Examining linguistic interactions of dual language learners using the Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn)

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Examining linguistic interactions of dual language learners using the Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn) Ximena Franco a,∗ , Donna M. Bryant a,4 , Cristina Gillanders a,2 , Dina C. Castro a,1 , Marlene Zepeda b,5 , Michael T. Willoughby a,3 a b

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States California State University, Los Angeles, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 June 2017 Received in revised form 18 February 2019 Accepted 21 February 2019 Keywords: Dual language learners Bilingual children Preschool Language development Classroom language Language interactions

a b s t r a c t The Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn) is an observational measure developed to document the quantity and quality of language use in early childhood classrooms with dual language learners (DLLs). This study detailed the ways in which LISn data describes the linguistic interactions of Spanish–English DLLs with their teachers and peers. Participants were 104 teachers and assistant teachers from 52 classrooms in preschool programs in California, Florida and North Carolina and 341 DLLs. During the fall and spring classrooms were observed with the LISn and children were assessed in English and Spanish using receptive and expressive vocabulary measures. The association between linguistic interactions, as measured by the LISn, and DLLs’ language outcomes was examined in about half the sample (in 26 classrooms). Results revealed that children had fewer language interactions with adults in Spanish than in English, even though there was at least one adult who spoke Spanish in every classroom, and they had few language interactions with any adult in either language. The language interactions children did have with teachers were generally of basic quality (i.e., giving directions and providing information) rather than complex quality (i.e., requesting language, using decontextualized talk, and reading aloud). Although children had somewhat more verbal interactions with peers, very few were sustained more than two turns. Associations were found between complex language interactions in English and children’s bilingual receptive vocabulary outcomes. This demonstrates that the LISn holds promise as a measure of language interactions in early childhood classrooms with DLLs. © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The extent to which adults talk to children and the extent to which parent–child conversations are scaffolded and complex are

∗ Corresponding author at: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 105 Smith Level Rd CB#8180, Suite 425, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8180, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Franco), [email protected] (D.M. Bryant), [email protected] (C. Gillanders), [email protected] (D.C. Castro), [email protected] (M. Zepeda), [email protected] (M.T. Willoughby). 1 The author is now affiliated with the University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #310740, Denton, TX 76203-5017, United States. 2 The author is now affiliated with the University of Colorado, 1380 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80217, United States. 3 The author is now affiliated with RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, United States. 4 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#8180, Chapel Hill, NC 275998180, United States. 5 California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.007 0885-2006/© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

among the strongest predictors of children’s language and cognitive development for both monolingual (Hoff, 2006) and especially dual language learners (DLLs) (Hoff et al., 2012; Hurtado, Marchman, & Fernald, 2008). DLLs are children under five who are learning English as their second language (L2) while continuing to learn their first language (L1) (Office of Head Start, 2008). It has also been demonstrated that the quality and quantity of teachers’ language use plays a crucial role in the acquisition of language and literacy skills for both monolingual and bilingual preschoolers (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2003; Hoff, 2003; Hoff et al., 2012). Whereas DLLs benefit from frequent and complex conversations with adults in both languages, there is evidence they hear less of each language than children whose daily language exposure is in a single language as has been described in studies of parent–child language interactions (Hoff et al., 2012). Thus, in order for DLLs to acquire language competence in both of their languages and have success in school, it is important that they experience not only appropriate amounts of language input, but also that the quality of the language input allows them to become more familiar with the type of language used in school. Conse-

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

quently, for DLLs in preschool settings, it is important to examine the quality and quantity of language exchanges they have with teachers in both their first and other languages. In order to gather information systematically about linguistic interactions in the classroom, tools are needed to measure the amount and type of language interactions that occur between children and adults. The Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn) (Sprachman, Caspe, & Atkins-Burnett, 2009) is a measure recently developed and designed to capture how multiple languages are used in early childhood classrooms. Given the paucity of measures appropriate for understanding language development in DLL preschoolers (Hammer et al., 2014), the purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to examine the LISn’s ability to describe the linguistic interactions among a sample of Spanish–English DLLs and their teachers and peers, and (2) to examine whether a relationship exists between linguistic interactions in the classroom as measured with the LISn and the language outcomes of DLL preschoolers.

1.1. Language learning in early childhood classrooms Learning in school relies heavily on the use of language. Children need to understand and use language in order to be successful in school. Young children depend on adults and more competent speakers to provide responsive conversational input to help develop their language. Social-interaction theory posits that language development occurs within a social-communicative relationship (Evans, 2009) where, ideally, mutually satisfying, positive interactions take place that help drive language acquisition. Within this perspective children are motivated to communicate in order to have their needs met. While acknowledging that various characteristics of individual children such as personality, temperament, and social skills are related to children’s language output (e.g. Conture, Kelly, & Walden, 2013; Dörnyei, 2005; Ellis, 2008), our focus in this paper is on the language that children hear and use in their early childhood classrooms. Through their interactions teachers play a very important role in a child’s language development via the frequency, quality and affective nature of their language exchanges. Frequent language interactions and use of sophisticated and varied vocabulary in early childhood education (ECE) have been shown to be predictive of children’s later literacy skills (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010). This means that “language acquisition is fostered when adults are tuned in and responsive to what the children are saying” (Dickinson & Porche, 2011, p. 871). As revealed in parent–child language interactions research, a child’s verbal interactions with a more skilled adult speaker promote children’s language, especially when adult speech is contingent on what the child’s says (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991). Furthermore, quantity of linguistic interactions matters. More adult talk results in more diversity in children’s vocabulary words and advanced syntax (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991; Hoff, 2003). Similarly, properties of the adult talk also seem to make a difference. Adult child interactions in which the adult repeats and elaborates on children’s language and in which they extend children’s vocabulary and syntactic skills are examples of the semantic contingency needed to facilitate language acquisition (Snow, 1983). Developmentally, children begin using language that is contextualized, that is, about objects and activities that are here and now. Progressively they begin to talk about absent objects or past or future activities (decontextualized language) (Snow, 1983). Exposure to both types of languages is important for children’s development (Dickinson, 2001; Snow, 1983) Finally, use of rich vocabulary, contingent replies to children’s speech, fewer directives and more questions, seem to be related to better children’s language outcomes (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991).

51

Early childhood interactions between teachers and children are optimal environments for children to learn a new language. Dickinson and Porche (2011), for example, found that preschool teachers’ use of sophisticated vocabulary predicted children’s reading comprehension and word recognition by 4th grade. In classrooms with DLLs, Aukrust (2007) reported that the number and variety of words used, as well as the discourse complexity used by preschool teachers were associated with DLLs’ receptive vocabulary scores in first grade. Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) conducted a study with DLLs in English-only classrooms that examined preschool teachers’ speech in terms of input quantity (number of words), lexical diversity (number of different words) and structural complexity (average number of words per utterance). These researchers also found that the number of words in teachers’ talk was the best predictor of DLLs’ receptive vocabulary. In a study that examined teachers’ talk in transitional bilingual kindergartens, Gámez and Levine (2013) and in a later study Gámez (2015), found that DLLs’ Spanish and English expressive language skills were positively correlated with teachers’ use of words and the degree of complexity of their utterances. More recently researchers have also examined the role of peer interactions in DLLs’ language development. For example, Gámez, Griskell, Sobrevilla, and Vazquez (2018) examined the relationship between peers’ language use and DLLs’ and monolingual English-speaking kindergarteners’ expressive and receptive language. Findings revealed positive significant relations between peers’ vocabulary diversity and DLLs’ and monolingual Englishspeaking children’s vocabulary diversity. More specifically, peers’ vocabulary diversity in the middle of the year was positively related to DLLs and monolingual English-speaking children’s diversity at the end of the year. A similar positive relationship was found between peers’ syntactic complexity and children’s syntactic complexity and receptive vocabulary. All these studies reflect that teachers’ language use in the classroom and linguistic interactions with and among children are critical for children’s language development. Specifically, the studies found that teachers’ use of a variety of words and complex grammar relate to children’s vocabulary development. However, researchers in all these studies collected data by videotaping teachers’ and children’s language, and carefully transcribing and coding the linguistic interactions, procedures that are time-consuming and complicated. Moreover, these studies examined teachers’ speech as they interacted on average with all children in the class rather than with particular children. Given that the present study focuses particularly on the experiences of DLLs, a measure that provides information related to the individual linguistic interactions of these children is needed. This information will help us uncover the specific language interactions that DLLs experience that is overlooked when focusing on teachers’ speech as they interact with the whole group of children. Unfortunately, studies of language environments in ECE classrooms suggest that most are less than optimal environments for promoting language growth, especially when children come from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and are DLLs (Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008; Wright, 2012). Justice et al. (2008) found that teachers of both DLLs and monolingual English-speaking children rarely used strategies that would promote language development such as asking open-ended questions, repeating and elaborating on children’s utterances, and introducing new words during their language and literacy lessons in English. Wright (2012) found that kindergarten teachers discussed the meaning of words on average only 8.14 times per day, that these discussions were brief and intermittent, and that teachers in predominantly low-income schools provided fewer vocabulary development discussions than those in economically advantaged schools.

52

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

1.2. Importance of teacher–child interactions for Spanish–English DLLs For DLL children, language interactions may be especially important. DLLs need rich and frequent exposure to both languages in order to achieve balanced bilingualism (Hoff et al., 2012; Hurtado et al., 2008) and support of their bilingual development has important implications for school success (NASEM, 2017). In a longitudinal study of 4.5- to 11-year-old Spanish-speaking DLLs and English learners, Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2010, 2011) reported that vocabulary and syntactic abilities in English and Spanish measured annually explained variations in reading comprehension at fifth grade. Likewise, using a nationally representative sample, Kieffer (2012) found that Spanish-speaking DLLs’ English vocabulary in kindergarten predicted levels of English reading in third through eighth grade. Finally, vocabulary in both Spanish and English in preschool predicted word reading skills in English in first and later grades (Kieffer, 2012; Rinaldi & Páez, 2008). Given the critical role of early childhood settings for promoting language development in DLLs, it is particularly important to understand how frequently children interact with teachers and the properties of those language interactions in each language. Some evidence suggests that Spanish–English DLL children acquire stronger skills in English when teachers speak Spanish more frequently in addition to English (Chang et al., 2007) and during instruction (Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2007; Burchinal, Hyson, & Zaslow, 2011; Burchinal, Field, Lopez, Howes, & Pianta, 2012; Durán, Roseth, & Hoffman, 2010). Furthermore, Farver, Lonigan, and Eppe, (2009) indicate that children show larger gains in language and literacy skills in both Spanish and English when they receive instruction in English and Spanish equally. However, these studies focused only on overall frequency of Spanish and English instruction, and did not examine the properties of the language environment in the preschool classroom in general and, more specifically, the types of the verbal interactions between the teacher and the DLL children in both their first (L1) and second (L2) language. As important as the instructional content and strategies are, the type of teacher–child verbal interactions and the classroom language environment are viewed by practitioners and documented by researchers as one of the critical mechanisms by which early education influences future school success (Burchinal, Magnuson, Powell, & Hong, 2015; Hatfield, Burchinal, Pianta, & Sideris, 2016). Consequently, teachers are the focus of many evaluations of early childhood initiatives in programs such as Head Start and states’ Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) (Build Initiative, 2016). However, the measurement of the quality of teacher–child interactions in these efforts has not necessarily considered the particular needs of DLLs. 1.3. Measuring linguistic interactions in early childhood classrooms Most widely used ECE quality measures are not designed to measure the frequency and/or types of language interactions in either the first or second language of DLL children. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005) includes ratings of the frequency with which teachers use reasoning in language interactions and environmental characteristics of preschool classrooms. Only one of the ten domains of the widely used Classroom Assessment Scoring System Pre-K (CLASS; Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008)—instructional support—measures language modeling. Although this CLASS domain focuses on frequent conversations between teacher and child, student-initiated language, and open-ended questions, it provides only a classroomlevel global score focused mainly on teacher behavior and not specific to the language characteristics of individual children. The

Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith & Dickinson, 2002) focuses on environmental supports and practices for language and literacy development in preschool classrooms. The Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation-Dual Language Learners (ELLCO-DLL; Castro, 2005) extends this approach to practices specifically for DLLs, focusing on the use of children’s L1strategically during instruction (e.g., in read alouds) and the availability of books and other materials in Spanish in addition to English. However, the goal of these measures is not to describe the teacher–child linguistic interactions, but rather describe globally the language environment and the specific practices used to support language and literacy development in the classroom. 1.4. A classroom language measure specifically for DLLs The LISn measure was developed specifically to measure the frequency and quality of teacher–child interactions for monolingual and bilingual children by observation, without having to audio- or videotape language samples and transcribe them. Previous studies have examined the use of language comparing monolingual versus bilingual environments (e.g. Barnett et al., 2007) but have not analyzed in detail the language interactions occurring in the classroom. Furthermore, the analyses in these studies have centered on the teacher as the primary initiator (Atkins-Burnett, Sprachman, Lopez, Caspe, & Fallin, 2011). The LISn utilizes time-sampling techniques to describe the quantity and types of specific language interactions between the focus child and adults (i.e. teacher and assistant teacher), and between the focus child and peers (Sprachman et al., 2009). As such, it captures teacher, child, and peer initiations and responses. The LISn was created for the Universal Preschool Child Outcomes Study (UPCOS) and was piloted in 2008 in 20 classrooms that included both monolingual as well as dual language learners. Initial evidence of concurrent validity (Sprachman et al., 2009) was obtained by examining relations with the observations of the same classroom using the CLASS (Pianta, LaParo, et al., 2008). The strongest relations were found between the CLASS Quality of Feedback variable which evaluates the degree to which the teacher provides feedback that expands learning and comprehension and encourages children to continued participation in the learning activity and the LISn variables about requests for language, giving both contextualized and decontextualized information, repeating or confirming child language, and total talk (r = .64 to r = .72) (Atkins-Burnett et al., 2011). As a relative new measure, there is scant information on the psychometric properties of the LISn. Previous studies have used similar time-sampling techniques to measure child engagement (Chien et al., 2010), activity settings and daily classroom routines (Fuligni, Howes, Huang, Hong, & LaraCinisomo, 2012), and how children spend their time in preschool classrooms (Early et al., 2010). In these studies, researchers have been able to examine the relations between these various aspects of the classroom and child outcomes. Similarly, in this study we examine the use of the LISn as a time-sampling measure that has an exclusive focus on linguistic interactions with DLLs in preschool classrooms. The LISn focuses on an individual child and the language provided to a DLL child by the lead teacher and other adults in the classroom as well as the frequency with which the focus child converses with the lead teacher, other adults in the classroom, and the child’s peers. The LISn allows examination of the interactions experienced by individual children which—by observing multiple children—can then be aggregated to the group or classroom level. Given the importance of the frequency and, in particular, the types of language exchanges between teachers and DLLs in ECE, the first aim of this paper is to describe the linguistic interactions in a sample of Spanish–English DLLs and their teachers and peers. The second aim is to determine the association between the

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

teacher–child and child–peer linguistic interactions, as measured by the LISn, and DLL children’s language abilities. Specifically, this study examined (1) the frequency and types of teacher–child linguistic interactions in English and Spanish as rated with the LISn, and (2) the associations between LISn ratings of the linguistic interactions with DLLs’ language skills in both English and Spanish. Three previous studies (Atkins-Burnett et al., 2011; Sawyer et al., 2017; Subrahmanyam et al., 2013) have used the LISn to describe teacher language in preschool classrooms with groups of children with similar background characteristics as those in the present study. The Atkins-Burnett et al. (2011) study primarily describes the development of the LISN whereas the Sawyer et al. (2017) study provides a description of the quantity and quality of teacher language directed to children and the quantity and quality of child talk to teachers and peers. The Subrahmanyam et al. (2013) study focuses on the relationship between teacher beliefs and the quantity and quality of their speech directed to children in their classrooms. Although these previous studies used the LISn, they did not examine child outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to examine the association between teacher talk and DLL children’s language outcomes using the LISn. 2. Method This study used data from an experimental study of the Nuestros ˜ School Readiness (NNSR) Program (Castro et al., 2017). The Ninos NNSR is a two-year teacher professional development (PD) program created to improve the quality of early education practices focusing on DLLs’ language, literacy, socio-emotional development and mathematical abilities. The NNSR program was designed for teachers serving prekindergarten Spanish–English DLLs in programs where English is the main language of instruction. 2.1. Participants Participants were recruited from 33 early childhood programs in California (CA), Florida (FL), and North Carolina (NC). The auspice of these programs was either Head Start, state pre-K and Title I in public schools, or state subsidy programs. In NC and FL, programs had to have earned at least four stars on the NC or Miami-Dade’s five-star quality rating system and, in CA, programs had to have their rating based on the Los Angeles Universal Preschool fivestar quality assessment and improvement program. All programs that met the eligibility criteria were invited to participate. Classrooms had to enroll at least 25%, but not more than 75%, 4-year-old, Spanish–English DLLs as identified by the teachers. Lead teachers needed to possess either a bachelor’s degree or an Associate of Arts (2-year) degree while working toward a bachelor’s degree; 104 teachers and assistant teachers from 52 classrooms agreed to participate in the study. Program directors identified potential teacher participants, and teachers were invited to participate. Although not a requirement of the study, all classrooms happened to use either the Creative Curriculum or the High Scope Curriculum as their core curriculum. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions; teachers then participated in the study for two years. Over two years, a new cohort of DLL children, up to 5 per classroom, was recruited each fall, and expected to participate in the NNSR study for one year. Class size in participating classrooms was 16–18 on average. Parents of all DLLs in each classroom were invited to participate in the study. DLLs were selected among those whose parents consented to participate and met inclusion criteria: primary language used by parents to speak to their child was Spanish and parents were of Mexican or Central American origin. In classrooms where more than 5 parents of DLLs who

53

Table 1 Sample description. Classroom and teacher sample

M (SD)

Classroom (N = 52)

19.3 (1.1) 10.3 (3.9)

Lead teacher (N = 52)

Child sample (N = 341)

State

Program type

Children/classroom Latino children/classroom Bilingual lead & assistant teacher Curriculum (Creative) Curriculum (High Scope) Years in early childhood Years in position Gender (female) Ethnicity (Latino) Education (Associate) Education (BA/MA) Mean age, fall of PreK Gender (female) Fam. origin Central America Fam. origin Mexican California (Los Angeles) North Carolina Florida (Miami) Head Start NAEYC accredited

%

39% 33% 67% 13.5 (20.7) 5.5 (5.7) 99% 62% 21% 77% 4.05 48% 45% 55% 19% 37% 44% 77% 45%

met inclusion criteria consented, children were randomly selected among those who consented. This resulted in a total sample of 341 Spanish-speaking DLLs of Mexican (55%) and Central American (45%) descent and their parents. Families were all low-income as that was a requirement of all the programs participating in the study. Compared to the Spanish-speaking DLL children and families in the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) study (Winsler et al., 2014), study families had less diverse country of origin (e.g., none from Puerto Rico or Cuba) and probably had somewhat lower income than those in ECLS-B where income was not a participation requirement. However, the mean income of the Mexican-origin families in ECLS-B was only $31,000 and depending on family size, that income would not have disqualified them from the programs from which we recruited. The present analyses used the baseline data of all 341 children from 52 classrooms, collected in the fall before intervention began, to examine the frequency and quality of teacher–child interactions. To examine the associations of teacher–child interactions with English and Spanish language outcomes in the spring, only data from the control classrooms were used because the intervention group teachers received professional development during the school year to increase linguistic interactions. The control group did not receive the professional development intervention and can be described as “business as usual.” The sample for this analysis consisted of 26 early childhood classrooms (the control group), 26 lead teachers, 26 assistant teachers, and 126 Spanish-speaking DLLs and their parents. No significant differences were found among participants from all three geographic locations. In order to ensure that the effects of the intervention condition would not be confounded by extreme differences in individual development, children with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) were not included in this study. Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the sites, classrooms, teachers, and children in this study. An average of 4.8 children per classroom (range 3–5) participated in the study. 2.2. Procedure After programs agreed to participate, all teachers in the classrooms that met the eligibility criteria were invited to participate. After teachers agreed to participate, they facilitated child recruitment by sending an information packet and consent form to the families of all enrolled Spanish–English DLL children in their classrooms. All lead teachers received $100 as a token of apprecia-

54

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

tion. Intervention group teachers received educational materials and additional rewards as they participated in the professional development program, although only their pre-intervention classroom observations are used here. Parents who consented received $30 for an interview and the children received storybooks after each assessment. Data collectors were fluent bilinguals in English and Spanish, knowledgeable about early childhood education and assessment practices, and trained in standardized data collection measures and procedures by the research team. Assessment of children’s language and literacy skills was conducted in the fall and spring. Children were assessed in English and Spanish, with the administration in each language conducted with at least one week in between assessment and randomly counterbalanced to control for order effects. Classrooms were observed using the LISn in the fall and in the spring. Teacher questionnaires and parent interviews were conducted in the fall of each year to obtain demographic information.

ity of types of interactions in each language, across the different observation cycles. Multiple codes can be noted throughout each 30-s cycle; however, once a particular code is used in the cycle, the code is not used again until the next cycle begins. The LISn also includes a code for sustained conversations. These are defined as back-and-forth conversations with an adult or with peers that last for more than two conversational turns, are about the same theme, and in which both the focus child and the adult or peer contribute to the conversation at least two times. Each occurrence of a sustained conversation between child–teacher or child–child was coded. The sustained conversation code does not distinguish the language (i.e. English or Spanish) in which the conversation occurred. For this study, we examined the focal children’s talk with adults in the classroom (teacher and/or assistant teacher) and peers. We also examined teachers’ types of talk, and the number of sustained conversations that occurred between the focal child, teacher, and/or peers in either language.

2.3. Measures Focus child talk, teacher talk and language outcome measures are described below. 2.3.1. Teacher–child language exchanges The LISn is a time-sampling observation measure designed to examine how preschool language environments differ for different children, particularly in classrooms that include DLLs. With the LISn, a trained observer focuses on an individual child and codes his or her verbal interactions with the lead teacher, other adults in the classroom, and other children. Data can be summarized for individual children or aggregated at the classroom level. The LISn involves observing each focus child for 10 cycles of 30 s each; these 5-min episodes are considered “snapshots.” The observer then moves on to the next child. In this study, all participating children were observed for six LISn snapshots (30 min total) in the fall and again in the spring, as the authors of the measure had done. These observations were typically gathered during one 2-h period in each classroom in the fall and spring. When the focus child talks—whether as an initiator or responder—the LISn observer codes who the focus child is talking to, the language of each party (English or another language, Spanish in this study), and the particular teacher language code. Teacher and assistant teacher talk is recorded in nine main codes specified by the authors of the measure. These codes fall into three broad categories: (1) response to child talk which includes (a) repeats or confirms and (b) elaborates or builds; (2) teacher talk which includes (c) gives directions, (d) requests contextualized language, (e) provides information, names and labels (contextualized), and (f) provides/elicits decontextualized information; and (3) easy identifier talk which includes interactions that were easy to identify by the coder such as (g) reads to/with, (h) sings to/with, and (i) other talk (e.g., language not captured by other codes such as wow, ok, good job). Some categories of adult talk were seldom coded (e.g., decontextualized information; providing information when the object is not present such as “do you remember the color of the bus when we went on the fieldtrip last week”) so for analysis they were collapsed into Basic and Complex talk to be described in the Results section. Verbal interactions using the LISn are coded at the utterance level. During a given observation period the teacher and assistant teacher types of talk could potentially be coded 60 times, that is, in any given observation period the types of language can only be code once, which is then multiplied by the number of observation periods (i.e. in this case there were 10 observation periods multiplied by 6 snapshots). In other words, the LISn is not designed to count the specific number of utterances of each type of talk during the observation period but to provide a snapshot of the periodic-

2.3.1.1. Inter-rater reliability of the LISn. To assess inter-rater reliability, trainers followed the developers’ protocol, considering agreement to be count totals within each language category that were within one point of the master coder. Data collectors were trained by the first author to a reliability standard of 90% of ratings within one point across all items. In addition, to measure ongoing reliability every 10th observation in the field was conducted by two data collectors and examined through computing a weighted kappa coefficient. This index of agreement accounts for chance agreement related to the distribution of the underlying variable and for the magnitude of the disagreement when raters did not exactly agree. Kappas of .60 and higher are regarded as indicating strong agreement and of .40 and higher as indicating acceptable agreement. As shown in eTable 1, the agreement in ratings of language interactions in both languages ranged from .40 to 1.00, with the exception of Elaboration in English and Repeats or Confirms in Spanish, two codes that occurred with very low frequency. The rows without entries indicate that Kappa coefficients were not computed given the scant variability. These analyses indicated overall moderate to strong agreement among raters suggesting good reliability for the LISn. 2.3.2. Child language outcome measures 2.3.2.1. Receptive vocabulary. The Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Tests (ROWPVT; Martin & Brownell, 2011) assesses receptive vocabulary by asking an individual to match an object, action, or concept with its name. In this study we used the English and the Spanish–English Bilingual versions. In the present study, the bilingual form was administered in Spanish, with the assessor allowed to ask the question in English if the child looks confused. Norms of this measure are based on a sample of 2327 Spanish–English bilingual students between the ages of 2–18 who resided in the U.S. Internal consistency of test items showed coefficient alphas ranging from .95 to .98 by age group for all individuals participating in the standardization study. In terms of temporal stability, the corrected test-retest correlation ranged from .78 to .93. 2.3.2.2. Expressive vocabulary. Drawing from measures employed in other national studies, we used the English picture vocabulary subtest of the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPB-R; Woodcock, 1991). In addition, the Spanish version of ˜ the same scale, Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz (Bateria WM; MunozSandoval, Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2005), was used. The reliability and validity characteristics of both forms of the WLPBR meet basic technical requirements and norms are available for both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking samples in the U.S.).

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

55

Table 2 Distribution of focal children’s talk by language and conversation partner (N = 341). English

Focus child talk Lead teacher Assistant teacher Peers

Spanish

<2 utterances N (%)

2–5 utterances N (%)

>5 utterances N (%)

<2 utterances N (%)

2–5 utterances N (%)

>5 utterances N (%)

199 (59) 231 (68) 87 (26)

103 (30) 67 (20) 89 (26)

39 (11) 43 (12) 165 (48)

254 (74) 243 (71) 109 (31)

60 (18) 72 (21) 93 (27)

27 (8) 26 (8) 139 (42)

Table 3 Distribution of class level teacher and assistant talk by language (English/Spanish) and type (basic/complex) (N = 52). English

Type of teacher talk Basic language Complex language

Spanish

<2 utterances N (%)

2–5 utterances N (%)

>5 utterances N (%)

<2 utterances N (%)

2–5 utterances N (%)

>5 utterances N (%)

2 (5)

5 (9) 10 (19)

47 (91) 40 (76)

16 (30) 26 (50)

19 (37) 13 (25)

17 (33) 13 (25)

Normative data for the WLPB-R was gathered from 6359 subjects in over 100 geographically diverse U.S. communities. Estimates of internal consistency for the subtests as well as for all the test clusters ranged from .80 to .90 and overall test–retest reliability fell between .70 s and .80.

between the least squares means and dividing this difference by the observed standard deviation of the raw data. 3. Results 3.1. Teacher–child linguistic interactions as measured by the LISn

2.4.2. Data analyses We conducted two sets of analyses to address the two aims of the study. Specifically we examined the ability of the LISn to describe language interactions of DLL preschoolers and to predict vocabulary outcomes. For the first aim, descriptive analyses were conducted examining the frequency and types of teacher–child interactions as an illustration of what is measured by the LISn. Fall data from the 52 classrooms were used for these analyses. Then, descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages were calculated for the focal child talk, the type of language talk used by the teacher and/or adult in the classroom, and the sustained conversations that were observed between the focus children and the adults in the classroom (lead teacher/assistant teacher) and between focus children and peers. For the second aim, the associations between teacher–child interactions and language outcomes in both English and Spanish were examined to determine the extent to which the LISn captures aspects of teacher–child and child–peer language interactions predictive of DLLs’ vocabulary skills at the end of the school year. Because intervention classrooms received professional development to improve linguistic interactions, this analysis includes spring data only from control children and teachers. Some children left the control classrooms between the fall and spring observations, resulting in an attrition rate of 14%. The fall and spring LISn scores and child language outcome data were analyzed from 26 classrooms. All models were estimated using PROC MIXED in SAS version 9.3. Full information maximum likelihood estimation, which assumes that data are missing at random (MAR) and which is considered a statistical best practice (Enders, 2010; Schafer, & Graham, 2002), was used to accommodate missing outcome data. Full information maximum likelihood is the default estimation strategy for mixed linear models. It allows for the analysis of unbalanced data for outcomes (i.e., all available outcome data are included in the model; cases are only excluded if they are missing independent variables). Two-level HLM analyses of spring language scores were conducted taking into account nesting of children in classrooms and including the child’s fall score as a covariate. Effect sizes were also computed from the HLM coefficients by taking the difference

3.1.1. Focal child talk Table 2 shows the frequencies of the focal child utterances in both English and Spanish, with the rater’s recording of focus child talk and their back-and-forth conversations with adults or peers. Because the data were highly skewed to the low end (that is, only one or no teacher verbalizations to many focal children during their 30 total minutes of observations), we looked at the distributions and categorized children as having less than 2, from 2 to 5, or more than 5 teacher language exchanges across the total observation time. As shown in Table 2, the majority of Spanish–English DLLs have language interactions in English and in Spanish with their peers much more often than with their lead or assistant teacher. Specifically, the majority of children had fewer than two interactions in English (59%) or Spanish (74%) with their lead teacher during the 30 min of observation. A similar pattern was observed with the assistant teacher, with whom the majority of children had less than two interactions in English (68%) or Spanish (71%). On the other hand, 48% of children were observed to have more than five interactions with peers in English and 42% had more than five interactions with peers in Spanish. 3.1.2. Teacher and teacher assistant linguistic interactions To facilitate interpretation of the observed linguistic interactions between DLLs and their teachers and peers, and because some codes were seldom used, we created two talk quality categories, basic and complex, to represent levels of complexity in the linguistic interactions. The basic talk category consists of the following codes: (1) repeats or confirms (a), (2) gives directions (c), (3) provides information, names, and labels (contextualized) (e) and (4) sings to/with (h). The complex talk category consists of these codes: (1) requests contextualized language (d), (2) provides/elicits decontextualized information (f), and (3) reads to/with (g). These categories were based on the review of the literature on types of language that are more conducive to promote language development. When elaboration was coded, it had to be further classified as (c) gives directions, (d) requests contextualized language, (e) provides information, names and labels (contextualized), and (f) provides/elicits decontextualized information. Therefore, to avoid

56

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

Table 4 Summary of intercorrelations for the LISn variables and child outcome data. LISn Spanish

Spanish Child outcomes English +

English

Measure

Focus child all

Basic language

Complex language

Focus child all

Basic language

Complex language

Expressive vocabulary Receptive vocabulary-bilingual Expressive vocabulary Receptive vocabulary

.34*** .03 −.33*** −0.27***

.02 −.12 −.11 −.18*

0 −.05 −.01 −.15

−.34*** .06 .57*** .34***

.11 .12 −.06 .05

.07 .17* .03 .08

p < .10. p < .01. * p < .05. *** p <.001.

**

Table 5 HLM analyses: predicting residual gains in child outcomes from child and teacher LISn Scores.

Focus child talk in English Focus child talk in Spanish Complex language in English Complex language in Spanish Basic language in English Basic language in Spanish

ˇ (se) es ˇ (se) es ˇ (se) es ˇ (se) es ˇ (se) es ˇ (se) es

Receptive vocabulary-English

Receptive vocabulary-Bilingual

Expressive vocabulary-English

Expressive vocabulary

.02 (.04) .04 −.07 (.05) −.09 .04 (.09) .05 −.02 (.15) −.04 −.00 (.07) .04 −.06 (.13) −.07

.04 (.06) .02 .11 (.09) .00 .16 (.17) .10 .32 (.27) −.02 .11 (.13) .10 −.47+ (.24) −.06

.18*** (.05) .15 −.05 (.07) −.08 .17 (.13) .05 .17 (.22) −.01 -.05 (.10) .03 −.18 (.20) −.05

−.06 (.07) −.06 .27** (.11) .07 .19 (.20) .05 −.07 (.32) −.03 .02 (.14) .04 −.41 (.29) −.04

Notes: B = point estimate, se = standard error, es = effect size. * p < .05. + p < .10. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

duplication, the code ‘elaboration’ was not included under either basic or complex language categories. The code “other talk” (e.g., “please”, “thank you,” or “wow”) was also excluded as it consists of routine utterances. Data were analyzed by talk quality categories (basic and complex), by informant (lead and assistant), and by language (English, Spanish). Data from the 3–5 focal children in each class were averaged to create classroom-level scores; one for English interactions and for Spanish interactions. Most of the linguistic interactions between teachers and DLLs occurred in English with very few or no interactions in Spanish. Specifically, 47 of the 52 classrooms had more than 5 basic utterances in English whereas only 17 were observed to have more than 5 basic utterances in Spanish, 40% of those consisted of giving directions. In addition, most of the interactions in English were of basic rather than complex quality (see Table 3). Complex language in English was observed more than 5 times in 76% of classrooms while complex language in Spanish was observed only in 25% of classrooms, In classrooms were more than five complex quality interactions in English occurred; 67% of those complex language interactions occurred while the lead or assistant teacher read aloud during whole group time, only 20% consisted of requesting language and no more than 3% consisted of decontextualized talk. Descriptive statistics are presented in eTable 3.

3.1.3. Sustained conversations A sustained conversation consists of the focal child and the conversation partner engaging in at least two turns talking to each other in either English or Spanish and one additional comment beyond those two turns. Few sustained child conversations with adults were coded. Sustained conversational exchanges with the

lead teacher were observed more than once in only 4% of classrooms and with the assistant teacher in only 5%. However, more than one sustained conversational exchange between peers were observed in 17% of classrooms.

3.2. Associations between LISn ratings and child language outcome data Descriptive statistics for the focus child talk variable and for the composite LISn variables (i.e., basic and complex language interactions) and the fall and spring language outcome measures are presented in eTable 2. As shown in Table 4, the correlations among the LISn composites including the focus child talk composite variable which consists of all focus child talk in English and all focus child talk in Spanish and child spring outcomes. The complete correlation table is presented in eTable 4. Correlational analyses were conducted to explore the associations between all the LISn variables, including sustained conversations, and the child language outcome measures at post assessments (see eTable 5). There were no associations between sustained conversations with the lead teacher and assistant teacher and the child outcome data at pre-test or post-test. This result is not surprising given the low frequency of sustained conversations in both English and Spanish. Sustained conversations were thus excluded from further analyses. Results from these correlational analyses at post assessment showed a significant association between child talk in English with expressive vocabulary (r = .57, p < .001) and receptive vocabulary (r = .34, p < .001) in English. Moreover, child talk in English showed a negative association with expressive vocabulary in Spanish (r = −.34, p < .001). Associations were also significant between

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

focal child talk in Spanish and expressive vocabulary in Spanish, showing a positive association (r = .34, p < .001). In addition, child talk in Spanish demonstrated significant negative associations with expressive (r = −.33, p < .001) and receptive vocabulary in English (r = −.27, p < .001). In terms of the language used by the adults, results show that basic language interactions in Spanish were negatively associated with children’s receptive vocabulary in English (r = −.18, p < .05) and no significant relation was found between basic language interactions in Spanish and receptive bilingual and expressive outcomes in Spanish. In English, complex language interactions had a positive association with DLLs’ receptive bilingual vocabulary (r = .17, p < .05) but had no significant relation with English expressive and receptive vocabulary outcomes. No significant association was found between Spanish complex language interactions and children’s Spanish vocabulary outcomes. The final set of analyses examined the relations between the LISn and aspects of observed linguistic interactions related to gains in children’s language skills during their preschool year. The outcomes in these analyses were the spring assessments of expressive and receptive language skills in English, expressive language in Spanish and receptive language bilingually. These four outcomes were analyzed in two-level HLMs that accounted for nesting of children in classrooms as a random variable and for the child’s language skills in the fall as a fixed-effect variable. These outcomes were analyzed as a function of the focus child’s language in English and Spanish and the quality level of the classroom talk. Due to the low frequencies of some of the codes, these measures of the child’s linguistic experiences were computed by summing the LISn data from the fall and spring for these broad categories of talk: (1) focus child talk in English (ENG) Total consisted of the total number of child interactions in English with the lead teacher, other adults in the classroom, and peers; (2) focus child talk Spanish (SPA) Total consisted of the total number of child interactions in Spanish with the lead teacher, other adult, and peers; (3) adults’ (teacher + assistant) basic language in English and Spanish, and (4) adults’ complex language in English and Spanish. Each of the four child outcomes and six LISn child variables were tested, resulting in 4 HLMs. Results from the HLM analyses (see Table 5 for test statistics) suggest that child language interactions in English predicted the child’s expressive vocabulary in English in the spring (ˇ = .18, SE = .05, p < .001, d = .15) and child language interactions in Spanish predicted child’s expressive vocabulary (ˇ = .27, SE = .11, p < .01, d = .07) in Spanish in the spring. Complex language in English and Spanish and basic language in English and Spanish did not predict any gains in the child’s receptive and expressive vocabulary outcomes. 4. Discussion The purposes of this study were: (1) to describe the linguistic interactions between DLL children and adults and peers in early childhood classrooms and (2) to examine the associations between the classroom language environments as measured by the LISn and children’s language outcomes. 4.1. Linguistic interactions of DLLs in early childhood classrooms Similar to other studies that examined language interactions between teachers and children (e.g., Justice et al., 2008; Turnbull, Anthony, Justice, & Bowles, 2009), DLLs in this study had few language interactions with adults and peers in their classrooms in either English or Spanish. This finding is similar to other studies using the LISn as an observation tool in classrooms with DLLs. Sawyer et al. (2017) found that teachers used few evidenced-based

57

practices that facilitate language development and Subrahmanyam et al. (2013) found that teachers’ beliefs about the importance of providing high levels of language support did not align with their actual practice with DLLs. Hypothetically, during a given observation period (six 5-min snapshots, each comprised of ten 30-s intervals, collected over about 2 h), the focus child could potentially have had up to 60 verbal interactions with a teacher, 60 verbal interactions with an assistant teacher, and/or 60 verbal interactions with a peer. However, in this study the most linguistic interactions recorded for any focus child was five, and most of them were with peers, not with teachers or assistant teachers. Similarly, sustained conversations were observed very few times and were mostly between the focal child and a peer. An interpretation of this finding could be that DLL children are more comfortable talking with their peers in their L1, especially if they are at the beginning stages of their L2 acquisition, and when the adults in the classroom either speak predominantly in English and/or do not talk much in either language. All classrooms in this 3-state study contained >25% DLL children and were in programs that had purposefully ensured that at least 1 Spanish-speaking adult was in the classroom. Yet, DLL children had very few interactions in Spanish Unfortunately, we think this finding is fairly representative of preschool classrooms in the United States, as was also described in Sawyer et al. (2017) This result is concerning, given that several studies have revealed the importance of continuing the development of DLLs’ L1 as they acquire concepts and skills in English (Barnett et al., 2007; Castro, Páez, Dickinson, & Frede, 2011; Durán et al., 2010; Hammer et al., 2014). However, this result is also not surprising, given the accountability pressures that early childhood teachers have to prepare children for English-only kindergartens, and the language ideologies prevalent in the United States, which emphasize the learning of English and minimize the learning of other languages (Poza, 2016). There is a belief held by some early childhood educators that in order to accelerate English-language learning English should be used more frequently than children’s home language, even though professional organizations such as the National Association for Young Children (NAEYC, 2009) and policies of federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education recommend that practitioners maintain and support the children’s home language development (ACF, 2017). The recent National Academy of Sciences review of language development for DLL children clearly states that strong abilities in the L1 will, in fact, facilitate the learning of the L2 (NASEM, 2017). Furthermore, having access to linguistic skills in two different languages may positively impact the overall development of bilingual children (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2005). In our visits to classrooms, we frequently observed that even though some teachers were more proficient in Spanish than in English, they often chose to use English as the main language of instruction. Investigating teacher beliefs about language learning among DLLs was beyond the scope of this study, but should be further studied as they are important predictors of language pedagogies used in the classroom (Pettit, 2011). Related to teachers’ decisions about language pedagogies used are their ideas about social status of the home language and their belief that supporting DLLs’ English learning is the best way for them to help these children succeed. There is emergent research indicating that in spite of their knowledge about bilingual development and their favorable views about bilingualism, teacher beliefs about the role of the home language in the school setting may still reflect an assimilationist view of cultural integration still prevalent in the U.S. and devaluing of bilingualism in particular, among linguistic minority populations (e.g., Garrity, Aquino-Sterling, Van Liew, & Day, 2016). Our results also reveal the limited role of the teacher assistant in providing rich language interactions for DLLs in early childhood

58

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

classrooms. Most assistant teachers were Spanish–English bilinguals; however, they had a limited role in supporting children’s Spanish language development. For example, the observed interactions of teacher assistants with DLLs were mostly related to giving directions (as when taking children to the playground, to lunch or the bathroom). Unfortunately, even though these educators are proficient in Spanish and are presumed to have knowledge of the socio-cultural beliefs and practices of the families of the children they teach, they play a minimal role in setting up and implementing instructional activities in the classroom overall (Lipscomb, Schmitt, & Pratt, 2015). Whitebook, Kipnis, and Bellm (2008) have described this situation as a stratification of the workforce with educators of color, many of whom may be bilingual, filling low-level positions, requiring the lowest educational qualifications. Our findings point to the need for professional development and preparation for all adults in the classroom so that they can model and provide rich and meaningful input in the non-majority language and English. With regards to the quality of language, similarly to Sawyer et al. (2017) findings, most of the verbal interactions from teachers were basic, that is, giving directions and providing information, names and labels. Much the same to other studies focused on monolingual children (Dickinson, Hofer, Barnes, & Grifenhagen, 2014; Gest, Holland-Coviello, Welsh, Eicher-Catt, & Gill, 2006),.0 reading aloud was the setting in which teachers used more complex language. It is possible that since data were obtained at the beginning of the year, teachers relied more heavily in giving directions as a way of setting up routines in the classroom. Also, teachers might have provided less sophisticated vocabulary and decontextualized language as a way of being responsive to the initial levels of children’s language abilities. However, it is important to note that, overall, there were few language interactions of either basic or complex quality, and that when interactions of complex quality did occur, they most likely were in English, not Spanish. This low frequency of linguistic interactions, as discussed below, may make it difficult to find associations between the observed linguistic interactions and children’s language outcomes, especially in Spanish. In the future, gathering additional information about the classroom practices beyond oral language interactions and about children’s L1 and L2 proficiencies could provide the context for the interpretation of these LISn results. 4.2. Associations between LISn ratings and child language outcomes The utility of the LISn as a measure of classroom language interactions would be enhanced if results showed an association between the observed language interactions and children’s language outcomes. Correlation results indicated that the child talk in English in the fall was associated with receptive and expressive vocabulary in English in the spring. Similarly, child talk in Spanish was associated with expressive but not with bilingual receptive vocabulary in the spring. The presence of an association with Spanish expressive vocabulary and the lack of association with bilingual receptive vocabulary in the spring is surprising given that children tend to comprehend words before being able to express them. Since the bilingual vocabulary receptive measure credits children for responses to the question posed in either English or Spanish in one sole score, children in this study might have responded more frequently to the English than the Spanish. Therefore, the score in the bilingual measure might be more reflective of DLLs’ English vocabulary abilities. Also, note that although not high, a significant correlation was found between English Complex Talk and the bilingual vocabulary receptive measure which seems to support this interpretation. This result is further supported by the finding that there was a negative association between child talk in English with expressive vocabulary outcomes in Spanish (but not with bilingual

receptive vocabulary), and in turn, a negative association between child talk in Spanish with expressive and receptive vocabulary in English. It might be expected that a child with more vocabulary in English would have more interactions in English, while a child with more vocabulary in Spanish would have more interactions in Spanish. Young bilingual children have been found to be more efficient in processing the language they hear more and know better, and this is related to their vocabulary size within a language but not across languages (Marchman, Fernald, & Hurtado, 2010). In terms of the languages used by the adults, basic quality language in Spanish was negatively related to English vocabulary outcomes and made no difference with regards to Spanish vocabulary. Basic quality language was mostly observed when teachers provided directions. Although giving simple directions can facilitate classroom management, it has not been shown to promote vocabulary development at least in parent–child interactions studies (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991). Other studies have suggested that fewer directives and more questions are more conducive to language outcomes (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991) so this result is congruent with this finding. Teachers’ use of sophisticated and varied vocabulary (Dickinson & Porche, 2011), and teachers’ total number of words in the classroom (Bowers & Vasilyeva, 2011) have been associated with vocabulary development in both monolingual children and DLLs. For example, as described earlier, a study with Spanish–English bilingual kindergarteners found that the rate of Spanish language complexity and the number of unique word types in teachers’ language input was associated with children’s Spanish expressive vocabulary (Gámez & Levine, 2013). An unexpected result was the lack of association between complex language interactions in English and receptive and expressive vocabulary in English. Likewise, no relation was found between Spanish complex interactions and vocabulary outcomes in Spanish. Four potential explanations emerge from these results. First, this result might be explained by the low occurrences of complex interactions in both languages (especially in Spanish), thus, the lack of an association should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the LISn measuring of teachers’ language input cannot predict children’s vocabulary outcomes. Theoretically, it is assumed that when teachers ask questions to children, talk about events that are not in the immediate context or read books, there is a higher probability that children will develop vocabulary (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991; Snow, 1983; Dickinson, 2001). Nevertheless, in this study we were not able to find evidence of this relationship, likely because teachers used this kind of language input in only a few instances. Despite this result, we were able to find a significant (though small) association between complex language interactions in English and bilingual receptive vocabulary. It is possible that there is a threshold of complex language interactions that needs to be reached before a relationship can be found between vocabulary development in each language and complex language interactions (Cummins, 1979). Given the limited amount of complex language interactions in the classroom, children might have had modest gains in their vocabulary development in each language that could only be captured when combining gains in the two languages (i.e., conceptual vocabulary) but not at the level that could be detected by measuring vocabulary in each language separately. Second, it is also possible that teachers’ limited use of complex language interactions responded to children’s language development. As discussed earlier, language interactions foster development when they are in tuned and responsive to children’s language (Dickinson & Porche, 2011). Teachers working with DLLs will be more effective if they are able to find a balance between supporting children’s attempts to use English and challenge them to use new words (Nicholas & Lightbown, 2008). Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) examined English-speaking preschool teachers’ speech in terms of input quantity (number of words), lexical diversity (num-

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

ber of different words) and structural complexity (average number of words per utterance) in classrooms with DLLs. Number of words in teachers’ talk was associated with DLLs receptive vocabulary, but number of words per utterance was negatively related. This suggests that perhaps complex language interactions might have been not within children’s zone of proximal development and therefore were not conducive to vocabulary development. Another explanation for this lack of association could be that children’s language simply did not grow enough to be predicted, which can result from to the limited amount and complexity of language interactions observed. Finally, it could be that the LISn might not be able to capture the amount of complex language happening in the classroom and therefore cannot effectively predict vocabulary outcomes. It is difficult to determine if this is a likely explanation, given the low incidence of complex language in the classroom. 4.3. Limitations and implications for future research This study demonstrates that the LISn holds promise as a measure of language interactions in classrooms with DLLs, providing a description of linguistic interactions in each of the children’s two languages. However, the lack of variability in the quantity and quality of interactions in the classrooms participating in this study limits our ability to determine the relations between the frequency and types of linguistic interactions and children’s language outcomes. This requires us to be cautious in interpreting the findings. In this study, the LISn was able to predict vocabulary outcomes from children’s talk, even though these interactions occurred more often with peers than adults. Although, the instrument allows one to capture separately the frequency and type of linguistic interactions that occur in Spanish or English, sustained conversations are coded without distinguishing the language(s) used in the conversation and by whom. Adding codes for the specific language(s) used in sustained conversations would be useful. That said, in our study sustained conversations between children and adults occurred very seldom. Moreover, an important limitation of this study is that since the focus of the study was on DLLs, no data collection was gathered in monolingual children. Therefore, it is not possible to say if the language interactions happening with DLLs were any different than those of the monolingual English speakers. We suspect that this was not the case. Sawyer et al. (2017) did not find any significant difference in teacher use of English depending on children’s English proficiency. These authors argued that this might be a product of teachers’ use of language mostly in large groups rather than with individual children. Future research should examine classrooms that show greater variability in quantity and quality of language interactions. Additionally, observation during different types of classroom activities, such as in the study conducted by Gest et al. (2006) in which language interactions were observed during free play, mealtimes and book reading would provide a greater overall picture of the quantity and quality of language directed at and used by young DLLs. Given the limited number of interactions observed in this study, the analyses were not conducted by classroom activity type. Because the LISn measures different aspects of language that are not directly related to vocabulary development, future research relating the measure to child outcome should consider other aspects of language in addition to vocabulary such as syntax. This can provide a more holistic view of children’s language development. Also, findings from this study indicate that even though the data provided by the LISn are rich in describing linguistic interactions, the interpretation of the LISn results require gathering additional information. Further information, for example, about DLLs’ profi-

59

ciency in both their L1 and L2 might illuminate if teachers’ use of the different types of language reflects teachers’ attempts to be responsive to children’s level of language development. Given the findings of Sawyer et al. (2017) described above, it might be worthwhile to examine in more detail if teachers make any differentiation in their use of language depending on children’s proficiency in either language. Similarly, information about teachers’ beliefs about language instruction for DLLs can help explain teachers’ decisions on using one language more than the other. Therefore, we recommend that in future studies the LISn should be used as part of a set of measures that includes measures of classroom practices focusing on DLLs, which could provide contextual information for the interpretation of LISn results, as well as, measures to determine DLLs’ proficiency in both their L1 and L2. Furthermore, given that children’s language interactions occurred more often with peers rather than adults, a closer examination into the value of these kinds of interactions seems as a promising area to explore. A study by Gámez et al. (2018) on the role of peer interactions in DLLs language development is a step in the right direction. The LISn was designed to capture linguistic interactions that occur between an adult (teacher or teacher assistant) and a focus child; linguistic interactions occurring between the adult and other children during the time of the observation are not recorded. Therefore, there is a possibility that the LISn may be giving an incomplete assessment of the linguistic interactions in which the teacher and teacher assistant are actually involved. Future research could include measures that focus on the adult to determine the frequency and quality of language interactions between the teacher or teacher assistant and any child, including identification of the language(s) use in those interactions.

4.4. Implications for practice Although the effect sizes of our findings were small, this study holds relevance for the professional development of early childhood educators who serve DLLs. Specifically, this study shows that there is a need to help teachers engage with individual children in meaningful linguistic interactions. Similarly to other studies in preschool classrooms with mostly monolingual children (Gest et al., 2006; Justice et al., 2008; Wright, 2012), we found that linguistic interactions between children and adults in both English and Spanish in preschool classrooms serving DLLs are very limited in frequency and type of language. This was the case even though the study classrooms were in centers that had met and even exceeded their state or county’s quality standards. Given this situation, researchers have sought to develop interventions that improve the linguistic environments of early childhood classrooms through professional development. These interventions have had mixed results in studies with monolingual children (Dickinson, 2011; Hindman, Wasik, & Snell, 2016) and only a few have been focused on DLLs (e.g. Castro et al., 2017; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011). Despite these findings, there is evidence that teachers in programs serving children from low-income families can increase the frequency of their language exchanges with children. In a study of preschool teachers, Cabell, Justice, McGinty, Decoster, and Forston (2015) found that with appropriate professional development, preschool teachers increased their use of sustained conversations (multi-turn) with elaborated language (e.g., using contextualized and decontextualized language) and, in turn, improved children’s language and academic skills. Less is known about preschool classroom environments with high proportions of DLLs and whether these environments can be changed with appropriate professional development.

60

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61

As researchers examine the effects of professional development interventions for promoting the frequency and type of linguistic interactions, a measure such as the LISn can be a source of feedback about teachers’ progress in acquiring the necessary skills to develop these interactions. Specific tools or measures have been used in several professional development approaches with data from the tool as a framework for providing teachers feedback (e.g., Bryant et al., 2009; Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008). In addition, the LISn can be used as a measure of the effectiveness of a professional development intervention. Castro et al. (2017) found evidence of a significant increase in language interactions in Spanish (as measured by the LISn) in classrooms with two bilingual teachers who had received two years of a professional development intervention, when compared to the control group. Both theory and research are clear that the quantity and type of language input during the early childhood period predicts future language capacity in any language (Blom, 2010; Bowers & Vasilyeva, 2011; Hoff et al., 2012). Unfortunately, within many preschool programs, the opportunities for children to engage in meaningful dialogue with adults is limited and when the child is a DLL in a classroom where the teacher is English monolingual and/or instruction is only in English, those opportunities may be even further restricted (Zepeda, 2014). Appropriate measures that can document the language behaviors of early educators and young DLLs are needed if we are to further our understanding of best pedagogical practices for these children. The LISn holds promise for furthering this goal. Acknowledgments Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Grant Number 5U01HD060299–05). The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD. The authors would like to thank all members of the project team, teacher consultants, data collectors, administrative assistant, and graduate students, for their dedication and hard work. Special thanks to the teachers, program directors, parents and their children who participated in the study, for allowing us to learn through their experiences. The authors would like to thank Drs. Diane M. Early and Margaret R. Burchinal for their continuous support. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02. 007. References Administration for Children and Families. (2017). Policy statement on supporting the development of children who are dual language learner in early childhood programs Available:. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/culturallinguistic/Dual%20Language%20Learners/toolkit/docs/dll-policy-statementfinal.pdf Atkins-Burnett, S., Sprachman, S., Lopez, M., Caspe, M., & Fallin, K. (2011). The language interaction snapshot (LISn). In J. T. Downer, C. Howes, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Dual language learners in the early childhood classroom (pp. 117–141). Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co. Aukrust, V. G. (2007). Young children acquiring second language vocabulary in preschool group-time: Does amount, diversity, and discourse complexity of teacher talk matter? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(1), 17–37. Barnett, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Jung, K., & Blanco, D. (2007). Two-way and monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 277–293. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.03.003 Blom, E. (2010). Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 422–446.

Bowers, E. P., & Vasilyeva, M. (2011). The relation between teacher input and lexical growth of preschoolers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 221–241. Bryant, D., Wesley, P., Burchinal, P., Sideris, J., Taylor, K., Fenson, C., & Iruka, I. U. (2009, Sept.). The QUINCE-PFI Study: An evaluation of a promising model for child care provider training. The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.researchconnections.org/ childcare/resources/18531/pdf. Build Initiative & Child Trends. (2016). A catalog and comparison of quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) [Data System] Retrieved from http:// qriscompendium.org/ on [06/12/17]. Burchinal, M., Field, S., Lopez, M. L., Howes, C., & Pianta, R. (2012). Instruction in Spanish in pre-kindergarten classrooms and child outcomes for English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–197. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.003 Burchinal, M., Hyson, M., & Zaslow, M. (2011). Competencies and credentials for early childhood educators: What do we know and what do we need to know? In E. Zigler, W. S. Gilliam, & W. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-K debates: Current controversies and issues (pp. 73–77). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Burchinal, M., Magnuson, K., Powell, D., & Hong, S. S. (2015). Ecological settings and processes (7th ed., pp. 223–267). Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 4) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Decoster, J., & Forston, L. D. (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30(A), 80–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 Castro, D. C. (2005). Early language and literacy classroom observation: Dual language learners (ELLCO-DLL) Research Version. Castro, D. C., Páez, M., Dickinson, D., & Frede, E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in dual language learners: Research, practice and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. Castro, D. C., Gillanders, C., Franco, X., Bryant, D., Zepeda, M., Willoughby, M., . . . & Mendez, L. (2017). Early education of dual language learners: An efficacy study ˜ school readiness professional program. Early Childhood of the Nuestros ninos Research Quarterly, 40, 188–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03. 002 Chang, F., Crawford, G., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., . . . & Pianta, R. (2007). Spanish-speaking children’s social and language development in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development, 18(2), 243–269. Chien, N., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D., . . . & Barbarin, O. (2010). Children’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development, 81(5), 1534–1549. Retrieved from. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/4080069 Conture, E. G., Kelly, E. M., & Walden, T. A. (2013). Temperament, speech and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(2), 125–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.11.002 Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129. Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Book reading in preschool classrooms: Is recommended practice common? In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 175–203). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing. Dickinson, D. K. (2011). Teachers’ language practices and academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333(6045), 964–967. Dickinson, D. K., & Caswell, L. (2007). Building support for language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through in-service professional development: Effects of the literacy environment enrichment program (LEEP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 243–260. Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82, 870–886. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD US: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305–310. Dickinson, D. K., Hofer, K. G., Barnes, E. M., & Grifenhagen, J. F. (2014). Examining teachers’ language in Head Start classrooms from a systemic linguistics approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 231–244. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Durán, L. K., Roseth, C. J., & Hoffman, P. (2010). An experimental study comparing English-only and transitional bilingual education on Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ early literacy development. English Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 207–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.002 Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D.-M. C., Crawford, G. M., . . . & Pianta, R. C. (2010). How do pre-kindergarters spend their time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as predictors of experiences in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 177–193. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.003 Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 4–22. Enders, C. K. (04/23/2010). Applied missing data analysis. Methodology in the social sciences series. Guilford Press.

X. Franco et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 48 (2019) 50–61 Evans, J. L. (2009). The emergence of language: A dynamical; systems account. In E. Hoff, & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 128–147). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Farver, J. A. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2009). Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child Development, 80(3), 703–719. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01292.x Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Huang, Y., Hong, S. S., & Lara-Cinisomo, S. (2012). Activity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: Diverse experiences in early learning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 198–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.001 Gámez, P. B. (2015). Classroom-based English exposure and English language learners’ expressive language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 135–146. Gámez, P. B., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Oral language skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners: The impact of high-quality native language exposure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 673–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0142716411000919 Gámez, P. B., Griskell, H. L., Sobrevilla, Y. N., & Vazquez, M. (2018). Dual language and English-only learners’ expressive and receptive language skills and exposure to peers’ language. Child development, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ cdev.13197 Garrity, S., Aquino-Sterling, C. R., Van Liew, C., & Day, A. (2016). Beliefs about bilingualism, bilingual education, and dual language development of early childhood preservice teachers raised in a Prop 227 environment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2016.1148113 Gest, S. D., Holland-Coviello, R., Welsh, J. A., Eicher-Catt, D. L., & Gill, S. (2006). Language development subcontexts in Head Start classrooms: Distinctive patterns of teacher talk during free play, mealtime, and book reading. Early Education and Development, 17(2), 293–315. Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Training day care staff to facilitate children’s language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(3), 299–311. Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D., & Sandilos, L. E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 715–733. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early childhood environment rating scale-revised edition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hatfield, B., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., & Sideris, J. (2016). Thresholds in the association between quality of teacher–child interactions and preschool children’s school readiness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 561–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.005 Hindman, A. H., Wasik, B. A., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Closing the 30 million word gap: Next steps in designing research to inform practice. Child Development Perspectives, 10(2), 134–139. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–1378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00612 Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002 Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Senor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1–27. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother–child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings. Child Development, 62(4), 782–796. Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. Developmental Science, 11(6), F31–F39. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00768.x Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 51–68. Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 146–157. Lipscomb, S. T., Schmitt, S. A., & Pratt, M. E. (2015). Professional development scholarships increase qualifications of diverse providers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(3), 232–249. MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2005). Modularity and the facilitation effect: Psychological mechanisms of transfer in bilingual students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 224–243. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0019135 Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, K. (2011). The gap between Spanish-speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x

61

Marchman, V. A., Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N. (2010). How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 37(4), 817–840. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990055 Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2011). Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. ˜ Munoz-Sandoval, A. F., Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2005). Batería III, Revised, Pruebas de Aprovechamiento. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Where we stand on responding to linguistic and cultural diversity. Position statement Available:. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/diversity.pdf National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/ 24677 Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. (01/01/2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.23.04nic. Office of Head Start. (2008). Dual language learning: What does it take? Head Start dual language report. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123–147. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451. Pianta, R., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). The classroom assessment scoring system pre-K manual. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., . . . & Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161–183. Poza, L. E. (2016). “Puro spelling and grammar”: Conceptualizations of language and the marginalization of emergent bilinguals. Perspectives in Urban Education, 13(1), 20–41. Rinaldi, C., & Páez, M. (2008). Preschool matters: Predicting reading difficulties for Spanish-speaking bilingual students in first grade. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(1), 71–86. Sawyer, B., Atkins-Burnett, Sandilos, L., Hammer, C. S., Lopez, L., & Blair, C. (2017). Variations in classroom language environments of preschool children who are low income and linguistically diverse. Early Education and Development, 29(3), 398–416. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7. 2.147 Smith, M. W., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Early language & literacy classroom observation (ELLCO) toolkit, research edition [with] user’s guide Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, MA. Brookes Publishing Company. Snow, C. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), 165–189. Sprachman, S., Caspe, M., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2009). Language Interaction Snapshot (LISn) Field procedures and coding guide. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Subrahmanyam, K., Zepeda, M., Castellanos, A., Ribas, Y. & Montanari, S. (2013, April). Teacher beliefs, reported practices and observed classroom practices in Head Start classrooms. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the society for research in child development, Seattle, WA. Turnbull, K. P., Anthony, A. B., Justice, L., & Bowles, R. (2009). Preschoolers’ exposure to language stimulation in classrooms serving at-risk children: The contribution of group size and activity context. Early Education and Development, 20(1), 53–79. Whitebook, M., Kipnis, F., & Bellm, D. (2008). Diversity and stratification in California’s early care and education workforce. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California at Berkeley. Winsler, A., Burchinal, M., Tien, H., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Espinosa, L., Castro, D., . . . & De Feyter, J. (2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of language use at home, maternal immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 750–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.008 Woodcock, R. W. (1991). WJ-III: Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised: English and Spanish forms: Examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Wright, T. S. (2012). What classroom observations reveal about oral vocabulary instruction in kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 353–355. Zepeda, M. (2014). Human resource development and support for those serving dual language learners. In Commissioned paper: National research summit on early care and education for dual language learners. Washington, D.C: Heising-Simon Foundation and McKnight Foundation.