngest language learners. It was
anticipated that all students in the preschool Head Start
treatment programs would benefit from this intervention.
Sum of
Squares
1501.47
df
80
70
60
50
Pre-test Mean
Post Test Mean
40
30
20
10
Intervention
Control
Results
Pretest
Mean
S.D.
25
63.3
16.5
Intervention
11
63.7
16.8
Control
14
62.9
16.4
25
81.5
10.2
Intervention
10
82.9
10.3
Control
15
80.5
10.3
Posttest
n
Pretest
Mean
S.D.
25
63.2
16.5
Intervention
11
63.6
16.7
Control
14
62.9
16.4
24
72.8
12.8
Intervention
10
77.4
15.8
Control
14
69.6
9.4
Posttest
www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/language/DC_headstart_study.doc
2.34
.141
.100
90
Descriptive Statistics
n
16.72
Partial Eta
Squared
.001
.443
Significance of the Study
EVT Results
Pretest
Statistics EVT
p
Note. R2=.496
0
Statistics PPVT
F
An analysis of covariance was conducted to assess the
effectiveness of the language intervention on expressive
vocabulary for English Language Learners. The independent
variable was participation in the intervention. The dependent
variable was the score on the EVT administered after the
intervention program. Scores on the EVT prior to the
commencement of the intervention were used as a covariate to
control for individual differences. After adjusting for prior EVT
scores, the main effect was not statistically significant [F (1,
21)=2.34, p=.141). This represents a small effect size (partial eta
squared=.100). These results suggest that the intervention does
not significantly affect English Language Learners’ expressive
language ability. This result may be due to the large growth that
both the intervention and control groups experienced in
expressive language when exposed to English at the Head Start
schools.
1) There are very few studies that identify specific strategies that enhance early
language development. This study can significantly add to the knowledge base.
2) Preschool teachers can be successful at learning strategies for improving early
language development in a short period of time (two days). Therefore, the training
method could easily be provided for professional development in most pre-school
teaching environments such as Head Start, private schools, daycare centers, and
public schools, as well as, parent education programs and university and other preservice teacher training programs.
3) Preschool teachers can learn to see themselves as facilitators of language
development in daily activities. Therefore, language development can evolve into a
natural and individualized interaction between teacher and child, especially during
the child’s play, allowing the child to process according to individual ecologies.
4) Preschool teachers can see how their existing school settings can be utilized to
address students’ cognitive, social, and emotional needs in language learning
through social interaction.
5) English Language Learners (ELL) and low SES groups are increasing at tremendous
rates, especially in Texas preschools; this study permits exploration of the impact of
language stimulation techniques on English language development in low SES and
ELL preschoolers.
Research Team:
Drs. Carolyn Abel, Jannah Nerren,
Dorothy Gottshall, Hope Wilson
Stephen F. Austin State University
Early Childhood Research Center
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962