Transcript Differences in Language Development of 3 and 4 year old

Differences in Language Development of 3 and
4 year old Children in a Constructivist Context
Presented by
Jannah W. Nerren and Hope E. Wilson
Stephen F. Austin State University
American Educational Research Association Conference
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
April 13-17, 2012
Research Team
Carolyn D. Abel
Jannah W. Nerren
Hope E. Wilson
Janice Pattillo Early Childhood Research Center
James I Perkins College of Education
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
http://www.sfasu.edu/
The Need for our Research
Children who do not speak English in the home are one of the fastest growing
groups in the nation (Pew Census 2006).
50% increase in Hispanics in US between 2000 – 2008 (Pew Hispanic Census 2008)
School-age ESL population, (5-17) rose 185% between 1976 – 2006 compared to
20% total population and Texas is 2nd to California in terms of numbers of
these students (US Dept Ed, 2008).
Not only do many of these children reside in non-English homes, but many of
their families are also low-income, and poverty is a strong predictor of ELL
difficulty, especially in the U.S. (Westby & Hwa-Froelich, 2010)
The Need for our Research
In the US, 1 in 6 children live in poverty and the numbers are increasing;
these children are far more likely to enter school as linguistically disadvantaged
and this gap increases as they progress through school (Cuthrell, Stapleton, and
Ledford, 2010).
Preschoolers with language delays less than 1.25 standard deviations
do not have access to high-quality early intervention services (Paul and Roth,
2011).
A majority of these LOW SES and ESL students are entering kindergarten
(Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Pew Hispanic Census 2008).
The Need for
our Research
I’m busy
While poverty is not always problematic,
the infamous studies conducted by Hart and Risley (1995,
2003) and others (Pikulski & Tobin, 1989) show
children in poverty typically hear half as many words per
hour (616 words) as the average-working class
child (1,251 words).
They also hear more negative words.
ESL students and immigrant youth. . .
who are OFTEN POOR
can experience equally limited opportunities for language support
from the home
even in their first language.
(Hadaway, 2004; US Dept Ed 2008)
Language Development
Young English Language Learners face increased risk for
school failure due to a
lack of teachers who are knowledgeable about how to
support them (Coppola, 2005 and many others).
Question:
If we teach English to low SES & ESL
preschoolers using our indirect
language stimulation techniques,
will it improve English development for
these children?
Answer: Currently we are researching the answer to this question and so far,
things look promising.
Our Research
We are currently exploring how to
help ALL children develop language
especially those whose home language is not English
and those who may not receive strong support at home.
Our Research
STUDY 1  trained ESL certified teachers of low SES ESL 4-year-olds (PPVT-4)
Results  Neared significance p=.054
Effect sizes warranted further study.
Pilot study interrupted by hurricane.
ESL-certified teachers may already be doing an effective job.
STUDY 2  trained Head Start teachers of low SES & ESL 4-year-olds
Results  SIGNIFICANT English improvement for ALL students (EVT-2)
n = 31 students p=.012
STUDY 3  trained Head Start teachers of 3-4-year-olds (low SES & ESL) (PPVT-4, EVT-2)
Results  3-yr olds receptive English improved (d=0.30) over 4’s (d=0.08)
4-yr olds expressive English improved (d=0.55) over 3’s (d=0.17)
n = 76 4-year-olds n = 63 3-yr-olds
STUDY 4  trained Head Start teachers of low SES and ESL 3 and 4-year-olds (PPVT-4, EVT-2)
Larger study; urban area Head Start; increased contact w teachers during yr
Results  available Sum 2012
Background
LANGUAGE
. . . supports reading which
increases learning.
(National Reading Panel, 2000
National Literacy Panel, 2006)
ORAL LANGUAGE
provides the
foundation for thinking
and leads to the development
of other communication skills.
(Lyle,1993)
Language is the
glue that holds a country together.
It allows people to talk with each other and exchange ideas.
Language facilitates participation in society.
There is evidence suggesting language
transfers both ways:
– teach English to ESL children
– transfer into first language
– could improve both languages (L1 and L2)
(August & Shanahan, National Literacy Panel 2006,
p.214).
Language Development
Preschoolers acquire English more easily where
there are knowledgeable sensitive teachers to
facilitate its development (Morrow, 2008;
Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2000; National Reading
Panel 2000; Ramirez, 1991).
The training in our studies demonstrates how
to support children’s earliest attempts to use
language by:
saying what the child says that mirrors
the child’s attention and
responding to all attempts to
communicate
Describe what the child is DO-ing.
AND repeat key words.
“Washing the dog……we are washing the dog.”
Language is facilitated best when teachers continue topics introduced by
the child (Snow, l998).
The training in our studies includes the Extension-Plus
technique where adults use and extend the words children use.
What Works?
As children advance in their language development, caregivers
should model the langauge they want children to use.
(Good Talking With You, 2007)
Child:
Teacher:
I wike it.
You like it? I like it, too.
Child:
He goed with me.
Teacher: He went with you? I’m glad he went with you.
Language develops best in a rich environment with opportunities to use language
(Dickinson, 2001)
The training in our studies emphasizes the importance
of developmentally appropriate play centers to
maximize language engagement.
…a place where children have a PURPOSE for acquiring
and an opportunity to USE English.
. . . a risk-free supportive environment
that breeds success.
Supporting Ells
ELLs are beyond the typical age when learning L-1.
They have developed Object Permanence
and their memory bank can hold ideas and thoughts in
their heads just like you can.
They have already formed concepts and ideas in L-1.
Yet, they are learning a new language--English.
globo
Supporting English Language Learners
(ELLs)
Question  Can we use the same indirect language stimulation techniques
to support ELLs
when they begin to learn English?
Supporting ELLs
The CLASSROOM can provide a MODEL
for HOW English sounds, BUT….
Life in the classroom can be a quick-paced
blur for the beginning English Language
Learner.
Have you ever tried to keep up when
watching the TV language channel?
This is a problem for ELLs, too.
People speak too quickly and
they talk too much.
The training in our studies teaches
Well-meaning teachers to remember
NOT to go overboard
and say too much during those
early stages of language development.
Speak slowly,
Enunciate distinctly,
Use non-verbal, pictures, and objects
And repeat, repeat, and repeat.
As for anyone learning a new language . . .
They still need that same support to
make connections with
-the object in hand,
-the image in mind, and
-the word that goes with it.
Supporting all ELLs
ALL English language learners need
supportive caregivers who will take time to label
and provide safe and purposeful opportunities
for using & understanding English.
We came up with the acronym SPEAK
to summarize important aspects of the training.
SPEAK
Seek opportunities to engage in conversation with
children.
The first step in incorporating SPEAK is to create an
active learning environment that allows children
to construct knowledge as they learn through
play. As children move about the classroom,
teachers sit alongside and converse with them at
an appropriate level, providing children with
opportunities to hear and use descriptive
language.
SPEAK
Personalize communication with children by talking
about what THEY are doing or seeing.
As teachers of ELLs move through the day with their
students, it is important to be descriptive about
children’s activities, and the materials they use. An
example of this is a teacher sitting with a child as he
constructs a block tower. The teacher simply says
“You are building a tower!” When the child
processes this information, the teacher might add
“You are building a very tall tower!”
SPEAK
Engage children in conversation by asking open-ended questions.
When ELLs begin to make attempts at using the English language, it
is helpful to increase their use of language by asking questions
that have no correct answer. This provides a risk-free
environment in which children can practice newly acquired
words. Often, well-intentioned teachers squelch fledging
attempts at language in an enthusiastic attempt to keep the
child talking. Rather than asking “What color is it?” “How many
are there?” and other questions that might intimidate the child,
ask open-ended questions where any answer is correct. An
example of this might be “You made a tower! Who lives there?”
If the child chooses not to answer, the teacher, without
pressuring the child might eventually comment something such
as “Such a big tower! A giant could live there.”
SPEAK
Assist children’s language by expanding what they say.
When children attempt language, saying for instance “Tower,”
the teacher simply follows the child’s lead with “Yes, it is a
tower.” This expansion, where the teacher adds
information to the words the child says, reinforces the
child’s speech, while providing new words. This can also be
used to help children hear the correct syntax and grammar
of language. An example might be a child at the lunch table
holding up his food and telling you “I eat sandwich.” The
teacher can indirectly correct the grammatical error and
add additional information by saying “You are eating a
sandwich! It’s a peanut butter sandwich.”
SPEAK
Keep it simple; refrain from bombarding language
learners with too much information at once.
If you have had the experience of traveling to a country
where you did not speak the language, perhaps you
remember feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly
constant chatter of the unfamiliar words. Now
imagine that experience with a patient teacher
alongside you, describing in short conversational
sentences all that you see and do. What a
difference!
Used daily, these simple SPEAK
techniques can become second nature to the
teacher, and will go a long way in assisting the
youngest learners with their language skills.
Methodology
Phase 1 all studies
We began by locating interested teachers to receive the
training.
ALL teachers expressed interest in receiving the training which
indicates a need for this type of professional development.
Methodology
We gave all of them a survey:




ESL certified / NOT
Previous teaching experience in the district
Total experience working with preschoolers
Spanish-speaking ability
We randomly divided our teachers into 2 groups.
Half became the treatment
group to receive the training.
The other half became our control
group—they would not.
We promised to give them
the training after the study.
The TREATMENT teachers received
2 days of training
Using Ed. Productions’
Good Talking With You Video series.
Treatment teachers were pre
and post tested on their
knowledge of the training
techniques.
This test had been
constructed with input from
experts.
Training was a success in all
studies, but pretest scores
indicated a greater need
for language training for
the NON-ESL certified
Head Start teachers.
Example: STUDY 2
Head Start Teachers increased knowledge of the
techniques 33%
Mean = 78% knowledge of the techniques
All gave strong praise for what they felt they had learned.
Later supported through random observations in
classrooms, averaging 3-4 (average to good use of
strategies).
STUDY 1 – ESL certified teachers  higher scores all around
26% increase / post test = 96% knowledge
classroom obs = averaged 4 (range 2 – 5)
STUDY 3 – Pre-test findings were similar to STUDY 2
43% increase / post test = 88% knowledge
Phase 2
all studies
In the FALL, students were pretested using PPVT-4
and EVT-2 by an experienced tester.
Treatment Teachers integrated the newly learned strategies into
their regular classroom teaching.
Control classroom teachers taught as usual.
To ensure fidelity to the treatment, random brief visits were made monthly to
treatment classrooms.
This rubric used to assess level of fidelity had been developed and field tested
by the researchers. Scores ranged from zero (no use of strategies) to 5
(excellent use of language techniques).
In the SPRING (early April) all students in control &
treatment classrooms were post tested by the same
experienced tester using the same assessments—
PPVT-4 and EVT-2.
Example: Study 2
PPVT Results
(receptive English language)
PPVT
Pretest = END Sept 2009
Intervention
n
Mean
76
S.D.
77.7
16.1
37
79.8
18.8
Spanish Speaking
11
63.7
16.8
English Speaking
25
86.4
17.0
39
75.7
15.5
Spanish Speaking
14
62.9
16.4
English Speaking
24
82.9
10.6
67
90.4
13.3
32
91.1
13.4
Spanish Speaking
10
82.9
10.3
English Speaking
22
94.9
13.2
35
89.7
13.3
Spanish Speaking
15
80.5
10.3
English Speaking
20
96.7
11.0
Control
Posttest = BEG. April 2010
Intervention
Control
Study 2
EVT Scores
expressive vocabulary
Similar results were seen for the tests of expressive language on the EVT-2,
with a low mean standard score in the pretest results (M=78.8), and a large
increase over 6 months for both treatment and control
groups (M=85.6).
EVT
n
Mean
S.D.
74
78.8
19.5
36
77.9
20.8
Spanish Speaking
11
63.6
16.7
English Speaking
24
83.8
20.0
38
79.6
18.9
Spanish Speaking
14
62.9
16.4
English Speaking
24
89.4
12.3
Pretest = END Sept. 2009
Intervention
Control
Posttest = BEG. Apr. 2010
Intervention
65
85.6
15.0
31
88.6
15.0
Spanish Speaking
10
77.4
15.8
English Speaking
21
93.9
11.5
34
82.8
14.6
Spanish Speaking
14
69.6
9.4
English Speaking
20
92.1
9.6
Control
Study 2 Results
PPVT Results
•2x2 ANCOVA
•Independent Variable: Intervention Status
•Dependent Variable: Receptive Language
•Covariates: Pre-test Scores, Language Background
After adjusting for PPVT pretest scores, and finding no significant interaction
noted between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 62)=1.99,
p=.163]. . . .
Results suggest that the intervention
did NOT have an effect on the
receptive language of either students from English speaking or
Spanish speaking homes.
ANCOVA - PPVT
Source
Sum of
Note. R2=.696
df
Mean
Squares
PPVT Pretest Scores
F
p
Partial Eta
Squares
Squared
4872.23
1
4872.23
85.10
<.001
.579
Intervention
1.08
1
1.08
.02
.891
<.001
Language
5.19
1
5.19
.09
.764
.001
114.19
1
114.19
1.99
.163
.031
Error
3549.55
62
57.25
Total
559235.00
67
Intervention*Lang
No significant impact on RECEPTIVE language for ESL or low SES.
EVT Results
•2x2 ANCOVA
•Independent Variable: Intervention Status
•Dependent Variable: Receptive Language
•Covariates: Pre-test Scores, Language Background
EVT Results
After adjusting for EVT pretest scores, and finding no significant interaction
between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 60)=.09,
p=.772],
Results indicate both of the main effects were statistically significant
[intervention: F (1, 60)=6.64, p=.012; language: F (1, 60)=9.86, p=.003].
•Treatment was effective for BOTH low SES English & ESL (p=.012)
.100
•Low SES English speakers gained the most (p=.003)
.141
However, they both represent a very small effect size (language partial eta
squared=.141; intervention partial eta squared=.100).
Expressive Language Increased
These results suggest that the intervention is equally effective for
students from diverse language backgrounds and supports
expressive English language development.
Students in treatment
classrooms (n=31) had significantly higher
expressive language scores (p=.012) than controls (n=34).
ANCOVA - EVT
Source
Sum of
Note. R2=.71
df
Mean
Squares
EVT Pretest
F
p
Squares
Partial Eta
Squared
3642.06
1
3642.06
53.01
<.001
.469
Intervention
456.41
1
456.41
6.64
.012
.100
Language
677.41
1
677.41
9.86
.003
.141
5.82
1
5.82
.09
.772
.001
Error
4122.14
60
68.70
Total
490075.00
65
Scores
Intervention*Lang
Significant IMPACT on EXPRESSIVE language for TREATMENT STUDENTS !
Results
Expressive English Vocabulary Improved
It appears 2 days of training
for Preschool Head Start teachers
can have a positive impact
on the English language development
of low SES and ESL learners
in only six months.
IF 2 days of training
for Head Start teachers
can have a positive impact
for BOTH groups
in 6 months . . .
Then what would the impact be if we intensified
the training , began a year earlier with 3-yearolds, and continued the intervention for 2
years? What would we see if we were able to
study larger groups?
New Directions
 YOUNGER students
(3 yr olds  4 yr olds)
 ADDITIONAL training
(midyear contact w teachers)
 PVVT vs EVT for 3 or 4 year olds
 LARGER GROUP SAMPLES
 Special populations (teacher candidates,
parents, etc)
Limitations for all of our studies
A major limitation has been our small sample sizes.
With a larger sample, it would be possible to analyze the results for specific
subpopulations of students more carefully.
In addition, our samples of students are specific to their geographic locations;
future research should investigate the effectiveness of the language
stimulation techniques for ESL and low socioeconomic status students from
more geographically diverse population areas.
FINAL RESULTS – Study 4
larger sample/ urban setting
. . . will be analyzed SUMMER 2012.
Your Feedback is Appreciated
Implications
As our population becomes more
linguistically diverse, it is critical to
develop oral language skills of
preschool children to prepare
them for later academic success in
school.
Implications
These studies suggest language training can be effective for all teachers,
especially those in Head Start programs in Texas.
Thank You

August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bohannon, J. N. and Bonvillian, J. D. (2000). Theoretical approaches to language acquisition. In J. B. Gleason
(Ed.). The development of language (pp. 254-314). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. In Tsybina I.,
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., and Greenberg, J. (2006 October). Recasts Used with Preschoolers Learning
English as their Second Language. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 178-179.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (l999). Relationship of metalinguistic
capatilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 20(4), 459-478. In August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and
youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Coppola, J. (2005). English language learners: Language and literacy development during the preschool years.
Journal of the New England Reading Association, 41 (2), 18-23. In National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition. (2005). P.4. A resource guide. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/ecell/intro

Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., & Ledford, C. (2010). Examining the Culture of Poverty: Promising
Practices. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), p.104-105. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Large group and free-play times: Conversational settings supporting language and
literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson and P. O. Tabors (Eds.). Beginning literacy with language (pp. 223-255).
Baltimore: Brookes. In slide 3 of Kindergarten Oral Language and Vocabulary Development: Overview. Retrieved
February 29, 2008 from http://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Kinder/slides/k1030001/k1030010.gif
Fry, Richard and Gonzales, Felisa (August 2008). One-in-Five and Growing Fast: A Profile of Hispanic Public
School Students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 from
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/92.pdf






Gersten, R., Carmine, D., & Williams, P. (l982). Measuring implementation of a structured
educational model in an urban setting: An observational approach. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 4(1), 67-79. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam,
Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student
Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf
Good Talking With You Series (2007). Oh say what they see—an introduction to indirect language
stimulation techniques. Portland, OR: Educational Productions. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from
http://www.tr.wou.edu/perc/documents/INDIRECTLANGUAGESTIMULATION.pdf This program was
recently acquired by Teaching Strategies.
Hadaway, Vardell, Young (2004). What every teacher should know about English language learners.
P.3. Allyn & Bacon Publisher.
Hart, Betty and Risley, Todd (2003). The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3.
American Educator, Spring 2003. P. 8.
Hiebert, J. (l999). Relationships between research and the NCTM Standards. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and
Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery
and Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington
University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lesaux, N., and Geva, E. Synthesis: Development of Literacy in Language-Minority
Students. In August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-
language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and
youth. P.53. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Morrow, L. M. (2008). Language and vocabulary development. P. 98-116. In Literacy
development in the early years: Helping children read and write. (6th ed). Columbus, OH:
Allyn & Bacon Publisher.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Pp.4-1, 4-3., 8, 16, 20. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Paul, R., & Roth, F. P. (2011). Characterizing and Predicting Outcomes of Communication Delays in
Infants and Toddlers: Implications for Clinical Practice. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in
Schools, 42(3), 331-340. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0067)
Pikulski, J.J. and Tobin, A.W. (1989). Factors associated with long-term reading achievement of early
readers. In S. McCormick, J. Zutell, P. Scharer and P. O'Keefe (Eds.), Cognitive and social
perspectives for literacy research and instruction. Chicago, National Reading Conference.
Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education
programs for language-minority children. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education.
Executive Summary and Vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
 Resnick, B., Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., DeFranesco, C., Breger, R., Hecht, J., Sharp, D. L.,
Leavesque, C., Orwig, D., Ernst, D., Ogedegbe, G., & Czajkowski, S. (2005). Examples of
implementation and evaluation of treatment fidelity in the BCC Studies: Where we are
and where we need to go. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 46-54. In O’Donnell, Carol;
Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of
Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student Responsiveness and
Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; New
Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf
 Richardson, V. (l990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational
Researcher, l9, 10-18. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam,
Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and
Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington
University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on
November 28, 2008 from http://www.gwu.edu/~scaleup/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf


Simpson, A. (2004, February 26). Early education experts highlight concerns about new
nationwide test of four-year-olds in head start, [Press Release]. Washington: National
Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved on December 1, 2008 from
http://www.naeyc.org/about/releases/20040226.asp
Snow, Catherine (l983). In Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years.
P. 210. In Manami, M. & Kennedy, B. P. (l998). Language issues in literacy and
bilingual/multicultural education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Tinajero, J. V., Hurley, S. R., & Lozano, E. V. (l998). Developing language and literacy in bilingual
classrooms. In M. L. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J. V. Tinajero (Eds.), Educating Latino students: A
guide to successful practice (pp. 143-160). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing company. Inthird Grade
Video Script #3 Texas Demographics. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from
http://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Third/video_chunk/ThirdPDF/3TexasDemo.pdf

Tysbina, I., Girolametto, L., Weitzmann, E., & Greenberg, J. (2006, October). Recasts used
with preschoolers learning English as their second language. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 34(2), 178. Retrieved May 14, 2008. Doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0110-2.
Westby, Carol and Hwa-Froelich, Deborah (2010). Difficulty, Delay, or Disorder: What Makes
English Hard for English Language Learners? In Shatz, Marilyn and Wilkinson, Louise (Eds)
(2010). The Education of English Langauge Learners: Research to Practice.

 Clip Art Gallery on Discovery School.com Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/copyright.html
 Annenberg’s picture from “Thalia Learns the Details”
http://www.learner.org/libraries/readingk2/thalia/index.html
 Globe clip art with permission from PROJECT ENLACE Fall 2008
http://www2.sfasu.edu/enlace/About_ENLACE.htm
 Microsoft office ClipArt
 Most Intelligent Systems, Inc. Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from
http://www.freegraphicsonline.com/
 Normal Rockwell clip art with permission. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.normanrockwell.com/community/downloads.htm
 Photos with permission / taken at the researchers’ university campus school during Fall
2008 www.sfasu.edu/education/departments/elementary/centers/index.asp
 Royalty Free Clip-Art Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from http://www.freegraphics.com/