CDE Research Archive Submission Summary
Title: Measuring Preschool Teachers’ Perceived Competency and Knowledge
of Oral Language Development
Author(s): Dian Teer Prestwich
Date of Initial Publication: 08/2012
Abstract/Summary
Research has demonstrated the impact of early oral language development on a child’s later reading
comprehension. Additionally, research has suggested that teachers’ knowledge of effective practices in
literacy plays an important role in students’ ability to learn to read. The problem is that preschool
teachers’ knowledge of strategies for developing language is unknown because there is no known
instrument for assessing preschool teachers’ knowledge of these strategies. The research questions for
this study examined the development of an instrument to measure preschool teachers’ perceived
competency and knowledge of strategies for language development. Chall’s reading stage theory was
used as the theoretical foundation. This quantitative, nonexperimental study was conducted using a
descriptive, cross-sectional design. After a prepilot review of the instrument by literacy experts, a pilot
study was completed using a convenience sample of 250 teachers who volunteered to answer the
questions on the instrument. Reliability statistics demonstrated a high level of internal consistency for
Section 2, promoting extended discourse (α = .86) and low levels of internal consistency for the other
two sections of the instrument. Further analysis of Section 2 revealed a positive moderate effect size of
0.53, indicating significant variability in test scores between high and low performing teachers. Use of
the instrument developed through this study supports social change by providing early childhood
professionals information to understand teachers’ instructional decisions, determine professional
development to increase teachers’ knowledge, and inform preschool teachers’ pre-service preparation.
Subject/Keywords: Education, Preschool teachers, Preschool teacher training, effective
preschool practices, reading development
Document Type: Paper
Document Archive Number: 0015cdepr2012
Walden University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
This is to certify that the dissertation by
Dian Prestwich
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Amie Beckett, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Emiel Owens, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Denise Dunn-Reynolds, University Reviewer, Education Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2012
Abstract
Measuring Preschool Teachers’ Perceived Competency and Knowledge of Oral
Language Development
by
Dian Teer Prestwich
M.Ed., Lesley University, 2003
B.S., Northwestern State University, 1995
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Education
Walden University
August 2012
Abstract
Research has demonstrated the impact of early oral language development on a child’s
later reading comprehension. Additionally, research has suggested that teachers’
knowledge of effective practices in literacy plays an important role in students’ ability to
learn to read. The problem is that preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies for
developing language is unknown because there is no known instrument for assessing
preschool teachers’ knowledge of these strategies. The research questions for this study
examined the development of an instrument to measure preschool teachers’ perceived
competency and knowledge of strategies for language development. Chall’s reading stage
theory was used as the theoretical foundation. This quantitative, nonexperimental study
was conducted using a descriptive, cross-sectional design. After a prepilot review of the
instrument by literacy experts, a pilot study was completed using a convenience sample
of 250 teachers who volunteered to answer the questions on the instrument. Reliability
statistics demonstrated a high level of internal consistency for Section 2, promoting
extended discourse (α = .86) and low levels of internal consistency for the other two
sections of the instrument. Further analysis of Section 2 revealed a positive moderate
effect size of 0.53, indicating significant variability in test scores between high and low
performing teachers. Use of the instrument developed through this study supports social
change by providing early childhood professionals information to understand teachers’
instructional decisions, determine professional development to increase teachers’
knowledge, and inform preschool teachers’ preservice preparation.
Measuring Preschool Teachers’ Perceived Competency and Knowledge of Oral
Language Development
by
Dian Teer Prestwich
M.Ed., Lesley University, 2003
B.S., Northwestern State University, 1995
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Education
Walden University
August 2012
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my Dad, Bruce Teer, who passed away 3 years
into my quest to earn a PhD. Many years ago, my Dad encouraged me to reach my full
potential in school with a little bribe I will never forget, a promise of $100 if I made all
As on my report card. That was all I needed for encouragement, and not long after, I
brought home a perfect report card. Though neither he nor I realized it at the time, the
feeling I had in that moment of reaching my full potential would last me a lifetime.
Acknowledgments
A number of people were instrumental in guiding me during the process of
earning a PhD and supporting the completion of this dissertation. I would like to
acknowledge the following people.
Thank you to the administrators and teachers of the Colorado Preschool Program,
without whom this study would not have been possible. I recognize how valuable their
time is and how important their work is, so I am extremely grateful for every minute the
administrators and teachers dedicated to forwarding emails and completing the online
instrument for the study. Similarly, the staff of Early Childhood Initiatives at the
Colorado Department of Education provided invaluable support and guidance during the
implementation phase of the study.
Thank you to the national literacy experts who provided valuable feedback
regarding the validity of the questions in the assessment prior to conducting the study.
Their expertise was instrumental in the development of the instrument. National experts
included Dr. Susan Smartt, Dr. Carol Tolman, Dr. Debora Scheffel, and Dr. Lucy Hart-
Paulson.
Thank you to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Amie Beckett, Dr. Emiel
Owens, and Dr. Denise Dunn-Reynolds, who provided guidance and support during this
journey. Dr. Beckett, Chair, encouraged me continually, provided invaluable knowledge
and resources to support my topic, and guided the study through continuous editing and
feedback. Dr. Owens, Committee Member and Methodologist, supported me as I
constructed my research methodology and provided his expertise as I crafted the research
findings. His guiding questions always propelled me to think critically, contributing to
the quality of my research. Dr. Dunn-Reynolds, University Research Reviewer, provided
edits and suggested revisions to ensure that my study was the best it could be. I must also
thank Dr. Dianne Lefly, honorary Committee Member and co-worker, who counciled me
and worked side-by-side with me in the creation of Chapter 4. Her statistical knowledge
continues to amaze me to this day. Thank you for listening when I was frustrated and
confused and for celebrating with me during those magical moments of understanding.
Thank you to Dr. Edward Behrman and Dr. Karen Kelly, both of whom supported
the development of the Knowledge Area Modules (KAMs) which later became key
pieces of research contributing to my study. Dr. Behrman began this journey with me six
years ago, serving as my first faculty mentor. His guidance was important for helping me
to develop the skills necessary to take on the role of researcher as a PhD candidate.
Years later, when I met Dr. Kelly at work, I had no idea how instrumental she would be
as I completed the doctorate. It was certainly not by chance that our paths crossed, and I
will always be grateful to her for the constant words of encouragement, friendly smiles,
and the wealth of expertise she provided as I completed my final KAM.
Thank you to to my mother, Linda Teer, and my brother, James Teer, who offered
endless compliments and words of encouragement during the entire process. I’ve always
believed I inherited my exceptional writing skills from my mother, and those skills
certainly were necessary for completing this journey. Both my mother and brother always
believed I could finish even when I had my own doubts. For that, I am extremely
grateful. Also, to the entire Teer and Prestwich families, thank you for always believing
in me, celebrating the milestones, and constantly asking that important question, “How’s
that KAM coming?”
Finally, to my husband, Spencer, and three children, Evan, Chase, and Emma,
who were extremely patient and offered constant words of encouragement during the 6-
year journey, I offer my sincere gratitude. My husband, Spencer, picked up the slack,
taking on the role of two parents, cooking, cleaning, carpooling, and caring for the kids
when I was busy reading and writing. We finally have an answer to that question so often
asked, “When are you going to finish?” My sons, Evan and Chase, too often had to
forgive me for the occasions that I missed baseball practices and games, realizing that
Mom was accomplishing her dream. My sweet daughter, Emma, born three years into
this journey, knows nothing else but her PhD driven mother. I’ll never forget Emma’s
comment in the car one day, at the age of four, suggesting that getting a PhD “takes 100
years.” Many sacrifices were made along the way by each of us, but in the end, we share
this accomplishment.
i
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement .........................................................................................................2
Research Questions ........................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................9
Assumptions .................................................................................................................11
Limitations ...................................................................................................................12
Delimitations ................................................................................................................12
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................12
Summary ......................................................................................................................14
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................15
Introduction ..................................................................................................................15
Reading Theories .........................................................................................................17
Chall… .................................................................................................................. 17
Scarborough .......................................................................................................... 18
Ehri….. .................................................................................................................. 20
Gough and Tunmer ............................................................................................... 22
ii
The Reading Wars........................................................................................................23
Code Versus Meaning Approach .......................................................................... 23
Oral Language Development .......................................................................................26
Oral Language to Literacy Connections ............................................................... 27
Environmental Contributors.................................................................................. 30
Teacher Preparation .....................................................................................................38
Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 38
Professional Development .................................................................................... 43
Summary ......................................................................................................................45
Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................47
Introduction ..................................................................................................................47
Study Design ................................................................................................................48
Participant Selection and Sample.................................................................................50
Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................53
Teachers’ Knowledge ........................................................................................... 54
Perceived Knowledge ........................................................................................... 55
Demographics ....................................................................................................... 55
Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................56
Participant Protection ...................................................................................................60
Summary ......................................................................................................................60
Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................61
Introduction ..................................................................................................................61
iii
Data Collection Process ...............................................................................................61
Preliminary Analyses ...................................................................................................62
Participants’ Demographics .................................................................................. 62
Reliability Statistics .............................................................................................. 64
Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................... 73
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Knowledge ....................................................... 79
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge ....................................... 93
Primary Analyses .......................................................................................................101
Research Question One ....................................................................................... 108
Research Question Two ...................................................................................... 109
Research Question Three .................................................................................... 111
Summary ....................................................................................................................117
Chapter 5: Discussion, Interpretations, and Recommendations ......................................119
Introduction ................................................................................................................119
Overview ....................................................................................................................119
Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................121
Implications for Social Change ..................................................................................123
Recommendations for Action and Further Study ......................................................124
Reflections .................................................................................................................128
Conclusion .................................................................................................................129
References ........................................................................................................................131
Appendix A: Teachers’ Knowledge of Oral Language Development (TKOLD)............145
iv
Appendix B: Consent Form .............................................................................................153
Appendix C: Emails to Participants .................................................................................155
Appendix D: Responses for Engaging in Dialogic Reading by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool ...........................................................................160
Appendix E: Responses for Engaging in Dialogic Reading by Hours of
Professional Development ...................................................................................163
Appendix F: Responses for Promoting Extended Discourse by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool ...........................................................................166
Appendix G: Responses for Promoting Extended Discourse by Hours of
Professional Development ...................................................................................169
Appendix H: Responses for Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words by
Number of Years Experience Teaching Preschool ..............................................172
Appendix I: Responses for Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words by Hours
of Professional Development ...............................................................................175
Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................178
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 1 ....................................... 68
Table 2. Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 2 ....................................... 69
Table 3. Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 3 ....................................... 70
Table 4. Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Sections 1 and 2 ............................ 71
Table 5. Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Sections 2 and 3 ............................ 72
Table 6. Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading ......................... 74
Table 7. Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse ....................... 75
Table 8. Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading and Knowledge
of Promoting Extended Discourse ............................................................................ 76
Table 9. Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words ... 78
Table 10. Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Knowledge of Engaging in
Dialogic Reading ...................................................................................................... 81
Table 11. Frequency of Responses: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading ......... 82
Table 12. Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Knowledge of Promoting
Extended Discourse .................................................................................................. 86
Table 13. Frequency of Responses: Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse ....... 87
Table 14. Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Using Specific Vocabulary and
Rare Words ............................................................................................................... 91
Table 15.. Frequency of Responses: Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words .......... 92
Table 16 Differences in Number of Questions Answered Correctly by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool .............................................................................. 107
vi
Table 17. Differences in Number of Questions Answered Correctly by Hours of
Professional Development in Early Literacy Complted in the Last 2 Years .......... 108
Table 18. Mean Knowledge Scores, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes by Number of
Years Experience Teaching Preschool and Hours of Professional Development .. 109
Table 19. Mean Perceived Knowledge, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes by Years
Experience Teaching Preschool and Hours of Professional Development ............. 111
Table 20. Mean Knowledge Scores for Teachers Rating their Knowledge as Low,
Average, and High ................................................................................................. 112
Table 21. Observed Perceived Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse by
Observed Perceived Knowledge Compared to Others ............................................ 115
Table 22. Expected Perceived Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse by Expected
Perceived Knowledge Compared to Others ............................................................ 116
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of responses for number of years experience teaching
preschool. .................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of responses for number of hours of professional
development completed in the last 2 years. .............................................................. 64
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of engaging in
dialogic reading. ........................................................................................................ 95
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of engaging in
dialogic reading in comparision to other teachers. ................................................... 95
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of promoting
extended discourse. ................................................................................................... 97
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of promoting
extended discourse in comparision to other teachers. ............................................... 98
Figure 7. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of using specific
vocabulary and rare words. ..................................................................................... 100
Figure 8. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of using specific
vocabulary and rare words in comparision to other teachers. ................................. 100
Figure 9. Frequency distribution of responses to number of years experience teaching
preschool. ................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 10. Frequency distribution of responses to number of hours of professional
development in early literacy completed in the last 2 years. .................................. 103
viii
Figure 11. Frequency distribution of responses for teachers’ perceived competency for
knowledge of promoting extended discourse. ........................................................ 105
Figure 12. Frequency distribution of responses for teachers’ perceived competency for
knowledge of promoting extended discourse compared to other teachers. ............ 105
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
Despite the growing body of research on best practices for teaching children to
read, statistics on illiteracy remain alarming. Approximately 20% of children across the
nation will struggle with reading at some point in time prior to third grade, which means
that more than 10 million children in the United States are not learning to read at
proficient levels (Bursuck et al., 2004). Since 1992, statistics for fourth grade average
reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have shown an
increase of only four points, from 217 to 221 (National Center for Education Statistics,
2009). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2010), 67% of fourth
grade students read at or above a basic level. Students scoring at the basic level are only
able to make simple inferences, locate information in the text that supports their own
simple conclusions, and interpret the meanings of words as they are used in the text. Even
more concerning, only 33% of fourth grade students have demonstrated competency of
challenging subject material to score at a proficient level. In order to score at the
proficient level, students must interpret texts, drawing conclusions and making
evaluations based on their understanding of the text, in addition to those aspects included
in the description of working at the basic level (National Center for Education Statistics,
2010).
A recent report from the Institute of Education Sciences (2010) defined reading
comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning
through interaction and involvement with written language” (p. 5). The panel noted that
2
in addition to five other critical skills and knowledge, “vocabulary knowledge and oral
language skills help readers understand the meaning of words and connected text” (p. 6).
As the literature review in Chapter 2 confirms, early oral language development is related
to later reading comprehension. Furthermore, it is not clear as to whether or not early
childhood educators have knowledge of the connection between early oral language and
later reading comprehension. Based on reports of low performance, it would seem that
the nation’s schools are failing to meet the challenge of teaching children to read.
However, research demonstrates that struggling readers can learn to read if provided
high-quality instruction by knowledgeable teachers (Mathes et al., 2003).
Existing research demonstrates the importance of oral language development and
the longitudinal impact of early language on later reading comprehension (McGill-
Franzen, 2010; Neuman, 2010; Vellutino, Tunmer, Jaccard, & Chen, 2007). Although
early literacy achievement is linked to code related conditions of reading instruction, later
literacy achievement and comprehension in the upper elementary grades and beyond is
more closely linked to language ability (Neuman, 2010). Contrary to this knowledge,
preschool teachers do not often engage in activities that support oral language
development in the early years (Dickinson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006; Dickinson &
Tabors, 2002; McGill-Franzen, Lanford, & Adams, 2002).
Problem Statement
In the past ten years, research such as the Report of the National Reading Panel
(National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) on teaching children
to read and the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (National Center for Family
3
Literacy, 2008) summarized effective practices for teaching children to read. Similarly,
federally funded reform efforts such as Reading First supported nearly 5,000 schools
across the nation in implementing scientifically research-based reading instruction for
students in kindergarten through third grade. At the preschool level, since 2002, the
federally funded Early Reading First grant was awarded to more than 200 local education
agencies and organizations in order to support the development of early childhood centers
focused on early language, cognitive, and reading skills.
Despite the evidence on teaching children to read and the many reform efforts at
the preschool level, the problem remains that preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies
for developing oral language in the preschool classroom is not known, including
engaging in dialogic reading, promoting extended discourse, and using specific
vocabulary and rare words. Only recently have researchers begun to examine teachers’
knowledge (Cunningham, Zibulsky, & Callahan, 2009; Lane et al., 2009; Moats &
Foorman, 2003), but there has yet to be an emphasis on early oral language development
and whether or not preschool teachers have the knowledge of the type of instruction that
should take place in preschool classrooms. Cunningham, Zibulsky, and Callahan (2009)
stated that teachers “may need to recognize their skill deficits before beginning to benefit
from professional development” (p. 501). Determining the state of preschool teachers’
perceived competency and actual knowledge is critical to providing effective professional
development and understanding the instructional decisions that teachers make.
Also central to the problem investigated in this study is whether or not years of
experience or number of hours of recent professional development in early literacy are
4
related to teachers’ perceived competency and actual knowledge. The level of teachers’
education and type of certification are not strong predictors of increased achievement of
students in early literacy (Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005, as cited in Piasta et
al., 2009). In the state of Colorado, teachers in the Colorado Preschool Program must
have at least a baccalaureate degree in Early Childhood Education/Child Development
and 3 years of full-time experience working with children. A graduate degree in Early
Childhood Education/Child Development may be substituted for 3 years of teaching
experience. This study further examined two additional characteristics of teachers
including years of experience and number of hours of recent professional develoment in
early literacy.
Research Questions
This quantitative, nonexperimental study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving (a)
engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and (c) using
specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by total number
of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
2. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and
(c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by total
5
number of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of
professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
3. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and
actual knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words
for developing oral language?
Purpose of the Study
A review of the literature determined that there is an abundance of research on
effective practices for teaching children to read. However, researchers do not know
whether preschool teachers have the knowledge necessary for helping children develop
early oral language skills. The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that
may be used to examine and describe the perceived level of knowledge and actual
knowledge level of preschool teachers regarding strategies that support oral language
development in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading,
promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words.
For this study, I examined both perceived knowledge and actual knowledge.
Perceived knowledge of teachers demonstrates whether or not teachers are aware of what
they do and do not know while the knowledge portion of the instrument reveals the areas
of knowledge that teachers do not possess regarding strategies for oral language
development. People in general are likely to seek knowledge in a particular domain when
they are actually aware of their own knowledge deficits in that domain. Similarly,
teachers are more likely to be receptive to new information when they are aware that it is
6
information they do not already know (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2004). Therefore,
improvements to both preservice and inservice training for preschool teachers are
dependent on knowing both perceived and actual knowledge of teachers.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study was drawn from Chall’s (1996b) reading
stage theory as it relates to the connection between early oral language development and
later reading comprehension in children. Chall theorized that learning to read is a process
involving six stages. Stage 0, the prereading stage, is the stage at which a child begins to
acquire knowledge of oral language. Stage 1 builds on the knowledge gained in Stage 0
as children begin to connect letters to sounds. This stage is focused on the alphabetic
principle and decoding. Children who are at this stage of reading development will begin
to recognize differences in printed words. During Stage 2 of Chall’s reading model,
children become proficient in their decoding abilities, thus gaining fluency with basic
words. Stage 2 readers also begin to make connections to previous knowledge and build a
sight word base that contributes to their speed of reading text (Chall, 1996b).
The final three stages of reading development differ from the first stages in that
children begin to read for a new purpose--reading to learn versus learning to read. Stage 3
readers use their own experiences to gain a clear understanding of what they read. In
addition, a foundation of vocabulary and an understanding of text structure are important
if children are to be successful at this stage in the reading process. The next stage in the
model is directly connected to the abilities developed in Stage 3. During Stage 4, readers
encounter complex text that includes “more than one point of view” (Chall, 1996b, p. 23).
7
Readers at this stage begin to construct new knowledge as they move into the final stage
of the reading process. Once at Stage 5, readers are able to discriminate among the pieces
of a text, selecting only that which is pertinent to the reader’s purpose. Higher levels of
thinking are involved at this stage, including “analysis, synthesis, and judgment” (Chall,
1996b, p. 24).
Chall’s stages build on each other, with one stage providing prerequisites for the
next. Children who do not develop the appropriate skills at each developmental stage will
be at risk for reading failure. Though ages are not necessarily attached to each stage, the
critical skills of each stage should be mastered early in order to give the learner the best
possible opportunity to become a reader (Chall, 1996a). Early literacy skills such as
vocabulary development are critical to later reading success (Beron & Farkas, 2004;
Christ & Wang, 2010; Foster et al., 2005; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008; Serry, Rose, &
Liamputtong, 2008). In a study of high-poverty schools, Hemphill and Tivnan (2008)
found that children who began first grade with lower vocabulary skills continued to show
deficits in reading comprehension through the duration of the study which ended when
children were in third grade. Similarly, in a review of literature pertaining to the early
identification of at-risk readers, Serry, Rose, and Liamputtong (2008) found that early
warning signs of failure to learn to read may expose themselves as phonological or oral
language deficits, and these deficits can have an effect both early on in the process of
reading acquisition or later as reading tasks get more difficult and complex.
This study focused on the development of Stage 0 and its connection to later
literacy achievement in children, specifically reading comprehension. Stage 0, also
8
known as the prereading stage, begins at birth, and spans the time from birth through the
child’s first exposures to formal schooling. During this stage, children acquire knowledge
of language and its syntax. As discussed later in the literature review of Chapter 2,
children who are read to at home and are surrounded by a language-rich environment will
develop skills at Stage 0 at a more proficient level than children in language-poor
environments. For those children that come from rich language environments, learning at
Stages 1 and 2 is less difficult (Chall, 1996b). Research also demonstrates that oral
language development at Stage 0 is more closely correlated to later literacy achievement
in Grade 3 and beyond than to early literacy achievement in the primary grades (Chall,
1996a, 1996b; Cutting, Materek, Cole, Levine, & Mahone, 2009; Hemphill & Tivnan,
2008; Kendeou, Van Den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009). It is at Stage 3 and beyond that
a child’s everyday experiences begin to play a key role in the ability to read and
understand (Chall, 1996a).
As a former teacher and Reading First coach, I experienced firsthand the
instructional emphasis that is often placed on phonics instruction in preschool and
kindergarten classrooms. Though this instruction is necessary for early literacy
achievement, preschool teachers may not fully understand the importance of oral
language development in the early years and its relationship to later reading
comprehension. Teachers who do not fully understand the connection between oral
language and reading comprehension perceive their role in a different way than those
teachers who do understand the connection, and these two groups will make different
instructional decisions. For this study, Chall’s reading stage theory served as a basis for
9
developing the instrument with support from more current theories of reading
development (Ehri, 1999; Ehri & Williams, 1996; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Scarborough,
2001).
Definition of Terms
The key terms used in the study are defined as follows:
Comprehension: The RAND Reading Study Group defines reading
comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning
through interaction and involvement with written language” (as cited in Honig et al.,
2008, p. 609).
Decoding: Translating a word from print to speech by using knowledge of sound-
symbol correspondences; also the act of sounding out new words (Moats & Hennessy,
2010).
Discourse: “Speaking and writing at length; discussion of a subject” (Moats &
Hennessy, 2010, p. 99).
Direct instruction: Teaching which includes defining the concept to be taught,
guiding students through application of the concept, and providing guided practice so that
mastery can be achieved (Moats & Hennessy, 2010).
Emergent literacy (
also, emerging literacy, early literacy): The beginning
awareness and understanding of letters and their sounds which typically begins at the age
of 4 or 5 years old. Awareness continues to mature as children develop oral language
skills, continue to gain awareness of the sound structure of language, and begin to find
meaning for symbols in their environment (Paulson et al., 2001).
10
Explicit: “Fully and clearly explained; transparent” (Moats & Hall, 2010, p. 94).
Expressive vocabulary: “Words that a person uses in writing or speaking” (Moats,
2009, p. 87).
Fluency: Oral reading of text with speed, accuracy, and prosody (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000).
Morphology: “The rules of word formation” (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 113).
Oral language: “The ability to produce or comprehend spoken language,
including vocabulary and grammar” (National Center for Family Literacy, 2008, p. viii).
Orthography: “A writing system for representing language” (Moats & Hennessy,
2010, p. 101).
Phoneme awareness (also, phonemic awareness): Thinking about and
manipulating the phonemes in words, demonstrating a higher level of phonological
awareness (Paulson & Moats, 2010).
Phonics: “The study of the relationships between letters and the sounds they
represent; also used as a descriptor for code-based instruction in reading” (Moats &
Hennessy, 2010, p. 101).
Phonological awareness: “The awareness of the sound structures of language; the
ability to reflect on and consciously manipulate syllables and sounds of speech” (Paulson
& Moats, 2010, p. 113).
Phonology: “The study of the sound system of a language and the rules used to
put sounds together to make words” (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 21).
11
Pragmatics: “The system of rules and conventions for using language and related
gestures in a social context” (Moats & Hennessy, 2010, p. 101).
Prosody: “The rhythmic and intonational aspect of spoken language” (Paulson &
Moats, 2010, p. 114).
Receptive vocabulary: Words for which a person understands the meanings when
encountering them in reading and listening (Moats, 2009).
Semantics: “The study of word and phrase meanings” (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p.
114).
Syntax (also, syntactic): “The system of grammatical rules that govern
permissible word order in sentences” (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 115).
Systematic: Instruction that includes routines followed in a step-by-step manner in
order to emaphasize the systemic nature of the information (Moats & Hall, 2010).
Vocabulary: Words that a person understands and uses in a language (Paulson &
Moats, 2010).
Whole language: An instructional philosophy of reading that does not emphasize
phonology and phonics, but emphasizes learning to read words as wholes through
meaningful encounters with text (Moats & Hall, 2010).
Assumptions
In this study, I assumed that an instrument could be developed to produce valid
and reliable scores while assessing preschool teachers’ perceived competency and actual
knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. I
assumed that participants would complete their own survey instrument without
12
referencing materials or assistance from others. I also assumed that participants would
answer honestly on all tasks: (a) perceived competencies, (b) knowledge questions, and
(c) demographic information (e.g., years of experience and recent training).
Limitations
Participants completed the perceptions and knowledge instrument at one point in
time. Therefore, the results were limited to one point in time only. Reliability and validity
data was limited to the use of the instrument in the prepilot and pilot studies. Participants
were not randomly selected, limiting the ability to generalize to a larger population.
Participants were all preschool teachers in the state of Colorado in Colorado Preschool
Programs, limiting the ability to generalize to other locations and types of preschool
programs. Participants self-reported demographic information including years of teaching
experience and number of hours of professional development related to early literacy
completed in the last 2 years; therefore, there was potential for self-report bias.
Delimitations
In order to meet the purpose of the research, the pilot study was delimited to
include: (a) preschool teachers in the state of Colorado, (b) facilities participating in the
Colorado Preschool Program, and (c) licensed, public preschool facilities in the state of
Colorado.
Significance of the Study
Learning to read is paramount for continued success in school and in life. In order
to teach all children to read in the elementary grades, teachers must be knowledgeable of
best practices and the research on how children learn to read. Additionally, as revealed in
13
the literature review later in Chapter 2, children must acquire basic literacy skills as early
as possible to increase the likelihood for continued success as a reader. This study is
significant because it contributes to the existing research on teachers’ perceptions and
knowledge by focusing on preschool teachers and strategies for supporting oral language
development.
The development of effective professional development for teachers is dependent
on knowing teachers’ current knowledge and their perceived understanding of the topic.
Often, teachers do not know what they do not know, so they may not be clear on which
professional development opportunities they should seek. Similarly, improvement of
teacher preparation programs is dependent on knowing the gaps in teachers’ knowledge,
as well as understanding what is necessary for teachers to apply knowledge to make
informed instructional decisions. Recent studies have examined teachers’ perceptions and
knowledge of English phonology and orthography (Cheesman et al., 2009; Mahar &
Richdale, 2008; Moats, 2009; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Piasta et al., 2009). However,
there has not been an emphasis on preschool teachers and oral language development in
the early years. This study fills a gap in the research by developing an instrument to
examine preschool teachers’ perceived competencies and actual knowledge of strategies
for oral language development in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic
reading, promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words.
The results of the study may be used by everyone involved in the educational arena,
including policy makers, researchers, professors in higher education, state level
coordinators and grant managers, district level administrators, and school level personnel
14
to improve the training and continued support that preschool teachers receive. The results
of the study contribute to positive social change by providing an instrument that may be
used in future research studies. Data obtained from the instrument may be used to better
understand teachers’ decision making processes in the preschool classroom, to inform
how preschool teachers are prepared for the classroom experience, and to determine what
type of future professional development should be offered.
Summary
In Chapter 1, I presented an introduction to the study, developed the problem
being addressed, listed the questions to be answered, and stated the purpose of the
research. I described the theoretical framework which guides the study and gave
definitions for all key terms. I also listed the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations
of the study. To conclude Chapter 1, I provided the significance of the study, including a
description of how the study contributes to positive social change. In Chapter 2, I provide
a review of the literature including a history of reading theories and related instructional
methods, what is known about oral language development, and a synthesis of the
literature on teacher preparation. In Chapter 3, I describe methodology including study
design, participant selection and sample, instrumentation and materials, data collection
and analysis, and participant protection. In Chapter 4, I describe the process used to
collect and analyze the data in addition to the results of the data analyses. Finally, in
Chapter 5, I present a summary and interpretations of the study findings in addition to
implications and recommendations to improve the training and ongoing support that
preschool teachers receive.
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The growing body of research on literacy instruction has demonstrated that the
early years are the most significant years for teaching children to read. Mathes et al.
(2003) found that children who are behind in reading skills at the end of first grade
remain behind at the end of third grade. Students who are poor readers at the end of third
grade have very little chance of catching up with their peers without intensive
intervention (Mathes et al.). In fact, Foorman et al. (1998) found that “74% of children
who were poor readers in Grade 3 were poor readers in Grade 9” (p. 37). Similarly, in a
longitudinal study of 55 children from first to fourth grade, Juel (1988) found that “good
readers in first grade had a .88 chance of staying good readers in fourth grade while poor
readers in first grade had a .87 probability of remaining poor readers” (p. 440). The
acquisition of early language and literacy skills is necessary for continued success in the
development of reading proficiency.
A meta-analysis conducted by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, 2000) summarized the research on reading
instruction and found that phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension are necessary components of effective literacy instruction. Similar work
by the National Early Literacy Panel (National Center for Family Literacy, 2008)
summarized the research on learning to read in the early years in order to determine
which early literacy skills are most predictive of later literacy achievement. Eleven
variables were found to be moderately to strongly correlated to reading achievement
16
including alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming of
letters/digits, rapid automatized naming of objects/colors, writing/writing name,
phonological memory, concepts about print, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral
language, and visual processing. For all but two of these variables, the correlation was
stronger when the outcome was tested at the end of the kindergarten year. Oral language
and rapid automatized naming of letters/digits were the two exceptions. Oral language
was found to be more strongly correlated to literacy achievement at the end of first and
second grade (National Center for Family Literacy, 2008). Studies that analyze the
correlation between oral language and literacy achievement at the end of third grade have
shown similar results (Cutting et al., 2009; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008). Contrary to this
knowledge, early childhood teachers may not fully understand the importance of oral
language and its impact on later literacy achievement. It seems that the focus on early
skill development including phonemic awareness and decoding has cast a shadow over
the importance of oral language development (Dickenson & Tabors, 2001).
For this study, I conducted a thorough search of scholarly journals, government
publications, texts, and electronic databases such as EBSCOhost, ERIC, and Academic
Search Premier. I also used relevant websites such as the U. S. Department of Education
website. The keywords used to conduct this search included
literacy, reading instruction,
oral language, emergent literacy, professional development, National Literacy Panel,
teacher effectiveness, elementary education, preschool, phonemic awareness, phonics,
decoding, vocabulary, early reading, struggling readers, teacher knowledge, knowledge
17
assessment, knowledge questionnaire, beginning literacy, reading acquisition, language,
and cognitive development. The search was limited to peer-reviewed journals.
The review of the literature includes research related to the proposed
methodology and is organized in the following manner: (a) a discussion of reading
theories, (b) a comparison of instructional philosophies for teaching children to read, (c)
an overview of research on the development of oral language, and (d) an analysis of
research on the role of teacher preparation.
Reading Theories
Chall
First published in 1967, Chall’s
Learning to Read: The Great Debate (1996a) was
one of many contributions to come in the never-ending war over best practices in reading
instruction. By 1996, when the 3
rd edition of Chall’s book was published, there would be
a growing body of evidence to support what was, in 1967, only a report of a 3-year study
by the Carnegie Corporation. From the synthesized evidence, Chall theorized that
learning to read happens over time, through a series of predetermined stages of literacy
development, as described previously in Chapter 1. Central to the purpose of this study is
the prereading stage, or Stage 0 in Chall’s description of the reading stages, because this
stage is typical of preschool through late kindergarten.
In order to come to a consensus about how learning to read takes place, Chall’s
research consisted of an evaluation of studies conducted during the period of time from
1967 to 1996. The research debate among reading experts, as described by Chall, began
over whether the code emphasis or meaning emphasis approach was best practice. Code
18
emphasis supporters believed that children need to learn the alphabetic code prior to
learning to read. Meaning emphasis supporters believed that learning to read takes place
while emphasizing the comprehension or understanding of what is read. Despite the
evidence to support a code emphasis approach, this debate continued into the 1980s,
giving way to meaning emphasis teaching approaches such as whole language and
literature based reading instruction (Chall, 1996b). Code based and meaning based
instructional approaches are further examined later in this chapter.
During the 1980s, cognitive and developmental psychologists joined the debate
and found that word recognition and decoding skills were vital to a child’s reading
ability. Chall (1996a) summarized the findings and contended that study results began to
emphasize phonemic awareness and its correlation to a child’s ability to learn the
alphabetic code. Continuing into the 1990s, the body of evidence supported the code
emphasis approach, at least for children in their earlier years of schooling. In essence, it
was determined by Chall that the reading process is developmental, and children do
benefit from instructional approaches that support the stages of development in reading
(Chall, 1996a). Since Chall’s research of the 1990s, a number of theories have emerged
that support Chall’s findings and extend on her work, including the research of
Scarborough, Ehri, Gough, and Tunmer.
Scarborough
Scarborough (2001) investigated language to literacy connections in an effort to
determine contributors of reading disabilities and identify children as early as preschool
that are at risk for developing a reading disability. Scarborough confirmed Chall’s
19
research, demonstrating how important the early years are when a child is learning to
read. Through an analysis of existing research, Scarborough (2001) determined that
“early differences in the sorts of verbal abilities that make up the comprehension strands,
most notably vocabulary, sentence/story recall, and concepts of print, have also been
reliable predictors of later reading” (p. 100). When children enter formal schooling with
weak verbal and literacy skills, they are more likely to have difficulties learning to read
than their more experienced counterparts. Similar to Chall’s findings, Scarborough
(2001) discovered that when children begin preschool, they must have developed some
language and vocabulary in order to be ready for formal phonological and phonemic
awareness instruction. Therefore, children with better developed vocabularies perform
better in preschool on phonemic awareness activities (Metsala, 1999). Essentially, oral
language is the foundation on which other skills are developed.
Similar to Chall’s findings, Scarborough’s research demonstrated that the process
of learning to read is developmental. Scarborough (2001) used a rope model to show how
reading ability develops. The two main strands of the rope; word recognition and
language comprehension, are interwoven, and each of these two main strands contains
many more strands within them. These strands are interwoven to demonstrate that word
recognition and language comprehension take place at the same time. The smaller strands
of the language comprehension section of the rope include background knowledge,
vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. The smaller
strands of the word recognition section of the rope include phonological awareness,
decoding, and sight recognition. Becoming a skilled reader, according to Scarborough
20
(2001), involves increased automaticity of the word recognition strands and increasingly
strategic use of the language comprehension strands within the rope model. Central to the
purpose of this study, Scarborough’s (2001) reading theory depicted vocabulary as being
interwoven with background knowledge, verbal reasoning, language structures, and
literacy knowledge; therefore, vocabulary plays a critical role in reading comprehension.
The idea that vocabulary is significant for reading comprehension is further developed
later in this chapter.
Ehri
Another theory that supports Chall’s initial work is the theory of word reading
developed by Ehri. In order to describe the process that children go through when
learning to read print, Ehri (2005) theorized four phases: prealphabetic, partial alphabetic,
full alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic. The prealphabetic phase is most similar to
Chall’s Stage 0. Children at this phase have no knowledge of letter to sound
correspondences; therefore, they rely on visual clues to support their ability to read
words. For example, children begin to recognize the word
stop because of the shape and
color of a stop sign that is seen often in their environment. At this point in learning to
read, children are not using letters, sounds, and blending abilities to read the word.
Instead, children at this phase are nonreaders and will only pretend to read books that
they have heard often and will use pictures throughout books to support their pretend
reading. Reading stories aloud to children is important at this point because it expands
their vocabulary and background knowledge and helps children become familiar with the
syntax of written language (Ehri, 1999). On the contrary, “readers who have
21
impoverished experiences or poor memories for information about the world may lack
the vocabulary and background knowledge to interpret some kinds of texts” (Ehri &
Williams, 1996, p. 234). Therefore, Ehri and Williams (1996) stressed the importance of
building vocabulary and background knowledge as early as possible and throughout the
process of learning to read.
Ehri’s reading phases are similar to Chall’s reading stages; however, Ehri’s
phases suggest a more fluid process from one component to another in the progression of
learning to read. Most pertinent to this study, Ehri’s description of Stage 0 supports the
research about the importance of early literacy experiences, as described later in the
literature review. Ehri and Williams (1996) described Stage 0 as emergent reading which
takes place in the preschool years. Children gain early reading skills at this phase in the
process by “listening to storybooks read by parents, by learning to name alphabet letters,
[and] by seeing labels and signs marking objects and places in their environment” (p.
234). Most importantly, children begin to gain an understanding of how our language
works, and background knowledge is gained as early as this phase in the process.
Additionally, as children have more experiences listening to stories read to them, they are
introduced to more complicated patterns in our language and differences between spoken
and written language (Ehri & Williams, 1996). Understanding spoken and written
language, or language comprehension, becomes extremely important as children develop
as readers, as Gough and Tunmer (1986) confirmed in their theory of reading
development.
22
Gough and Tunmer
Gough and Tunmer (1986) theorized a simple view of reading in order to describe
the process that must take place in order to develop reading comprehension. Similar to
Scarborough’s rope model, Gough and Tunmer’s theory proposed that reading
comprehension takes place when both decoding and language comprehension abilities are
strong (decoding x language comprehension = reading comprehension). For children with
strong decoding but poor language comprehension, reading comprehension is weak. The
same is true for a child that has strong language comprehension but poor decoding skills.
The child must be able to read the words fluently and accurately in order to have reading
comprehension.
Language comprehension and reading comprehension are not the same. Language
comprehension includes “receptive vocabulary, grammatical understanding, and
discourse comprehension” (Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006). Language comprehension,
unlike reading comprehension, relies on oral language rather than print. Reading
comprehension; however, is dependent on the reader to read the words and derive
meaning from them. The Connecticut Longitudinal Study (Foorman et al., 1997)
confirmed Gough and Tunmer’s work while also supporting the notion that language
comprehension becomes even more important and decoding ability becomes less
important for reading comprehension as children age. In this unprecedented longitudinal
study, a sample of 445 kindergarten students were randomly selected from Connecticut
public schools and followed for more than 20 years. In first grade, the proportion of
variance in reading comprehension accounted for by decoding was 79%. The proportion
23
of variance decreased to 69% in second grade, 59% in third grade, 53% in fourth grade,
49% in fifth grade, 48% in sixth and seventh grade, and 40% in eighth grade. These
findings demonstrated that while decoding is extremely important for reading
comprehension in first grade, the relationship between decoding and reading
comprehension weakens as other subskills of comprehension become more important
across time (Foorman et al., 1997). Unfortunately, misinterpretation of findings such as
these may lead teachers to believe that a balance of decoding and comprehension
instruction is necessary to achieve maximum results. Instead, Chall’s reading stages and
Ehri’s reading phases indicate at which point in time during the process of learning to
read that particular subskills should be emphasized. The subskills of word recognition
(phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition) outlined in Scarborough’s
rope model and Gough and Tunmer’s simple view of reading should be emphasized early
during reading development while vocabulary and comprehension are important
throughout the process. The next section of this chapter describes how these reading
theories have been used in the debate over the most effective instructional approaches for
teaching children to read.
The Reading Wars
Code Versus Meaning Approach
For over a half-century, researchers have argued over which instructional
approach is most effective at teaching all children to read at proficient levels. At one end
of the spectrum are believers in a strong code oriented approach. Teachers who
emphasize the reading code will include attention to phonics based instruction in which
24
children learn to manipulate the sounds in words by blending, segmenting, deleting, and
replacing sounds (Chall, 1996a). At the same time, children learn the letter-sound
correspondences so they can decode words on their own. Recognition of high frequency
words is also taught. Instruction in the code is taught early while continuing to increase a
child’s vocabulary. Later on, children focus on increasing fluency while developing
higher levels of comprehension (O’Conner, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005). An approach
such as this one is typically referred to as a bottom up approach to teaching reading
(Cutting et al., 2009). Bottom up approaches are in line with the reading theories of
Chall, Scarborough, Ehri, Gough, and Tunmer described earlier in this chapter.
At the other end of the instructional spectrum are believers in a strong meaning
oriented classroom. Often described as the whole language method, the idea is that
“children learn to read and write in a manner similar to how they learn to speak” (Shaw,
Dvorak, & Bates, 2007). The emphasis of instruction is on “recognizing entire words as
the meaningful units of reading” (Sousa, 2005, p. 63). Children in whole language
approach classrooms spend ample amounts of time reading because “experiencing words
in context leads to greater improvement in word reading than experiencing words out of
context” (Sousa, 2005, p. 65). The belief is that when children encounter difficult words
in text, they can use semantics and syntax to determine the words. Though followers of
the meaning based approach regard phonics as important, they determined that phonics
did not need to be explicitly taught (Sousa, 2005).
In a meaning oriented classroom, students “have extensive engagement with
authentic literature and have the opportunity to learn new vocabulary” (Mathes et al.,
25
2003, p. 460) so that the instructional emphasis is more on gaining understanding of text
than analysis of individual words. Comprehension strategies such as making inferences,
identifying the main idea, and summarizing are practiced (Mathes et al., 2003). This
approach to teaching reading is referred to as a top down approach (Cutting et al., 2009),
and the three cueing systems play a central role in this type of instruction. Adams (1998)
wrote about the three cueing systems in
Literacy for All Issues in Teaching and Learning,
trying to trace the original research to support the notion of the three cues but not
succeeding in documenting scientific literature to support the method. Essentially,
teachers using the three cues direct children to the visual, semantic, and syntactic clues in
order to determine unknown words. This format for teaching is not in line with the
theories of Chall, Scarborough, Ehri, Gough, and Tunmer because the phonological
processor is not emphasized, and systematic and explicit phonics instruction is deemed
unnecessary. The word recognition strands in Scarborough’s rope model and decoding, as
in Gough and Tunmer’s simple view of reading are not emphasized. Instead, children are
taught to rely on a number of strategies for figuring out unknown words including picture
clues and context clues (Pressley et al., 2001; Routman, 1996; Smith, 1979; Weaver,
1994).
Although there is great conflict between the reading stage theories and the whole
language approach in regards to decoding instruction, language comprehension is
emphasized in both the top-down and bottom-up approaches to teaching reading. As
mentioned previously, language comprehension is the oral version of comprehension.
Language comprehension includes, at a minimum, “receptive vocabulary, grammatical
26
understanding, and discourse comprehension” (Catts et al., 2006, p. 280), all of which
make up oral language development. The next section provides an overview of what is
known about the development of oral language, how oral language development relates
to later reading comprehension, and the environmental contributors of oral language
development.
Oral Language Development
Despite the disagreement over which instructional philosophy is best, research
continues to point to the importance of oral language development at an early age and its
impact on a child’s ability to comprehend text in later years (Catts, Fey, Zhang, &
Tomblin, 1999; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Cutting et al., 2009; Dickinson &
McCabe, 2001; Guo & Harris, 2000; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008;
Kendeou et al., 2009; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-
Martin, & Taylor, 2005; NICHD, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Vellutino et al.,
2007). Both the code and meaning based instructional approaches described previously
value the contribution of oral language development, and more specifically, vocabulary
development, to the process of learning to read and later reading achievement. According
to the National Institute for Literacy (2010), “young children’s ability to use language
and to listen to and understand the meaning of spoken and written words is related to
their later literacy achievement in reading, writing, and spelling” (p. 2). Furthermore, oral
language development includes critical skills that begin to develop as early as infancy
and continue to develop when formal schooling begins in preschool (Storch &
Whitehurst, 2002).
27
Oral language includes semantic, syntactic, and conceptual knowledge (Storch &
Whitehurst, 2002). According to Paulson and Moats (2010), oral language includes five
structural components: phonology, semantics, morphology, syntax, and prosody. It is the
semantic structure of oral language that includes vocabulary development, consisting of
both expressive and receptive vocabulary. According to Hart and Risley (1995), “a
vocabulary is the stock of words available to a person or a language community” (p. 6).
The National Center for Family Literacy (2008) defined oral language as the “ability to
produce and/or comprehend aspects of spoken language, including vocabulary and
grammar (semantics and syntax)” (p. viii). A child’s vocabulary consists of words that
the child can use (expressive) and/or understand (receptive), or all known words (Hart &
Risley, 1995). The development of language preceeds learning to read print; therefore,
language development contributes to a child’s ability to learn to read in the early years,
and its importance increases as a child ages.
Oral Language to Literacy Connections
A growing body of research demonstrates the role of early language development
on later reading comprehension ability (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Cutting &
Scarborough, 2006; Cutting et al., 2009; Dickinson & McCabe, 2001; Foorman et al.,
1997; Guo & Harris, 2000; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008; Kendeou et
al., 2009; Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; Mehta et al., 2005; NICHD, 2005; Storch
& Whitehurst, 2002; Vellutino et al., 2007). In a quantitative study of 300 children from
first through third grade, using correlational and multiple regression analyses, Hemphill
and Tivnan (2008) found that while basic early literacy skills such as phonemic
28
awareness and decoding decreased in effect on reading achievement over time,
vocabulary continued to be a strong predictor of reading comprehension through third
grade. These results remained consistently strong even after controlling for gender and
ethnicity. Similarly, Mehta et al. (2005) conducted a study of 1,350 children in 127
classrooms in Grades 1-4 in order to determine the relationship between word reading,
spelling, comprehension, and general language competence. The researchers found that
literacy achievement and language levels were correlated, and literacy achievement in the
first to fourth grade classrooms could be predicted by the vocabulary and language
proficiency scores of each classroom.
When tests of a broader scope of oral language skills were considered, the
findings were similar. Roth, Speece, and Cooper (2002) examined the relationship
between structural language, metalinguistics, and narrative discourse and a child’s ability
to comprehend text that is read in kindergarten, first, and second grade. Results showed
that semantic knowledge was a predictor of reading comprehension in second grade and
that phonological awareness was not a predictor. For children with reading disabilities,
the connection between oral language skills and reading comprehension remains strong.
Cutting et al. (2009) found that children with reading disabilities “showed weaknesses in
vocabulary and inferential language” (p. 48). Similar to Gough and Tunmer’s simple
view of reading, study results demonstrated that children experiencing reading difficulties
may not just have deficits in basic reading skills such as decoding, but instead, children
may have deficits in the higher level skills associated with reading comprehension ability,
including vocabulary.
29
Children may be identified as early as preschool and kindergarten for reading
disabilities based on assessments of language ability (Catts et al., 1999). In an
epidemiologic longitudinal study, Catts et al. (1999) found that over 70% of the children
with reading disabilities in second grade also showed language deficits as early as
preschool or kindergarten. In fact, as children aged, there was a stronger relationship
between a child’s score on measures of vocabulary and reading comprehension
assessments in later grades (Cain et al., 2004; Tannenbaum, Torgesen, & Wagner, 2006;
Vellutino et al., 2007). Vellutino et al. (2007) tested a hypothesis of relationships
between the underlying skills of word identification and language comprehension.
Correlations between each component--reading comprehension, language
comprehension, and vocabulary--were significant and strong, ranging from the lowest of
.51 (vocabulary/reading comprehension) to the highest of .79 (reading
comprehension/language comprehension). Cain et al. (2004) confirmed these results in a
separate longitudinal study of the relationship between component skills of reading
comprehension, working memory, and verbal ability. Children were tested at three points
in time at the average ages of 7.53, 8.62, and 10.64. When children were the average age
of 7.53 years, correlations between expressive vocabulary and reading comprehension
were not significant and low at .22; however, at the average ages of 8.62 and 10.64 years,
the correlations between expressive vocabulary and reading comprehension were
significant and higher at .52 and .63, respectively (Cain et al., 2004). This study
confirmed previous research that the relationship between vocabulary and reading
comprehension gets stronger as children age. Therefore, it is important to determine
30
specific ways in which language development, and more specifically, vocabulary
development, can best be supported in children as early as possible.
Environmental Contributors
Researchers have examined the environmental contributors of language
development, in both home and childcare environments, in order to better understand
why children struggle with acquiring literacy skills (Caspe, 2009; Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1997; Dickinson & McCabe, 2001; Dickenson & Tabors, 2001; Foster,
Lambert, Abbott-Shim, McCarty, & Franze, 2005; Guo & Harris, 2000; Hart & Risley,
1995; Hoff, 2003; Kainz & Vernon-Feagans, 2007; Merlo, Bowman, & Barnett, 2007;
Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2005). The characteristics associated with growing up in a
home of poverty have been found to negatively impact a child’s oral language
development. Kainz and Vernon-Feagans (2007) investigated data from 1,913 children
involved in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort and revealed
that “children from families that experienced persistent low income across the early years
of elementary school had lower reading scores at kindergarten entry” (p. 418). Similarly,
in a study of 325 families, Foster et al. (2005) investigated three family level constructs;
socioeconomic status, social risk, and home learning, in order to determine the
relationship between these variables and children’s emergent literacy and social
functioning. Social risk factors included exposure to violence, depression on the part of a
caregiver, social support provided to the parent, and primary caregivers’ level of mastery.
For this study, mastery was defined as “a dimension of personal coping that refers to the
degree to which one has a sense of personal control over one’s life-chances rather than
31
holding to a fatalistic view of reality” (Foster et al., 2005, p. 15). Home learning variables
observed included reading to children, promoting enrichment experiences, providing
learning activities, and having books in the home. The researchers found that all three
family level constructs; socioeconomic status, social risk, and home learning, were
significantly and directly related to both emergent literacy and social functioning.
Moreover, research has demonstrated a correlation between a child’s vocabulary
size, parental education, and the quality of the child’s environment (Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1997). There are specific differences in the types of vocal interactions that
take place in the homes of low-socioeconomic families. Hoff (2003) found that children
from economically advantaged homes had more advanced language skills than their
counterparts from economically disadvantaged homes. In a well known study by Hart and
Risley (1995), social class differences were found to be significant indicators of the
differences between the amount and type of speech that took place between parents and
children. Parents from higher social classes engaged children in conversations whereas
parents from lower social classes were less likely to engage in conversations and more
likely to spend time giving directions and orders (Evans, 2004). Children from low
socioeconomic status families were also more likely to live in homes where there was
tension and stress due to the lack of money and resources. Consequently, these children
were less likely to experience the necessary positive parent-child interactions that
contribute to a child’s development of language (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Guo &
Harris, 2000).
32
Dickinson and Tabors (2001) also investigated the home environment of children
living in poverty for evidence of specific contributors to language development when
children were 3, 4, and 5 years old. This longitudinal study used both quantitative and
qualitative methods of data collection, and descriptive, correlational, and regression
analyses were used on the data. During the home visits, the investigators observed
parents and children during book reading, playtime, and mealtime.
During book reading, parents were observed using two types of talk; immediate
and nonimmediate. Immediate talk focused on basic recall of events happening in the
story. On the contrary, nonimmediate talk required children to use information from the
story for higher level thinking such as inferring, generalizing, predicting, and connecting
story events to personal experience. Forty-three to 60% of the observed talk during book
reading was immediate talk whereas only 11% to 18% of the talk involved nonimmediate
talk. Most notably, results of the study showed that it was the nonimmediate talk that was
associated with later literacy achievement (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
Observations during playtime revealed three types of talk; pretend talk,
nonpretend talk, and nontoy play talk. Pretend talk included “talk with pretend elements
and a nonliteral approach to features in the immediate environment” (Dickinson &
Tabors, 2001, p. 62). Nonpretend talk “maintained a literal approach to actions and toys”
(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 62). Nontoy play talk included information not relevant to
the play taking place. Data analyses revealed that nontoy play talk made little to no
contribution to the early literacy skills of the children and took place rarely, just more
than 10% of the time observed. On the contrary, pretend talk when the children were 4
33
years old had a moderate positive relationship with the children’s performance on tasks
of emergent literacy which included writing concepts, letter recognition, story and print
concepts, sounds in words, and environmental print (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
During mealtime, two types of talk were observed; narrative talk and explanatory
talk. Children engaged in narrative talk were either sharing stories of an event from the
past or in the future. “Explanatory talk was defined as talk that requested and/or made
some logical connection between objects, events, concepts, or conclusions” (Dickinson &
Tabors, 2001, p. 86). Both narrative and explanatory talk were positively correlated with
the language and literacy measures used in the study. Children performed better on the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary assessment, which required children to match a word with a
picture, when they were exposed to more explanatory talk at the ages of 4 and 5 years
old. Similarly, more narrative talk during mealtimes at age 5 was associated with higher
scores on the receptive vocabulary test at the same age. Greater amounts of narrative talk
during mealtimes at age 4 were also associated with better scores on story comprehension
assessments (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
Overall, the study demonstrated that particular types of conversations, whether
during book reading, playtime, or mealtime, gave children the opportunity to be exposed
to new words, or what the authors referred to as rare words. To further investigate the use
of rare words, the researchers examined the relationship between the density of rare
words used during the three conversational settings and the children’s performance on the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. There was a positive relationship between the
variables, demonstrating that conversational talk which included rare words did
34
contribute to a child’s vocabulary development. A closer look at this relationship also
revealed that informative uses, or times in which the adult supported the child in
understanding the word, were also positively correlated with vocabulary scores
(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
Similar results were found with sample participants not living in poverty. Weigel
et al. (2005) used both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the home literacy
environment of children and the influences on language development, investigating four
home components: (a) parental demographics, (b) parental literacy habits, (c) parental
activities, and (d) parental reading beliefs. A significant positive correlation was found
between parental demographics and both receptive (.30) and expressive (.31) language. In
addition, a significant positive correlation was found between parental reading beliefs and
receptive (.32) and expressive (.26) language. The positive relationships between parental
literacy habits and children’s receptive (.34) and expressive (.25) language were also
significant. This study demonstrated that parents’ reading behaviors and beliefs were
associated with children’s expressive and receptive language abilities. Children
performed at higher levels when their parents were models of literate behaviors and
valued literacy and language skills.
As demonstrated in the Home-School Study of Language and Literacy
Development, children are more able to develop oral language vocabularies when their
family members take part in conversations often. In fact, “the number of words that an
infant hears each day is the single most predictor of later intelligence, school success, and
social competence” (Straub, 1999, p. 80). Guo and Harris (2000) found “that cognitive
35
stimulation in the home is by far the most important influence mediating the effect of
poverty on such development” (p. 442). Similar findings from Merlo, Bowman, and
Barnett (2007) confirmed that the greatest differences in reading achievement between
children from low and high socio-economic homes were the result of differences in the
home environment and parenting styles and abilities. Children in the study that lived in
richer social and emotional environments and were provided with more positive nurturing
experiences were more likely to improve their reading abilities (Merlo et al., 2007).
In addition to the home setting, children acquire oral language through their
interactions at school, as early as preschool (Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Weigel et al.,
2005). In a report for teachers, The National Institute for Literacy (2010) stated that “the
more caregivers intentionally make time for talking and sharing experiences, the more
support there is for children’s language development and later reading comprehension
success” (p. 13). Book reading is one way that preschool teachers may assist children in
acquiring oral language skills (Dail & McGee, 2011; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; National
Institute for Literacy, 2010). Reading books to children supports vocabulary growth when
teachers take time to explicitly state the meanings of words both in and out of the context
of the book they are reading. The National Institute for Literacy (2010) suggested that
preschool teachers should “use rich vocabulary and support children in developing a deep
understanding of the meaning of words – providing multiple definitions and examples,
connecting new words to concepts children already know” (p. 6). Using a mixed-
methods design for data collection and analysis during a 4-year professional development
project, Dail and McGee (2011) found that decontextualized language during read alouds,
36
or what Dickinson and Tabors (2001) referred to as nonimmediate talk, was most
effective at enhancing children’s oral language. Robbins and Ehri (1994) also found that
exposures to stories read aloud in kindergarten helped children to build vocabulary
knowledge. In their study of 51 kindergarteners, Robbins and Ehri (1994) discovered
modest effects on vocabulary growth when children were read aloud a story at least twice
and had opportunities to hear unfamiliar words throughout the story. Other language
skills, such as syntactics, were developed when children were active participants,
discussing the story before, during, and after reading (Dickinson & Smith, 1994).
Weigel et al. (2005) also examined the relationship between the childcare
environment and a child’s literacy and language development. They investigated four
main components of the environment: (a) teachers’ demographics, (b) teachers’ literacy
habits, (c) teachers’ activities, and (d) teachers’ reading beliefs. From randomly selected
childcare centers, teachers volunteered to complete interviews and self-administered
questionnaires. Children were also assessed for language and literacy skills including
print knowledge and expressive and receptive vocabulary. The highest correlations were
between children’s expressive language and teachers’ reading beliefs (.44). Although the
correlations were lower, there was still a positive significant correlation between
receptive language and two teacher components; demographics (.29) and reading beliefs
(.38). Furthermore, children’s expressive language was also positively correlated with
teachers’ demographics (.28), literacy habits (.24), and activities (.24). This study
demonstrated that teachers’ reading beliefs, activities, and habits are associated with
children’s expressive and receptive language (Weigel et al., 2005).
37
Contributing to the research on child care environments, Dickinson and Tabors
(2001) summarized the findings from the childcare observation portion of the Home-
School Study of Language and Literacy Development. Similar to their observations of
the home environment summarized earlier in this chapter, the researchers investigated the
types of interactions and conversations that took place in the preschool environment
during book reading, playtime, and mealtime. In order to determine the most effective
types of talk taking place during these situations in the classrooms, researchers used both
quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection.
During book reading, a variety of styles were observed, but the most effective
style included both analytical and interactive talk before, during, and after reading a
book. Positive correlations were found between the teacher’s use of questions that
included words such as why, how, and when and scores of receptive vocabulary at the
end of kindergarten. Additionally, story comprehension was related to book reading
opportunities that included interactive and reflective conversations (Dickinson & Tabors,
2001).
Observations of play time also revealed several key findings. Teachers were most
effective when they engaged children in conversations and did not become overly
involved in conversations with one child. Varied use of vocabulary and challenging
conversations were positively related to children’s later development. Similar to the
findings from the home observations, the use of rare words was beneficial to children’s
oral language development. Children whose teachers talked less and encouraged them to
talk more had higher scores on kindergarten assessments (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
38
Mealtimes were also observed in order to determine the most effective style for
mealtime and which circumstances allowed for more nonpresent talk, or talk about past
or future experiences. In classrooms in which teachers were stationary and not moving
throughout the classroom during meals, children engaged in more nonpresent talk. This
type of conversation between the teacher and children required a child to rely on
language in order to communicate. Furthermore, “children’s exposure to nonpresent talk
during mealtimes when they were in preschool predicted their performance on literacy
tasks when they were in kindergarten” (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 219). Mealtimes
were also found to be good opportunities for the use of rare words to extend children’s
vocabulary use and exposure (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
As described above, the interactions that take place in preschool classrooms have
an impact on children’s oral language development. Therefore, it is important that every
preschool classroom is staffed with a teacher that is knowledgeable of the role of oral
language development on literacy achievement. Thus, the final section of this chapter
explores the importance of teacher preparation including what is known about the
contributions of knowledgeable teachers and how professional development for teachers
can make an impact on the field of education.
Teacher Preparation
Knowledge
Recent research has documented the importance of knowledgeable teachers and
the impact that teachers have on students’ success in school and a child’s ability to learn
to read (Corrigan, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2000; McCutchen
39
et al., 2002; McCutchen et al., 2009; Mather et al., 2001; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Piasta
et al., 2009; Podhajski et al., 2009; Shaw et al., 2007; Walpole, Justice, & Invernizzi,
2004; Wilkins, 2008). Teachers play a tremendous role in whether or not children learn to
read. “Teacher expertise, more than any other variable, accounts for increases in student
achievement in reading and other academic areas” (Walpole et al., p. 277). Darling-
Hammond (2000) found that student achievement increased when there was an increase
in teachers’ knowledge of the content they were teaching and when teachers were more
familiar with the learning styles of the students they were teaching. Similarly, in a study
of mixed-methods design, Piasta and colleagues (2009) found that in first grade
classrooms where time was spent directly teaching decoding and teachers had more
specialized code-related knowledge, students had stronger gains in word reading. On the
contrary, in classrooms with less knowledgeable teachers and similar amounts of time
spent directly teaching decoding, students had weaker gains in word reading. Most
notably, researchers observed less knowledgeable teachers giving students inaccurate
information when teaching students to decode.
Without proper knowledge of how children learn, teachers may not be fully
prepared to teach the varying types of students in their classrooms (Walpole et al., 2004).
Cunningham, Zibulsky, and Callahan (2009) stressed the importance of knowledgeable
teachers and suggested that teachers must understand the connection between early oral
language experiences and the reading process. The authors specifically identified
vocabulary, syntactical awareness, pragmatics, phonological awareness, and phonemic
awareness as critical knowledge for teachers. Similarly, a report from The International
40
Dyslexia Association (Moats et al., 2010) identified key knowledge and standards for
teachers of reading. The authors suggested that teachers need knowledge of the
continuum of oral language development including semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic
skills.
Despite what research suggests as important for teachers to know, studies have
demonstrated that teachers may lack this knowledge (Corrigan, 2011; Cunningham,
Zibulsky & Callahan, 2009; Mather, Bos, and Babur, 2001; Moats & Foorman, 2003). In
a study of 38 teacher candidates in their junior and senior years of a teacher preparation
program, Corrigan (2011) found that instructional decisions and the type of talk used
during interactive read-aloud activities were dependent on the teacher candidates’ level of
vocabulary “diversity and sophistication” (p. 1). Specifically, Corrigan (2011) measured
the breadth of vocabulary used by the teacher, lexical diversity of the books and teacher
talk, and lexical sophistication of both the books and teacher talk. While “lexical
diversity refers to the range of words used without repetition in a text or discourse, lexical
sophistication refers to how rare the words are in a text or discourse” (p. 6). The receptive
vocabulary of preservice teachers was found to be modestly correlated with teacher talk
diversity and discourse. Preservice teachers who scored higher on tests of receptive
vocabulary tended to choose books with more vocabulary diversity and sophictication.
Thus, the knowledge of teachers in the domain of receptive vocabulary impacted both
instructional decisions and the level of discourse in the classrooms. Similarly, Mather and
colleagues (2001) examined the knowledge level of inservice and preservice teachers in
relationship to the structure of the English language using the Teacher Knowledge
41
Assessment: Structure of Language (TKA:SL). Teachers were asked questions about
specific language structures including blends, digraphs, diphthongs, phoneme counting
and manipulation, counting syllables, blending, and segmenting. Using a quantitative
research design, Mather et al. (2001) found that mean scores were low for both inservice
and preservice teachers; 68% and 50% respectively. Teachers’ perceptions were also
measured using an adapted version of a perceptions survey developed by DeFord in 1985.
The adapted version, Teacher Perceptions Toward Early Reading and Spelling (TPERS),
categorized teachers’ answers into one of two categories; explicit, code based instruction
or implicit, meaning based instruction. Teachers rated statements from 1-6, with 1-3
demonstrating a range of disagreement with the statement and 4-6 demonstrating a range
of agreement with the statement. Inservice teachers felt more positively about explicit,
code based instruction, with an overall mean rating of 5 while preservice teachers’
responses to explicit code based statements averaged between mild agreement and
agreement with the statements. Given that teachers scored low on the knowledge
assessment but rated explicit, code based instruction positively, results showed that there
was a discrepancy between what teachers believed and what they actually knew.
Moats and Foorman (2003) conducted a similar study of 50 kindergarten, first,
and second grade teachers and examined their knowledge of phonology and orthography.
Teachers struggled when the questions required analysis of speech to print concepts such
as describing how many phonemes are in the word “know.” Counting syllables,
identifying prefixes and suffixes, and phoneme matching were also difficult for the
teachers. In the same study, 103 third and fourth grade teachers had difficulty identifying
42
final blends in words, describing the difference between a consonant blend and two or
three letter graphemes that represented one speech sound, and analyzing decoding errors
in a student’s oral reading fluency sample (Moats & Foorman). These studies consistently
demonstrated that teachers’ knowledge about the structures of the English language was
not adequate for teaching children to read.
Nonexperimental research for the purpose of characterizing teachers’ knowledge
and beliefs typically uses a cross-sectional design, and survey instruments are often used
(Courtland & Leslie, 2010; Hawken, Johnston, & McDonnell, 2005; Lynch, 2009; Lynch,
2010; Mather et al., 2001; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Nathanson, Pruslow, & Levitt,
2008). A questionnaire survey was used by Nathanson et al. (2008) to determine
preservice and inservice teachers’ attitudes and habits related to reading. Questions on the
survey were open-ended, and scoring of answers was based on a 5-point rubric. A similar
process was used by Hawken, Johnston, and McDonnell (2005) in their examination of
the views and practices of Head Start preschool teachers. Questionnaires designed to
gather information about emergent literacy were mailed to participating teachers after a
review by experts in early childhood. Another study by Lynch (2010) used a
questionnaire to determine teachers’ beliefs about the print knowledge of their students
and teachers’ beliefs about parental involvement including parents’ knowledge, interest,
and engagement pertaining to literacy related activities. The cross-sectional format of all
three studies described above allowed the researchers to survey a large number of
teachers in a short amount of time including as many as 747 teachers in the study by
Nathanson et al. (2008).
43
Professional Development
However inadequate teachers’ knowledge may be, research also demonstrates that
professional development for teachers is beneficial, increasing teachers’ knowledge base
and changing their instructional decisions (McCutchen et al., 2002; Shaw et al., 2007).
McCutchen and colleagues (2002) examined teacher knowledge, practice, and student
learning in a mixed methods study. Teachers were given the Informal Survey of
Linguistic Knowledge developed by Louisa Moats in order to measure teachers’
knowledge of phonological awareness and phonics skills. General knowledge of teachers
was measured with a cultural literacy test, including questions from Social Studies and
Science. Classroom practice was observed and coded according to the skills being taught,
the literacy activity being conducted, the textual context, and the group context. Students
were assessed multiple times during the year in order to measure phonological awareness,
listening comprehension, orthographic fluency, and word reading. Although teachers in
both the control group and experimental group had very low levels of knowledge of
phonological awareness at pretest, the experimental group did increase their phonological
knowledge after professional development. It was also determined that teachers receiving
professional development in specific aspects of linguistics spent more instructional time
on those aspects of language development than teachers in the control group not
receiving professional development. Similarly, when teachers were trained on elements
of orthography and comprehension activities, they began to spend more time instructing
in those areas.
44
Similar to McCutchen’s research, Shaw, Dvorak, and Bates (2007) conducted a
mixed methods study in which 52 undergraduate students were trained in a reading
methods course. Teachers’ beliefs were measured using the Theoretical Orientation to
Reading Profile, also known as TORP (DeFord, 1985), self-efficacy was measured using
the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction Scale, also known as TSELS
(Johnson & Tschannen-Moran, 2003), and teachers’ knowledge was measured using an
“instructor made open-ended short-answer questionnaire asking students to document
their knowledge about reading and to describe their personal reading practices” (Shaw,
Dvorak, & Bates, 2007, p. 231). Average scores favored the phonics and skills-based
approaches at both pre and post test rather than the whole language philosophy. However,
similar to the results of the study by Mather, Bos, and Babur (2001), despite teachers’
beliefs about instruction at both pre and post test, teachers’ knowledge of effective
practices was limited, and their own personal reading practices were not in agreement
with a phonics or skills-based approach at pretest. After the methods course; however,
teachers’ answers on the post test of knowledge and personal reading practices changed
to include more phonics and skills-based approaches. For example, prior to the course,
one participant viewed phonemic awareness instruction as important, and four
participants viewed direct instruction as important. These numbers increased from one to
10 and four to 12 by the end of the methods course (Shaw, Dvorak, & Bates, 2007).
These results confirmed previous studies that professional development and training for
teachers does impact the beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices of teachers.
45
Summary
In Chapter 2, I provided a synthesis of the research associated with reading
theories and related instructional methods. I also defined oral language development and
explored related research. Finally, I analyzed the research on teacher knowledge and
professional development.In Chapter 3, I provide information regarding the methodology
used in this study, including design, participant selection and sample, instrumentation and
materials, data collection and analysis, and participant protection.
47
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
For this study, I focused on developing an instrument to measure preschool
teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies for developing oral
language in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading, promoting
extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. In this chapter, I
include a description of the study design, participant selection and sample,
instrumentation and materials, data collection and analyses, and participant protection. As
I described in Chapter 1, the research questions were:
1. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving (a)
engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and (c) using
specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by total number
of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
2. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and
(c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by total
number of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of
professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
3. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and
actual knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
48
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words
for developing oral language?
Study Design
I conducted this quantitative, nonexperimental study using a descriptive, cross-
sectional research design. I chose this design for several reasons. Nonexperimental
studies are appropriate when at least one of the variables is an attribute variable that
cannot be manipulated (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). For this study, I did not
manipulate teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual knowledge. Also, descriptive
designs are used when the purpose is to describe a phenomenon (Johnson & Christensen,
2004). In this study, I describe preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge of strategies for developing early oral language in the preschool classroom.
According to Johnson and Christensen (2004), descriptive research is not focused on
“how to ferret out cause-and-effect relationships but rather on describing the variables
that exist in a given situation, and sometimes, on how to describe the relationships that
exist among those variables” (p. 347). For this study, the problem is that preschool
teachers’ knowledge of oral language development strategies is not known, and
descriptive research was the best method to use to gather this information and determine
the relationship between actual knowledge and perceived knowledge. Also, using a cross-
sectional design, I was able to collect data at one point in time, from many people in a
short amount of time (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Although a weakness of the cross-
sectional design is that time order cannot be established (Johnson & Christensen, 2004), I
did not conduct the study for this purpose.
49
Nonexperimental studies are often used as a foundation for future experimental
studies. Although there have been studies conducted to measure teachers’ perceptions and
knowledge about literacy instruction in general, as I discussed previously in the literature
review (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; McCutchen et al., 2002;
Piasta et al., 2009; Shaw, Dvorak, & Bates, 2007), there are no known studies that
examine preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies for
oral language development in the preschool classroom. Examining teachers’ perceived
competency levels may offer explanations for teachers not seeking professional
development in a particular domain, thus explaining a lack of knowledge in that area.
Determining teachers’ actual knowledge is also necessary for providing appropriate
professional development opportunities and determining what type of experimental
studies should be conducted in the future. In the last chapter, I discuss suggestions for
future research.
In this study, I examined two variables related to teacher demographics, including
teachers’ total number of years experience teaching preschool and the number of hours of
professional development related to early literacy completed by each teacher in the last 2
years. In addition, I examined teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and teachers’
actual knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom,
including engaging in dialogic reading, promoting extended discourse, and using specific
vocabulary and rare words. I conducted several analyses to examine differences between
the variables while testing a number of hypotheses, including whether or not there were
significant differences between the means of teachers’ scores for perceived competency
50
and knowledge based on the two demographic variables; hours of professional
development completed in the last 2 years and teachers’ years of experience. I selected a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine whether the differences were
due to chance. I did not select a multiple regression for this study as its purpose relates to
significant relationships between variables rather than significant differences. I describe
each hypothesis later in this chapter.
Participant Selection and Sample
In order to pilot the instrument and gather reliability and validity data, I used a
convenience sample of preschool teachers in the Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) who
volunteered to participate in the study and were teaching in CPP preschools in the state of
Colorado during the 2011–2012 school year. “The Colorado General Assembly
established the CPP in 1988 to provide a high quality early childhood education program
and family support services to at-risk preschool-age children in Colorado” (Colorado
Department of Education, 2011, p. 2) The program serves the most needy and at-risk
population of children in Colorado during the year prior to kindergarten, or when children
are 4 years old. However, some 3-year-olds may be served if they display at least three
risk factors. Eligibility factors are defined in statute for the CPP (as listed below), and
screening methodology for each risk factor is determined at the local level. Local
advisory councils may also prioritize the risk factors, and not all risk factors have to be
used when qualifying children for the program. During the 2009–2010 school year, the
following characteristics described the population of 20,160 children served by the CPP:
• 83% were eligible for free/reduced cost lunch
51
• 46% were in need of language development (including children learning
English as a second language and children who exhibit language
development delays)
• 33% were identified as needing social skills
• 29% had a parent/guardian that did not complete high school
• 15% received assistance as neglected or dependent children
• 12% relocated often (based on parent report)
• 11% had an unmarried teenage parent
• 9% were homeless
• 6% had drug or alcohol abuse in the family
• 4% had an abusive adult in the home
Of the 178 school districts in Colorado, 169 had CPP slot allocations (Colorado
Department of Education, 2011).
For this study, I used convenience sampling because I lived and worked in the
state of Colorado and was most interested in gaining information about CPP teachers.
Although generalizations could not be made to an entire population with convenience
sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2004), using alternative random sampling techniques
such as probability sampling may have resulted in a sample size that was too small if too
many of the selected participants from the population chose not to participate. The
sampling population and sampling frame included all CPP preschool teachers teaching in
the state of Colorado during the 2011-2012 school year. Teachers of grades K-12 and
preschool teachers not in CPP were not eligible for participation in this study. I used a
52
multistage, clustering procedure (Creswell, 2003) to obtain participants from 169 CPP
participating school districts and the Charter School Institute in Colorado. First, I
identified preschool directors through a list of names and emails on the Colorado
Department of Education website. All of this information was in public domain. Next, I
contacted preschool directors by email and asked them to forward a series of invitation
and reminder emails to preschool teachers in their preschool centers. Through the
forwarded emails, I invited preschool teachers in CPP schools to participate and
reminded the teachers of participation deadlines.
There were approximately 1,200 preschool half-day classrooms involved in CPP
in 2011-2012. These classrooms each had one teacher that taught both the morning and
afternoon sessions. Therefore, the population of preschool teachers in CPP was
approximately 600. To determine sample size, I used a confidence level of 95% and a
confidence interval of 5%. I determined the approximate sample size needed was 234.
For the purpose of this study, I did not include in the sample the children in the
preschool classrooms and their achievement data. The purpose of this study was to
develop an instrument proven to be reliable and valid for measuring preschool teachers’
perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies for oral language development.
Most importantly, the development of the instrument fills a gap in the research and
contributes to future research endeavors which may also include achievement data from
participating teachers’ classrooms.
53
Instrumentation and Materials
Before developing the instrument, I conducted a review of electronic databases
and relevant publications, including Mental Measurements Yearbook Test Review
Online, the Test Collection at ETS, Measures for Psychological Assessments, Handbook
of Family Measurement Techniques, and Tests and Measurements in Child Development:
A Handbook. Through the review, I determined that although there were separate tools
for measuring teachers’ perceptions and knowledge, there was not a single measurement
tool that provided a measure of both teachers’ perceived and actual knowledge and
emphasized early childhood and strategies for developing oral language in the preschool
classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading, promoting extended discourse, and
using specific vocabulary and rare words. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, I
created an instrument based on a review of the literature (Appendix A). An expert review
panel provided feedback on the validity of the questions, and I made suggested changes
prior to piloting the instrument with the CPP teachers.
For the pilot of the instrument, I collected data using an internet survey program,
and I analyzed the data as described later in this chapter. The instrument was self-
administered (Fink, 2006). Using an internet survey method was appropriate because
teachers completed the instrument at one point in time. Additionally, the self-
administered computerized survey offered advantages such as gaining a larger sample
size in a short period of time, and the computerized instrument only accepted suggested
answers, so there were fewer opportunities for error. Using the instrument, Teachers’
Knowledge of Oral Language Development (TKOLD), I gathered three types of
54
information: teachers’ knowledge, teachers’ perceived knowledge, and demographic
information about the participants.
Teachers’ Knowledge
The majority of the questions on the instrument assessed preschool teachers’
knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. I
developed the questions based on the review of literature in Chapter 2 pertaining to the
most effective strategies for assisting preschoolers in developing early oral language
skills. I grouped the questions into three main categories: engaging in dialogic reading,
promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. Questions 1
through 9 focused on engaging in dialogic reading, Questions 12 through 20 related to
promoting extended discourse, and Questions 23 through 31 focused on the use of
specific vocabulary and rare words in the preschool classroom.
For the knowledge portion of the instrument, I designed the questions in a
multiple choice format with one correct answer and three incorrect answers per question.
I scored questions answered correctly one point and questions answered incorrectly zero
points. Experts in the field of literacy education and early childhood reviewed the
questions to determine validity, and I made adjustments to the questions accordingly
prior to administering the instrument to preschool teachers. I used Cronbach’s alpha to
determine whether or not the questions had internal consistency. Additionally, I used
factor analysis to examine relationships among variables and corrected item analysis to
ensure that every question correlated positively with the final score.
55
Perceived Knowledge
As described in the literature review, teachers may not know what they do not
know. Cunningham et al. (2009) stated that teachers “tend to overestimate what they
know, creating a potential obstacle for seeking additional knowledge” (p. 487).
Therefore, the instrument for this study included questions to measure teachers’
perceived level of competency after answering each of the three sections of knowledge
questions. The first question asked teachers to rate their own knowledge from zero to six
(
poorly to
very well). The second question asked teachers to rate their own knowledge
from zero to six (
well below average to
well above average), in comparison to other
preschool teachers that answered the questions. To measure perceived knowledge, I
designed the questions using a semantic differential approach (Johnson & Christensen,
2004) with a seven-point bipolar rating scale with contrasting adjectives (
poorly to
very
well or
well below average to
well above average in this study). The semantic differential
approach has been proven to collect valid and reliable data in studies of perceptions and
attitudes (Emmerson & Neeley, 1998; Oles & Bolvin, 1972) in the field of education.
Demographics
The final section of the instrument contained questions to gather demographic
information about the participants. I designed the questions to ask respondents their total
number of years experience teaching preschool and the number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years. This information
provided a third variable by which I was able to make comparisons across groups.
56
Data Collection and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure perceived
knowledge and actual knowledge of preschool teachers regarding strategies for
developing oral language in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic
reading, promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. I
collected data for the pilot of the instrument during the 2011–2012 school year. In order
to collect the data from participants, I used an internet survey program,
SurveyMonkey. I
also used a data analysis program, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS
17), to ensure accurate data interpretation.
To examine internal consistency or the reliability of scores from the instrument, I
used Cronbach’s alpha. Since the instrument was used with each teacher at one point in
time, it was important to determine the consistency among the items that were meant to
assess the same construct. Additionally, I used corrected item/total correlations to
identify items that did not measure the construct of teacher knowledge.
To futher analyze the data, I used factor analysis to determine validity of each set
of questions used to measure each strategy and to reveal the most appropriate questions
for measuring the construct of teachers’ knowledge. According to Field (2009), factor
analysis is appropriate when the researcher seeks to “construct a questionnaire to measure
an underlying variable” (p. 628). For this study, I used factor analysis to examine the
correlations among the knowledge questions and determine if the test was unidimensional
or multidimensional (Johnson & Christensen, 2004).
57
To answer the first research question, I assessed teachers’ knowledge using a
series of multiple choice questions and calculated overall knowledge scores using zero
points for incorrect answers and one point for correct answers. Additionally, I calculated
measures of central tendencies (means and standard deviations). To describe the data
collected on the knowledge portion of the instrument, I used descriptive statistics.
Furthermore, I selected a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine if
there were significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge by total number of
years experience teaching preschool and the number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years. Data are displayed in
tables and figures. The following hypotheses related to the first research question guided
the study:
1.
H0: There are no significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of
strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended
discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing
oral language based on total number of years experience teaching preschool.
2.
H1: There are significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of
strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended
discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing
oral language based on total number of years experience teaching preschool.
1.
H0: There are no significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of
strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended
discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing
58
oral language based on number of hours of professional development related
to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
2.
H1: There are significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of
strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended
discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing
oral language based on number of hours of professional development related
to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
To answer the second research question regarding preschool teachers’ perceived
competency, I collected data on a seven-point differential scale. To describe the data, I
calculated descriptive statistics, including percents to describe the number of teachers
rating themselves at each competency level. In Chapter 4, I provide means and standard
deviations. Furthermore, I selected a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to
determine if there were significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge by total number of years experience teaching preschool and the number of
hours of professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
Data are displayed in tables and figures. The following hypotheses related to the second
research question guided the study:
1.
H0: There are no significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare
words for developing oral language based on total number of years experience
teaching preschool.
59
2.
H1: There are significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare
words for developing oral language based on total number of years experience
teaching preschool.
1. H0 : There are no significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare
words for developing oral language based on number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
2. H1: There are significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b)
promoting extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare
words for developing oral language based on number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
Finally, to answer the third research question, I examined teachers’ perceived
knowledge and actual knowledge outcomes in order to determine the relationship
between the two. I used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to explore differences in
means of groups of teachers at each knowledge and perceived knowledge level. To
provide information about the strength of the relationship, I used a Chi-square (X
2
) test
for independence. Finally, I calculated effect size (Cohen’s
d) to provide information
60
about the degree of the magnitude between low performing and high performing teachers
in the total score obtained.
Participant Protection
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Walden University granted permission
to conduct the study. Upon receipt of permission to conduct the study, I posted a
statement of informed consent on the internet survey site (See Appendix B). Before
participating in the research, I asked respondents to read the consent document. I did not
collect or ask respondents to report any identifying information.
Summary
In Chapter 3, I described the methodology for the study including study design,
participant selection and sample, instrumention and materials, data collection and
analysis, and participant protection. In Chapter 4, I describe the results of the study, and
in Chapter 5, I offer a summary of the research, conclusions made, limitations,
suggestions for future research, and social change implications.
61
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that may be used to
examine and describe the perceived level of knowledge and actual knowledge level of
preschool teachers regarding strategies that support oral language foundations for literacy
development in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading,
promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. In this
chapter, I describe the process used to collect and analyze the data in addition to the
results of the data analyses. I present the chapter in three main sections: data collection
process, preliminary analyses, and primary analyses.
Data Collection Process
In order to obtain participants for the study, I sent a series of emails (Appendix C)
to Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) directors and asked directors to forward the emails
to CPP teachers. In the first two emails, I invited teachers to complete an online
instrument assessing teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and actual knowledge
using
Survey Monkey. I sent subsequent messages as follow-up emails to remind teachers
to participate in the study and indicate participation deadlines. I kept the survey open for
13 weeks, including 3 weeks during which time teachers were on holiday vacations from
work.
In total, 250 teachers started the survey, while 197 teachers (79%) completed all
35 questions. I included four main sections in the instrument: (a) Questions 1through 9
assessed teachers’ knowledge of engaging in dialogic reading, and Questions 10 and 11
62
assessed teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge of engaging in dialogic reading; (b)
Questions 12 through 20 assessed teachers’ knowledge of promoting extended discourse,
and Questions 21 and 22 assessed teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge of promoting
extended discourse; (c) Questions 23 through 31 assessed teachers’ knowledge of using
specific vocabulary, and Questions 32 and 33 assessed teachers’ perceptions of their
knowledge of promoting extended discourse; and (d) Questions 34 and 35 collected
demographic information including total number of years experience teaching preschool
and number of hours of professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2
years. Two-hundred fifty teachers completed Questions 1 through 9. Two-hundred forty-
nine teachers completed Questions 1 through 11. Two-hundred fourteen teachers
completed Questions 1 through 22. One-hundred ninety-eight teachers completed
Questions 1 through 33. One-hundred ninety-seven teachers completed every question,
one through 35.
Preliminary Analyses
Participants’ Demographics
In order to gather demographic information about participants, I included two
questions in the final section of the instrument. Respondents were asked their total
number of years experience teaching preschool and the number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years. This information
provided me with a third variable by which comparisons were made across groups.
One-hundred ninety-seven teachers answered the last two questions which
collected demographic information. The first question asked teachers to select from five
63
choices indicating their total number of years experience teaching preschool, including
the current year. Fifty-four teachers (27%) indicated they had between 3 and 6 years
experience teaching preschool. Almost as many teachers (
N = 50) indicated they had
between 11 and 20 years experience teaching preschool. Figure 1 illustrates teachers’
years of experience teaching preschool.
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of responses for number of years experience teaching
preschool.
The second question in the demographic section asked teachers to indicate the
number of hours of professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2
years. An overwhelming majority of teachers (
N = 157) indicated they had completed
between 0 and 90 clock hours of professional development in early literacy in the last 2
years. Twenty-seven teachers (14%) indicated they had completed between 91 and 180
clock hours of professional development in early literacy in the last 2 years. Only three
teachers (2%) selected the highest number of clock hours, indicating they had completed
64
more than 270 hours of professional development in early literacy in the last 2 years.
Figure 2 illustrates the range of responses regarding number of hours of professional
development in early literacy teachers completed in the last 2 years.
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of responses for number of hours of professional
development completed in the last 2 years.
Reliability Statistics
Before answering the first research question regarding teachers’ knowledge, I
used Cronbach’s alpha (α) to determine internal consistency among the items in each
section of the instrument. Internal consistency is one measure of the reliability of scores
on an instrument and demonstrates how reliably the items assess the same construct.
Cronbach’s alpha may range between zero and one, with values above .7 considered
acceptable. I analyzed the data from three different sections of the instrument separately
and combined including (a) knowledge of engaging in dialogic reading, (b) knowledge of
promoting extended discourse, and (c) knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare
65
words. To gain additional information regarding reliability, I used corrected item/total
correlations to identify items that did not appear to measure the intended variable, and if
removed, would increase internal consistency among the test questions.
Scores from the first section of the instrument, knowledge of engaging in dialogic
reading, revealed a low and unacceptable level of reliability (α = .03). The low level of
reliability suggests that the questions within Section 1 did not all measure the same
construct related to oral language development. Correlations among the items were very
low. Omitted item statistics revealed no particular questions that would significantly
increase the level of reliability if removed from the instrument.
The second section of the instrument was intended to measure teachers’
knowledge of promoting extended discourse to support oral language development.
Scores from this section revealed a higher and acceptable level of internal consistency
(α = .86). Based on this level of reliability, I can be fairly certain that all questions within
this section of the instrument measure the same construct. There were no particular
questions that should be deleted in order to significantly increase Cronbach’s alpha.
The third section of the instrument, knowledge of using specific vocabulary and
rare words, revealed a low and unacceptable level of reliability (α = .17). The low level
of reliability suggests that the questions within Section 3 did not all measure the same
construct. Correlations among the items were very low. Similar to Section 1, omitted item
statistics revealed no items that would result in a significantly increased level of
reliability if deleted from the instrument.
66
A fourth test of reliability combined scores from Sections 1 and 2, knowledge of
engaging in dialogic reading and knowledge of promoting extended discourse. Scores
from these two sections combined revealed an acceptable level of reliability
(α = .75). The higher level of reliability for Sections 1 and 2 combined suggests that the
questions within these two sections more closely assessed the same construct rather than
two different constructs as the instrument was initially intended. It is possible that
engaging in dialogic reading and promoting extended discourse are very similar
activities, both involving high levels of talk by both the teacher and children, whether
through conversation or reading aloud a book. Thus, these two domains of oral language
development may be more similar than different, explaining the higher level of internal
consistency among the test items when the two sections were combined.
A fifth test of reliability combined scores from Sections 2 and 3, knowledge of
promoting extended discourse and knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare
words. Scores from these two sections combined revealed a low and unacceptable level
of reliability (α = .03), suggesting that these two sections did not contain questions which
assessed the same construct. Correlations among items were low, and there were no
particular items that would significantly increase the level of reliability if deleted from
the instrument.
The low and unacceptable levels of reliability for scores from Sections 1 and 3
independent of each other were inconsistent with the comments received from national
literacy experts who provided feedback on the content of the questions and answers prior
to piloting the instrument, indicating that the questions would assess the particular
67
constructs they were designed to assess. Since the calculation of reliability statistics for
Sections 1 and 2 combined revealed a higher and acceptable level of reliability, a logical
conclusion is that these two sections more closely assessed teachers’ knowledge of one
domain related to oral language development rather than two different domains, as the
instrument was originally designed. Furthermore, the low and unacceptable level of
reliability for Section 3, knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare words, may be
explained by the reduced sample size for this section, (
N = 198), compared to Sections 1
(
N = 250) and 2 (
N = 214). It is also possible that the increased number of questions with
the choice
all of the above in the third section may have impacted the reliability of scores.
Section 1 included two
all of the above answer selections, Section 2 included one
all of
the above answer selection, and Section 3 included four
all of the above answer
selections. Additionally, because the instrument measured at least two domains of
knowledge related to oral language development, it is quite possible that teachers had
more knowledge of one particular domain than another, thus impacting scores and the
level of reliability for those questions, in this case, the questions in Section 3, knowledge
of using specific vocabulary and rare words. If teachers lacked the knowledge to answer
questions in the third section related to the use of specific vocabulary and rare words,
they may have been more inclined to guess, impacting the internal consistency of the
questions. Tables 1 through 5 show levels of reliability and the corrected item/total
correlations for each section of the instrument independently and combined, as I
described in this section.
68
Table 1
Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 1
Mean
Std. Deviation
Corrected
Item/Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q1
2.34
0.882
.002
.036
Q2
1.54
0.974
.122
-.074
Q3
3.16
0.978
.041
.002
Q4
2.66
1.206
.019
.021
Q5
2.70
0.894
-.036
.066
Q6
3.88
0.393
-.067
.056
Q7
2.89
0.531
.068
.003
Q8
3.56
0.952
-.042
.073
Q9
2.30
0.685
-.040
.060
69
Table 2
Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 2
Mean
Std. Deviation
Corrected
Item/Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q10
1.43
1.093
.529
.828
Q11
2.00
1.414
.542
.828
Q12
2.38
1.390
.641
.837
Q13
1.22
1.051
.407
.858
Q14
1.78
1.127
.604
.841
Q15
2.91
1.604
.673
.835
Q16
1.81
0.893
.744
.834
Q17
1.57
1.063
.521
.849
Q18
2.23
1.287
.671
.834
70
Table 3
Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Section 3
Mean
Std. Deviation
Corrected
Item/Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q19
3.61
1.001
.061
.151
Q20
3.80
0.642
.136
.114
Q21
2.73
0.626
.036
.164
Q22
2.01
0.188
-.028
.176
Q23
3.48
0.732
.190
.074
Q24
2.10
0.918
-.001
.195
Q25
3.66
0.908
.016
.182
Q26
3.32
0.530
.203
.094
Q27
2.06
1.263
.000
.221
71
Table 4
Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Sections 1 and 2
Mean
Std. Deviation
Corrected
Item/Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q1
2.34
0.882
.010
.756
Q2
1.54
0.974
.084
.753
Q3
3.16
0.978
.005
.759
Q4
2.66
1.206
.024
.763
Q5
2.70
0.894
-.014
.758
Q6
3.88
0.393
-.062
.752
Q7
2.89
0.531
.139
.746
Q8
3.56
0.952
.068
.754
Q9
2.30
0.685
.110
.748
Q10
1.43
1.093
.469
.722
Q11
2.00
1.414
.511
.715
Q12
2.38
1.390
.606
.703
Q13
1.22
1.051
.379
.730
Q14
1.78
1.127
.599
.709
Q15
2.91
1.604
.627
.698
Q16
1.81
0.893
.697
.708
Q17
1.57
1.063
.489
.720
Q18
2.23
1.287
.659
.699
72
Table 5
Item Analysis: Corrected Item Correlations Sections 2 and 3
Mean
Std. Deviation
Corrected
Item/Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q10
1.65
0.964
.069
-.010
Q11
2.37
1.251
-.100
.097
Q12
2.80
1.066
.004
.025
Q13
1.42
0.993
-.071
.066
Q14
2.07
0.904
-.025
.040
Q15
3.39
1.169
.071
-.018
Q16
2.11
0.537
.082
.050
Q17
1.82
0.911
-.039
.047
Q18
2.62
0.979
-.070
.065
Q19
3.61
1.001
.067
-.009
Q20
3.80
0.642
.101
-.009
Q21
2.73
0.626
.101
-.008
Q22
2.01
0.188
.104
.016
Q23
3.48
0.732
.084
-.007
Q24
2.10
0.918
.003
.026
Q25
3.66
0.908
-.016
.035
Q26
3.32
0.530
.073
.006
Q27
2.06
1.263
.016
.018
73
Factor Analysis
In order to further examine the correlations among the test items identified
through reliability statistics described above, I used exploratory principle components
factor analysis. Factor analysis may confirm and/or identify other relationships among
variables and identify smaller groups of variables that are correlated and not identified
through reliability tests for internal consistency. I used exploratory principle components
factor analysis to reduce the nine variables within each section of the instrument to fewer
factors.
Factor analysis for the first group of nine variables from Section 1 of the
instrument, knowledge of engaging in dialogic reading, identified four factors accounting
for 53% of the variance in the data. Questions 1, 2, and 6 were highly correlated and
appeared to be influenced by the same factor. Examination of these three questions
revealed an emphasis on teachers’ behaviors while reading aloud books to children.
Similarly, Questions 3 and 9 were identified as highly correlated with a second factor.
Both questions addressed teachers’ selection of books for reading aloud to students.
Questions 4 and 7 crossloaded with more than one factor and correlations were too close
to determine a stronger relationship with one factor than another. Therefore, Questions 4
and 7 seemed to be assessing more than one construct. Table 6 shows the relationships
among variables and the resulting factors I described above.
74
Table 6
Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Q2
.703
.318
Q1
.620
Q6
-.532
.365
Q3
.725
-.310
Q9
-.459
Q7
.445
.389
.392
Q8
-.761
Q4
.595
-.508
Q5
.676
Factor analysis for the second set of items, Questions 10 through 18, confirmed
the results of the test of internal consistency by identifying one factor for the set of nine
questions. This section of the instrument, which assessed knowledge of promoting
extended discourse, revealed items that were highly correlated and appeared to be
assessing one construct related to oral language development in the preschool classroom.
One factor accounted for 48% of the variance in the data. Table 7 shows the results of the
factor analysis for Section 2 of the instrument.
75
Table 7
Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse
Factor 1
Q16
.823
Q15
.768
Q18
.765
Q12
.739
Q14
.704
Q11
.648
Q10
.629
Q17
.624
Q13
.508
Factor analysis for Sections 1 and 2 combined also confirmed the data from tests
of internal consistency I described previously in this chapter. Six factors accounted for
58% of the variance in the data with one factor accounting for 24% of the variance by
itself. Questions from Section 2 of the instrument continued to demonstrate high levels of
correlation among the variables and continued to stand alone even when combined with
Section 1, demonstrating that Questions 10 through 18 appeared to be a good measure of
teachers’ knowledge of promoting extended discourse. Table 8 shows the relationships
among variables for Sections 1 and 2 of the instrument combined.
76
Table 8
Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading and Knowledge of
Promoting Extended Discourse
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5 Factor 6
Q16
.817
Q18
.775
Q15
.751
Q12
.749
Q14
.689
Q10
.666
Q11
.662
Q17
.551
.392
Q9
.704
Q13
.391
.564
Q3
.694
.354
Q1
.692
Q6
-.349
.391
-.349
Q2
.822
Q5
.731
Q7
.608
Q4
.840
Q8
.321
-.414
.-438
77
Factor analysis for Section 3, knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare
words, revealed four factors accounting for 55% of the variance in the data. Although
factor analysis revealed a number of relationships among the variables, it was difficult to
determine the reasons. For example, Questions 19, 20, and 23 were highly correlated in
the factor analysis, yet these questions in general did not reveal an obvious relationship.
Question 19 addressed teachers’ actions during free play related to new vocabulary,
Question 20 addressed large group time and teachers’ use of rare words, and Question 23
related more to terminology and teachers’ understanding of the relationship between
phonological awareness and vocabulary development. Similarly, Questions 26 and 27
were highly correlated with a second factor, but further examination of the items revealed
no obvious similarities. Question 26 related to teachers’ methods for dealing with new
and unfamiliar words while reading aloud books to children, and Question 27 asked
teachers to demonstrate their understanding of direct and explicit vocabulary instruction.
All in all, the results of the factor analysis for Section 3 of the instrument were similar to
the results of the tests of internal consistency and the low level of reliability (α = .17).
Table 9 shows the results of the factor analysis for Section 3.
78
Table 9
Factor Analysis: Knowledge of Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Q23
.715
Q19
.623
Q20
.535
.383
Q27
.780
Q26
.765
Q24
.718
Q25
.672
Q21
.689
Q22
-.621
In an effort to examine Section 3 further, I conducted factor analysis combining
Sections 2 and 3. Tests revealed eight factors accounting for 59% of the variance, with
only 10% of the variance explained by the first factor. Thus, factor analysis confirmed
previous tests of internal consistency on Sections 2 and 3 combined (α = .03). Section 3
consistently revealed a number of constructs assessed within the nine test items. A likely
explanation is that vocabulary development, as it was assessed in Section 3, conceptually
may include other concepts not related to oral language or what was measured in the
other sections of the instrument.
79
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Knowledge
After completing tests of reliability and factor analysis, I used descriptive
statistics to more closely examine the test items within each section of the instrument.
Further examination of the items and teachers’ answers may reveal patterns that confirm
and/or explain the results of previous statistical tests. The description that follows
includes each section of the instrument, including both the knowledge portion and the
perceived knowledge portion, analyzed independently of the other sections, and a
description of the items most often answered correctly and incorrectly.
Questions 1 through 9 assessed teachers’ knowledge of engaging in dialogic
reading. Two-hundred fifty teachers completed Questions 1 through 9. Of the first nine
questions in the first section of the instrument, teachers most often answered Question 8
correctly (79%), followed by Question 7, answered correctly by 71% of participants and
Question 1, answered correctly by 63% of participants. Question 8 assessed teachers’
knowledge of scaffolding techniques while reading books aloud. Question 7 asked
teachers to identify the skills that are affected by shared reading. Question 1 asked
teachers to indicate which types of questions are most effective for building oral language
skills during book reading.
Of the nine questions in Section 1, teachers most often answered incorrectly
Question 6 (99%) followed by Question 2 (95%) and Question 4 (63%). Question 6
indicated that 90% of teachers thought all of the types of talk included in the answers are
supportive of children’s oral language development when reading books aloud, including
nonimmediate talk, decontextualized language, immediate talk, and discussions about the
80
illustrations and words in the story. Teachers should have selected the answer which
included nonimmediate talk and decontextualized language only; however, less than 1%
of teachers selected this answer. Question 2 indicated that 70% of teachers thought
providing opportunities for children to join in with the reading of the text is supportive of
children’s language growth during book reading activities. Instead, analytical
conversations and talk about vocabulary are supportive of children’s language growth
during book reading activities. Only 5% of teachers selected this answer. Finally,
Question 4 was answered incorrectly by 63% of teachers, indicating that teachers were
not consistently able to correctly identify how to deal with new and unfamiliar
vocabulary during book reading activities. Table 10 shows the test items I reviewed in
this section and the frequency and percentage of participants who answered the questions
correctly and incorrectly. Table 11 shows each of the questions answered correctly and
incorrectly most often as I described above and each of the possible responses, including
the frequency and percentage for each response.
81
Table 10
Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic
Reading
Question
Correct
Answers
Incorrect
Answers
Frequency (Percent)
1. During book reading activities, the most effective
types of questions for building oral language skills
include:
157 (62.8)
93 (37.2)
2. In order to support children’s language growth,
book reading activities should include:
12 (4.8)
238 (95.2)
4. During book reading activities, teachers should
deal with new and unfamiliar vocabulary by:
93 (37.2) 157 (62.8)
6. In order to support children’s oral language
development when reading books aloud, the type of
talk teachers and children should engage in includes:
2 (.8)
248 (99.2)
7. Shared reading has a significant effect on children’s:
177 (70.8)
73 (29.2)
8. An example of a scaffolding technique during a read-
aloud activity is:
197 (78.8)
53 (21.2)
82
Table 11
Frequency of Responses: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
1. During book reading activities, the most effective
types of questions for building oral language skills
include:
a. questions that can be answered directly from the story,
including
who and
what questions
b. questions that challenge children to think,
including why, how, and when questions
c. factual questions asked before, during, and after
reading the story
d. questions that are closely tied to the illustrations
and/or words in the text
26 (10.4)
157 (62.8)
24 (9.6)
43 (17.2)
2. In order to support children’s language growth,
book reading activities should include:
a. discussions about the words, pictures, and events in
the story
b. opportunities for children to join in with the reading
of the text
c. analytical conversations and talk about vocabulary
d. discussions about topics that are familiar to the
children
176 (70.4)
37 (14.8)
37 (14.8)
25 (10)
4. During book reading activities, teachers should
deal with new and unfamiliar vocabulary by:
a. stopping and asking children what they think the word
means
b. continuing to read and telling students the definition
of the word later
c. embedding definitions during the reading of the
text
d. referring to pictures that give clues to the meaning of
the words
78 (31.2)
4 (1.6)
93 (37.2)
75 (30)
(table continues)
83
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
6. In order to support children’s oral language
development when reading books aloud, the type of talk
teachers and children should engage in includes:
a. nonimmediate talk and decontextualized language
or talk that connects story events to personal
experience
b. immediate talk or talk about the events and characters
in the story
c. discussions about the illustrations and words in the
story
d. all of the above
2 (0.8)
13 (5.2)
11 (4.4)
224 (89.6)
7. Shared reading has a significant effect on children’s:
a. alphabet knowledge
b. phonemic awareness and reading readiness
c. oral language and print knowledge
d. cognitive ability
0 (0)
50 (20)
177 (70.8)
23 (9.2)
8. An example of a scaffolding technique during a read-
aloud activity is:
a. pausing while reading to have children fill in words
they know
b. asking direct questions while reading the book
c. creating stories about pictures or providing a storyline
using only the pictures while reading
d. all of the above
25 (10)
7 (2.8)
21 (8.4)
197 (78.8)
84
The second section of the knowledge portion of the instrument, or Questions 10
through 18, assessed teachers’ knowledge of promoting extended discourse. Two-
hundred fourteen teachers completed this portion of the instrument. The three questions
teachers most often answered correctly in this section were Questions 12, 13, and 16.
Eighty-seven percent of participants answered Question 16 correctly, selecting the best
way to respond in order to stimulate oral language development when a child points to a
toy and says, “A car.” Question 13 was also answered correctly by a high number of
participants, with 84% of teachers responding appropriately. Teachers who answered this
question correctly indicated that parallel talk, or the type of talk that narrates or describes
what the child is doing at the moment, may be used to model how our language works.
Finally, the question which received the third highest percentage of correct responses in
this section was Question 12, although less than half (44%) of the teachers answered this
question correctly. Question 12 required teachers to select the answer which
demonstrated the best support of children's oral language development during free play.
Forty-four percent of teachers selected the correct answer
, engage children in extended
conversations that are intellectually challenging. However, 57% of teachers answered
incorrectly by choosing either (a) spend time engaged in very short conversations with
many children or (b) ensure that there are ample amounts of time for free play throughout
the day.
Three questions in the second section of the knowledge instrument were answered
incorrectly by at least 80% of teachers. Question 15 directed teachers to select the type of
talk that may accompany free play that is most supportive of the language and literacy
85
skills that are important for children a year later in kindergarten. Seventy-seven percent
of teachers selected the answer
all of the above which indicated teachers believed pretend
talk, nontoy talk, and nonpretend talk are all supportive of the language and literacy skills
that will be important for children in kindergarten. Additionally, just under 6% of
teachers selected either nontoy talk or nonpretend talk. Teachers should have indicated
that pretend talk is the type which is most supportive of language and literacy skills that
are important for children a year later in kindergarten. Question 10 received the second
highest percentage of incorrect responses in the second section of the knowledge
instrument, answered incorrectly by 81% of teachers. Question 10 instructed participants
to identify the way in which teachers can support students’ oral language development
during mealtimes. The majority of the teachers who answered incorrectly selected the
answer,
engaging children in conversations about events happening in the present
(present talk). However, the best way to support students’ oral language development
during mealtimes is by remaining stationary and engaging children in extended
discussions about decontextualized events or activities (nonpresent talk). The third
question answered incorrectly by the majority of teachers was Question 14. Eighty
percent of teachers were not able to identify the types of conversations that support
children’s oral language development. The majority of teachers selected either (a)
conversations that include vocabulary that students are familiar with or (b) conversations
that are primarily focused on events occurring in the here and now. Instead, teachers
should have indicated that conversations including informative uses of rare words are
most supportive of children’s oral language development. However, less than 20% of
86
teachers answered Question 14 correctly. Table 12 shows the test items I reviewed in this
section and the frequency and percentage of participants who answered the questions
correctly and incorrectly. Table 13 shows each of the questions answered correctly and
incorrectly most often as I described above and each of the possible responses, including
the frequency and percentage for each response.
Table 12
Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Knowledge of Promoting Extended
Discourse
Question
Correct
Answers
Incorrect
Answers
Frequency (Percent)
10. During mealtimes, teachers can support students’
oral language development by:
40 (18.7)
174 (81.3)
12. In order to support oral language development
during free play, teachers should:
93 (43.5)
121 (56.5)
13. Throughout the day, teachers can model how our
language works by:
180 (84.1)
34 (15.9)
14. Children’s oral language development is supported
by conversations that:
42 (19.6)
172 (80.4)
15. Of the three types of talk (pretend, non-toy, and non-
pretend), which type is most supportive of language and
literacy skills that are important for children a year later
in kindergarten?
37 (17.3)
177 (82.7)
16. During a conversation, a child points to a toy and
says, “A car.” The facilitative way to respond in order to
stimulate oral language development is:
186 (86.9)
28 (13.1)
87
Table 13
Frequency of Responses: Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
10. During mealtimes, teachers can support students’
oral language development by:
a. engaging children in conversations about events
happening in the present (present talk)
b. remaining stationary and engaging children in
extended discussions about decontextualized events
or activities (nonpresent talk)
c. moving around the classroom engaging many children
in short conversations
d. having discussions that are supporting by things in the
classroom environment
132 (61.7)
40 (18.7)
22 (10.3)
20 (9.3)
12. In order to support oral language development
during free play, teachers should:
a. spend time engaged in very short conversations with
many children
b. move around the room frequently
c. engage children in extended conversations that are
intellectually challenging
d. ensure that there are ample amounts of time for free
play throughout the day
44 (20.6)
18 (8.4)
93 (43.5)
59 (27.6)
13. Throughout the day, teachers can model how our
language works by:
a. engaging in parallel talk or the type of talk that
narrates or describes what the child is doing at that
moment
b. doing the majority of the talking when engaging in
conversations with students
c. using concrete and specific words
d. speaking in simple sentences that are easily
understood
180 (84.1)
0 (0)
11 (5.1)
23 (10.7)
(table continues)
88
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
14. Children’s oral language development is supported
by conversations that:
a. include vocabulary that students are familiar with
b. include informative uses of rare words
c. are primarily focused on events occurring in the here
and now
d. rely on the adult to guide the discussion
79 (36.9)
42 (19.6)
89 (41.6)
4 (1.9)
15. Of the three types of talk (pretend, non-toy, and non-
pretend), which type is most supportive of language and
literacy skills that are important for children a year later
in kindergarten?
a. pretend talk – talk with pretend elements and a
nonliteral approach to feature in the immediate
environment
b. non-toy talk – talk about events or concerns that are
unrelated to the immediate play setting
c. non-pretend talk – talk that maintains a literal
approach to actions and toys
d. all of the above
37 (17.3)
6 (2.8)
6 (2.8)
165 (77.1)
16. During a conversation, a child points to a toy and
says, “A car.” The facilitative way to respond in order to
stimulate oral language development is:
a. “Yes, a car.”
b. “Yes, you are playing with a big, blue car.”
c. “This is a car.”
d. “You are playing with a car.”
8 (3.7)
186 (86.9)
8 (3.7)
12 (5.6)
89
The third section of the knowledge portion of the instrument, or Questions 19
through 27, assessed teachers’ knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare words.
One-hundred ninety-eight teachers completed this portion of the instrument. The three
questions teachers most often answered correctly in this section were Questions 19, 21,
and 22. Question 19 was answered correctly by 170 teachers (86%), indicating teachers
were able to correctly identify methods to encourage the continued development of new
vocabulary during free play. Question 21 was answered correctly by 160 teachers (81%).
Teachers were asked to identify an effective strategy for teaching new words. By
answering this question correctly, teachers indicated that using demonstrations and/or
pictures, providing multiple definitions and examples, and connecting new words to
concepts children already know are the best methods for teaching new words to children.
However, nearly 20% of teachers selected two of the incorrect answers suggesting that
providing single definitions and examples and asking children to explain what they think
the word means are effective strategies for teaching new words. The third question
teachers answered correctly the majority of the time was Question 22. Nearly every
teacher (
N = 194) correctly identified the predominant way that children acquire
vocabulary, by hearing new words used in their environment, including in conversations,
television, and storybooks read aloud to them.
Two questions in the last section, knowledge of using specific vocabulary and
rare words, were answered incorrectly by more than 90% of teachers, Questions 20 and
25. Question 20 was answered incorrectly by 193 teachers (98%). The majority of
teachers selected the answer
all of the above, indicating that rare words, common words,
90
and extended talk should be used during large group time to extend children’s language
development. Instead, teachers should have only selected rare words as the best support
of oral language development during large group time. Question 25 was also answered
incorrectly by the majority of teachers (91%). Teachers were asked to identify the best
method during mealtime to extend upon vocabulary that has been previously taught
during the day. One-hundred seventy-two teachers selected
all of the above. Instead,
teachers should have selected the answer,
asking open ended questions to elicit thoughtful
and elaborate uses of words. Eighteen teachers selected the correct answer. Table 14
shows the test items I reviewed in this section and the frequency and percentage of
participants who answered the questions correctly and incorrectly. Table 15 shows each
of the questions answered correctly and incorrectly most often as I described above and
each of the possible responses, including the frequency and percentage for each response.
91
Table 14
Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses: Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare
Words
Question
Correct
Answers
Incorrect
Answers
Frequency (Percent)
19. Teachers can encourage the continued development
of vocabulary during free play by:
170 (85.9)
28 (14.1)
20. Large group time provides an opportunity for
teachers to extend upon children’s language
development through the use of:
5 (2.5)
193 (97.5)
21. An effective strategy for teaching new words is:
160 (80.8)
38 (19.2)
22. The predominant way that children acquire
vocabulary is by:
194 (98)
4 (2)
25. During mealtime conversations, teachers can extend
upon vocabulary that has been previously taught during
the day by:
18 (9.1)
180 (90.9)
92
Table 15
Frequency of Responses: Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
19. Teachers can encourage the continued development
of vocabulary during free play by:
a. setting up play areas that extend upon a classroom
theme and related vocabulary
b. setting up media centers (DVDs, electronic books,
computers) that engage children in interactions with the
new vocabulary
c. providing props related to the theme that may elicit
theme-related vocabulary use
d. all of the above
25 (12.6)
0 (0)
3 (1.5)
170 (85.9)
20. Large group time provides an opportunity for
teachers to extend upon children’s language
development through the use of:
a. rare words
b. common words
c. non-pretend talk
d. all of the above
5 (2.5)
10 (5.1)
4 (2.0)
179 (90.4)
21. An effective strategy for teaching new words is to:
a. provide a single definition and example in order to
avoid complicating the explanation
b. ask the children to explain what they think the word
means
c. use demonstrations and/or pictures, provide
multiple definitions and examples, and connect new
words to concepts children already know
d. ask children to use the word in a sentence
18 (9.1)
19 (9.6)
160 (80.8)
1 (0.5)
(table continues)
93
Questions and Answers (correct answer is in bold
print)
Frequency (Percent)
22. The predominant way that children acquire
vocabulary is by:
a. having words explicitly taught to them
b. hearing new words used in their environment,
including in conversations, television, and storybooks
read aloud to them
c. asking adults to explain what words mean
d. reading books themselves, including a wide variety of
themes
2 (1.0)
194 (98.0)
1 (0.5)
1 (0.5)
25. During mealtime conversations, teachers can extend
upon vocabulary that has been previously taught during
the day by:
a. asking open ended questions to elicit thoughtful
and elaborate uses of words
b. discussing events that have taken place in the
classroom during the day
c. talking about the book that was read earlier in the day
d. all of the above
18 (9.1)
5 (2.5)
3 (1.5)
172 (86.9)
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Perceived Knowledge
The instrument for this study also included questions to measure teachers’
perceived level of competency after answering each of the three sections of knowledge
questions. The first question asked teachers to rate their own knowledge from zero to six
(
poorly to
very well). The second question asked teachers to rate their own knowledge
from zero to six (
well below average to
well above average) in comparison to other
preschool teachers that answered the questions. To measure perceived knowledge, I used
a semantic differential approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2004) with a seven-point
bipolar rating scale with contrasting adjectives (
poorly to
very well or
well below average
to
well above average in this study). Participants answered both questions indicating their
94
perceived level of knowledge after completing each section of the knowledge assessment.
I designed the two questions at the end of each section of the instrument to measure
whether or not teachers were aware of what they did and did not know regarding
knowledge of engaging in dialogic reading, promoting extended discourse, and using
specific vocabulary and rare words. Because people in general are likely to seek
knowledge in a particular domain when they are actually aware of their own knowledge
deficits in that domain, it was important to determine whether or not the teachers in this
study were aware of their own knowledge deficits.
After completing the first nine questions assessing knowledge of engaging in
dialogic reading, teachers (
N = 249) completed two questions indicating their perceived
level of knowledge regarding the questions previously answered. In Section 1, 98
teachers (39%) rated their knowledge as a four, on a seven-point bipolar rating scale from
poorly to
very well. Seventy-nine teachers (32%) rated their knowledge as a three. For the
second question related to perceived knowledge, teachers were asked to rate their own
knowledge in comparison to other teachers who completed the knowledge portion
regarding engaging in dialogic reading. The majority of teachers rated their knowledge in
comparison to other teachers as a three (36%) or a four (36%) on a seven-point bipolar
scale from
well below average to
well above average. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the
frequency distribution of teachers’ responses to the two perceived knowledge questions
for Section 1 of the knowledge assessment, engaging in dialogic reading.
95
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of engaging in
dialogic reading.
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of engaging in
dialogic reading in comparision to other teachers.
96
After completing the second set of questions (10-18) assessing knowledge of
promoting extended discourse, teachers completed two questions indicating their
perceived level of knowledge regarding the questions previously answered. Two-hundred
fourteen teachers answered the perceived knowledge questions in the second section of
the instrument. In Section 2, 91 teachers (43%) rated their knowledge as a four, on a
seven-point bipolar rating scale from
poorly to
very well. Eighty teachers (37%) rated
their knowledge as a three. For the second question related to perceived knowledge,
teachers were asked to rate their own knowledge in comparison to other teachers who
completed the knowledge portion regarding promoting extended discourse. The majority
of teachers rated their knowledge in comparison to other teachers as a three (40%) or a
four (37%) on a seven-point bipolar scale from
well below average to
well above
average. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the frequency distribution of teachers’ responses to the
two perceived knowledge questions for Section 2 of the knowledge assessment,
promoting extended discourse.
97
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of promoting
extended discourse.
98
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of promoting
extended discourse in comparision to other teachers.
99
After completing the third set of questions (19-27) assessing knowledge of using
specific vocabulary and rare words, teachers (
N = 198) completed two questions
indicating their perceived level of knowledge regarding the questions previously
answered. In Section 3, 74 teachers (37%) rated their knowledge as a four and 73
teachers (37%) rated their knowledge as a three, on a seven-point bipolar rating scale
from
poorly to
very well. For the second question related to perceived knowledge,
teachers were asked to rate their own knowledge in comparison to other teachers who
completed the knowledge portion regarding using specific vocabulary and rare words.
The majority of teachers (
N = 81) rated their knowledge in comparison to other teachers
as a three (41%) on a seven-point bipolar scale from
well below average to
well above
average. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the frequency distribution of teachers’ responses to the
two perceived knowledge questions for Section 3 of the knowledge assessment, using
specific vocabulary and rare words.
100
Figure 7. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of using specific
vocabulary and rare words.
Figure 8. Frequency distribution of responses to perceived knowledge of using specific
vocabulary and rare words in comparision to other teachers.
101
Primary Analyses
Upon completion of the preliminary analyses and identification of the most robust
sections of the instrument according to reliability and validity statistics, I revised the
research questions in order to reflect further analysis of only Section 2 of the instrument,
knowledge of promoting extended discourse for developing oral language. The resulting
revised research questions answered by this study include:
1. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving
promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total number of
years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
2. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total
number of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of
professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
3. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and
actual knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for
developing oral language?
Before answering each of the three research questions, I made adjustments to the
categories included within each of the three independent variables: number of years
experience teaching preschool, hours of professional development in early literacy
completed in the last 2 years, and perceived level of compentency for knowledge of
promoting extended discourse. First, I collapsed the categories to describe the number of
102
years experience teaching preschool from five to three to account for the low sample
sizes represented in two of the five categories. Twenty-three teachers reported having 0 to
2 years experience, 54 teachers reported having 3 to 6 years experience, 40 teachers
reported having 7 to 10 years experience, 50 teachers reported having 11 to 20 years
experience, and 30 teachers reported having more than 20 years experience. I collapsed
the categories into three new groups representing 0 to 6 years experience, 7 to 10 years
experience, and 11 or more years experience. The new groups included samples of 77,
40, and 80 teachers respectively.
Similarly, I collapsed the categories to describe the number of hours of
professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2 years from four to two
to account for the low sample sizes in three of the four categories. One-hundred fifty-
seven teachers reported having 0 to 90 hours of professional development, 27 teachers
reported having 91 to 180 hours of professional development, 10 teachers reported
having 181 to 270 hours of professional development, and three teachers reported having
more than 270 hours of professional development. I collapsed the categories into two new
categories representing up to 90 hours of professional development and more than 90
hours of professional development. The new categories included sample sizes of 157 and
40 teachers respectively. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the new categories and distribution of
responses for teachers’ number of years experience teaching preschool and hours of
professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
103
Figure 9. Frequency distribution of responses to number of years experience teaching
preschool.
Figure 10. Frequency distribution of responses to number of hours of professional
development in early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
104
Additionally, before examining the second research question involving teachers’
perceived knowledge, I collapsed the seven-point bipolar rating scale from
poorly to
very
well to describe teachers’ self ratings of their knowledge into three new categories of
ratings: low, average, and high. Teachers rating their knowledge as a zero to three (
N =
93) were combined into the low category, teachers rating their knowledge as a four (
N =
91) were included in the average category, and teachers rating their knowledge as a five
or six (
N = 30) were included in the high category. Collapsing the ratings from seven to
three accounted for the low sample sizes in five of the seven categories.
Similary, for teachers’ ratings of their perceived compentency compared to other
teachers answering the knowledge questions for promoting extended discourse, I
collapsed the categories from seven to three. Collapsing the categories accounted for the
low sample sizes in four of the seven categories. Teachers rating their own competency
compared to other teachers as a zero, one, or two (
N = 16) were combined into the
category,
lower than others. Teachers rating their own competency compared to other
teachers as a three (
N = 85) were labeled as
about the same as others, and teachers rating
their own competency compared to other teachers as a four, five, or six (
N = 113) were
combined into the category,
higher than others. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the new
categories and the distribution of responses for teachers’ perceived competency for
knowledge of promoting extended discourse and perceived competency compared to
others for knowledge of promoting extended discourse.
105
Figure 11. Frequency distribution of responses for teachers’ perceived competency for
knowledge of promoting extended discourse.
Figure 12. Frequency distribution of responses for teachers’ perceived competency for
knowledge of promoting extended discourse compared to other teachers.
106
Finally, after revising the categories included within each of the three independent
variables, I determined the overall scale score for Section 2 of the instrument, knowledge
of promoting extended discourse, for each participant (
N = 214) by summing the number
correct by each participant. Total scores ranged from one correct out of nine to nine
correct out of nine. There were no participants that answered eight total questions
correctly, and there were only two participants out of 214 that answered all nine
questions correctly. Upon reviewing total scores for normality, I discovered the data to be
positively skewed. Skewness is a measure of the symmetry or lack of symmetry in a
distribution of scores. A distribution that is significantly skewed can lead to erroneous
interpretations of statistical outcomes. When samples are normally distributed, skewness
is equal to zero or close to zero. Normality analysis for this distribution indicated that the
data were positively skewed (skewness statistic = .378, standard error of skewness =
.166). To determine if skewness was significant, I doubled the standard error of
skewness, resulting in a value of .332. Since the skewness statistic of .378 is higher than
.332, it is considered to be significantly different from normal. Thus, it was necessary to
reduce skewness of the data.
After completing tests of skewness, I explored two options for reducing skewness
of the data. First, I removed the two total scores of nine from the analysis. Then, I
reviewed the data for skewness again, and the data indicated that the distribution was no
longer skewed (skewness statistic = .149, standard error of skewness = .167). I also
conducted a second method for reducing skewness of the data by collapsing the
distribution of scores from a nine point scale to an eight point scale, since there were no
107
participants that scored a total of eight. There were two participants who scored nine, and
they were the highest scores in the distribution. Therefore, changing the score of nine to a
score of eight still allowed the score to be the highest in the distribution while eliminating
skewness (skewness statistic = .291, standard error of skewness = .167). Neither method
changed the overall outcome of the analyses. Thus, in order to keep all scores within the
sample of 214, I selected the second method of reducing skewness, and the scale was
reduced from the highest score of nine to eight. Tables 16 and 17 show the differences in
the number of questions answered correctly by number of years experience teaching
preschool and hours of professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2
years, according to the new levels, zero to eight.
Table 16
Differences in Number of Questions Answered Correctly by Number of Years Experience
Teaching Preschool
Number of Questions Answered Correctly
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 – 6
Years
1
4
14
17
17
14
7
2
1
7 – 10
Years
0
2
5
9
7
9
5
3
0
11 or
More
Years
0
8
12
15
25
11
5
3
1
108
Table 17
Differences in Number of Questions Answered Correctly by Hours of Professional
Development in Early Literacy Complted in the Last 2 Years
Number of Questions Answered Correctly
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
<=90
Hours
1
11
24
32
42
27
11
8
1
>90
Hours
0
3
7
9
7
7
6
0
1
Research Question One
Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving
promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total number of years
experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional development related
to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
In order to answer the first research question, I conducted an ANOVA. I included
one dependent variable (teachers’ knowledge) and two independent variables (years of
experience and hours of professional development) in the analysis. I used an ANOVA to
detect significant differences in teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving promoting
extended discourse for developing oral language by total number of years experience
teaching preschool and number of hours of professional development in early literacy
completed in the last 2 years. The overall group mean score (
N = 197, M = 3.76, SD =
1.63) indicated that on average, teachers answered three of nine questions correctly.
Experience had no significant main effect on teachers’ knowledge (F(2, 197) = 1.19;
NS).
109
Professional development also had no significant main effect on teachers’ knowledge
(F(1, 197) = .468;
NS). Consequently, the data failed to reject the first null hypothesis for
research Question 1. There were no significant differences in preschool teachers’
knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for developing oral
language based on number of years experience teaching preschool. Similarly, the data
failed to reject the second null hypothesis for research Question 1. There were no
significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of promoting extended discourse
for developing oral language based on hours of professional development in early literacy
completed in the last 2 years. Table 18 shows means, standard deviations, and levels of
significance for knowledge scores based on teachers’ years of experience teaching
preschool and number of hours of professional development in early literacy completed
in the last 2 years.
Table 18
Mean Knowledge Scores, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool and Hours of Professional Development
N
Mean
SD
Sig.
Experience
197
3.761
1.63
.305
Professional
Development
197
3.761
1.63
.495
Research Question Two
Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total number of
110
years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional development
related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
In order to answer the second research question, I conducted an ANOVA. I
included one dependent variable (teachers’ perceived competency) and two independent
variables (years of experience and hours of professional development) in the analysis. I
used an ANOVA to detect significant differences in teachers’ perceived level of
competency for knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for
developing oral language by total number of years experience teaching preschool and
number of hours of professional development in early literacy completed in the last 2
years. The overall group mean (
N = 214, M = 3.71, SD = 1.61) indicated that on average,
teachers rated their own knowledge as a three on a seven point bipolar scale. Experience
had no significant main effect on teachers’ perceived level of competency (F(4, 197) =
.096,
NS). Similary, professional development had no significant main effect on teachers’
perceived level of competency (F(2, 197) = 1.26,
NS). Consequently, the data failed to
reject the first null hypothesis for research Question 2. There were no significant
differences in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies involving promoting
extended discourse for developing oral language based on total number of years
experience teaching preschool. Similarly, the data failed to reject the second null
hypothesis for research Question 2. There were no significant differences in preschool
teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for
developing oral language based on number of hours of professional development related
to early literacy completed in the last 2 years. Table 19 shows means, standard
111
deviations, and levels of significance for teachers’ perceived knowledge based on
teachers’ years of experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional
development in early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
Table 19
Mean Perceived Knowledge, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes by Years Experience
Teaching Preschool and Hours of Professional Development
N
Mean
SD
Sig.
Experience
214
3.71
1.61
.984
Professional
Development
214
3.71
1.61
.285
Research Question Three
What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and
actual knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for developing
oral language?
In order to answer the third research question, I first conducted an ANOVA to
explore differences in the means of groups of teachers rating their own knowledge as
low, average, and high. The mean score (
N = 93, M = 3.40, SD = 1.57) for teachers who
rated their own knowledge as low indicated that their knowledge of strategies for
promoting extended discourse was in fact low when compared to the group means of
teachers who rated their knowledge as average or high. Similary, the mean score (
N = 30,
M = 4.23, SD = 1.57) for teachers who rated their own knowledge as high was in fact
high when compared to the group means of teachers who rated their knowledge as low or
average. Therefore, the data revealed that the 93 teachers who rated their own knowledge
112
as low did perform lower than the teachers who rated their knowledge as average or high.
Conversely, the 30 teachers who rated their own knowledge as high were more
knowledgeable than their counterparts who rated their knowledge as low or average.
Teachers with less knowledge knew they had less knowledge while teachers with more
knowledge knew they had more knowledge. Table 20 shows the mean scores for teachers
rating their own knowledge as low, average, and high.
Table 20
Mean Knowledge Scores for Teachers Rating their Knowledge as Low, Average, and
High
N
Mean
Low
93
3.40
Average
91
3.85
High
30
4.23
To further understand the degree of the magnitude between low performing and
high performing teachers in the total score obtained for the second section of the
instrument, knowledge of promoting extended discourse, I calculated an effect size
(Cohen’s
d). Results revealed an effect size of 0.53. According to Cohen, this effect is a
significantly positive moderate effect, indicating that the variability in the test scores
between low performing and high performing teachers was about one-half of a standard
deviation. Based on the results of ANOVA and Cohen’s
d,I can be reasonably certain that
the observed difference between low and high performing teachers is a true difference
and was likely not due to chance.
113
In further analysis of the data to answer the third research question, I also
included the second perceived knowledge question for which teachers were asked to rate
their own knowledge compared to other participants. I used a three-by-three contingency
table to compare observed or actual results from the two perceived knowledge questions.
Contingency tables may be used to summarize results when the outcome is categorical.
Calculations comparing the observed outcomes provide evidence of the degree of the
relationship between them. Expected outcomes must first be calculated. In order to
determine what the expected results would be, I multiplied the total count for each row
for observed perceived competency (
low, average, or
high) by the corresponding column
total count for observed perceived competency compared to others (
lower than others,
same as others, or
higher than others). I then divided the product of the calculation for
each row and column combination by the total sample for the group (
N = 214).
Upon completion of the three-by-three contingency table and expected results, I
conducted a Chi-square (X
2
) test for independence in order to provide information about
the strength of the relationship between the row variables and column variables. A low
Chi-square value indicates that there is a small discrepancy between the rows and
columns that is probably not statistically significant while a high Chi-square value
indicates that there is a large discrepancy between the row and column values that may be
significant.
The Chi-square for independence was X
2
= 144.0, df = 4, p < .001. Results
deviated from what was expected in a normal distribution, indicating that the observed
numbers differed significantly from what was expected . Thus, there was a contingency
114
between the observed variables, meaning that the two variables were not independent.
Teachers’ perceived knowledge and perceived knowledge compared to others were not
independent of each other. Also, as demonstrated previously in Chapter 4, teachers’ mean
actual knowledge for
low,
average, and
high aligned with their own ratings of their
knowledge. Therefore, teachers’ actual knowledge was not independent of perceived
knowledge and perceived knowledge compared to others. Table 21 shows observed
perceived knowledge compared to observed perceived knowledge when compared to
others. Table 22 shows the results of the calculations which determined expected results
for perceived knowledge and perceived knowledge compared to others.
115
Table 21
Observed Perceived Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse by Observed
Perceived Knowledge Compared to Others
Observed Perception of Knowledge
Compared to Others
Observed Perception of
Knowledge (Actual
Knowledge)
Lower than
Others
About the
Same
as Others
Higher than
Others
Total
Count
Count
Count
Count
Observed Perceived Low
Knowledge (Low Knowledge)
15
72
6
93
Observed Perceived Average
Knowledge (Average
Knowledge)
1
13
77
91
Observed Perceived High
Knowledge (High Knowledge)
0
0
30
30
Total
16
85
113
214
116
Table 22
Expected Perceived Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse by Expected Perceived
Knowledge Compared to Others
Expected Perception of Knowledge
Compared to Others
Expected Perception of
Knowledge (Actual
Knowledge)
Lower than
Others
About the
Same
as Others
Higher than
Others
Total
Count
Count
Count
Count
Expected Perceived Low
Knowledge (Low Knowledge)
6.95
36.90
49.10
93
Expected Perceived Average
Knowledge (Average
Knowledge)
6.80
36.10
48.10
91
Expected Perceived High
Knowledge (High Knowledge)
2.24
11.90
15.80
30
Total
16
85
113
214
Three distinct patterns were revealed in the analyses for research Question 3, as I
illustrated in Table 17 above. First, of the 93 teachers who rated their own knowledge as
low and actually scored lower than others, 72 rated their own knowledge compared to
others as about the same as others, indicating that these teachers believed other teachers
would have the same low knowledge as they had of strategies for promoting extended
discourse. Secondly, of the 30 teachers who rated their own knowledge as high and also
scored higher than others, all 30 rated their own knowledge compared to others as higher
than others, demonstrating that these teachers believed they had higher knowledge than
others, and in fact, they were correct. Third, of the 91 teachers who rated their own
117
knowledge as average and also scored in the average range, 77 rated their own
knowledge as higher than others, demonstrating that they believed their own average
knowledge of the topic would be sufficient for knowing more than the other participants.
However, they were not correct. Essentially, teachers who had low knowledge knew they
had low knowledge, but the majority of these teachers thought others would also have
low knowledge. Teachers who had high knowledge knew they had high knowledge and
believed their knowledge would be better than other teachers.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to create an instrument that may be used to
examine and describe the perceived level of knowledge and actual knowledge level of
preschool teachers regarding strategies that support oral language development in the
preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading, promoting extended
discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. The pilot of the instrument
revealed one section to be valid and reliable for measuring preschool teachers’
knowledge of strategies for oral language development. Therefore, further analysis of the
data from the study consisted of only Section 2 of the instrument, knowledge of
promoting extended discourse.
Findings indicated that the majority of participants had low knowledge of
strategies for promoting extended discourse. Neither years of experience nor hours of
professional development had a significant relationship to teachers’ knowledge or
perceived knowledge. Teachers with low knowledge knew they had low knowledge but
believed others would also have low knowledge. On the contrary, teachers with high
118
knowledge knew they had high knowledge and believed their knowledge was higher than
others. Unfortunately, even those with high knowledge had a mean score which
demonstrated that on average, they answered less than half the questions correctly.
Participants in the study included 250 teachers in Colorado Preschool Programs.
The majority of teachers indicated they had completed less than 90 hours of professional
development in the last 2 years in early literacy, indicating a need to increase the
opportunities preschool teachers are provided for professional development. Participants
in the study varied in their years of experience with 80 teachers having 11 or more years
experience while almost as many teachers had 6 years or fewer. Given the low mean
scores for all groups, professional development for all teachers is of upmost importance,
regardless of how many years they have been teaching preschool.
Findings from the study were consistent with the idea that teachers may not know
what they don’t know. While teachers seemed to rate their own knowledge fairly well,
too many teachers believed their own low knowledge would be the same as others. It is
concerning that the teachers with low knowledge did not realize that they knew less than
others. It was surprising that neither professional development nor years experience
teaching preschool had a significant relationship with teachers’ knowledge.
In Chapter 4, I provided information regarding the process used to collect and
analyze the data in addition to the results of the data analyses. I presented results in three
main sections: data collection process, preliminary analyses, and primary analyses. In
Chapter 5, I include interpretations of the findings, recommendations for action,
implications for social change, and recommendations for future research.
119
Chapter 5: Discussion, Interpretations, and Recommendations
Introduction
In this chapter, I present a summary and interpretations of the study findings in
addition to implications and recommendations for policy makers, researchers,
administrators and professors in higher education, state level coordinators, district level
administrators, and school level personnel to improve upon the training and ongoing
support that preschool teachers receive. I begin the chapter with a brief overview of why
and how the study was conducted, reviewing the research questions and related findings.
I follow the overview with interpretations of the findings and how the findings relate to a
larger body of literature related to oral language development in the preschool classroom
and teachers’ knowledge of strategies for supporting oral language development and
literacy foundations. Next, I address implications for social change in addition to
recommendations for action and further research. Finally, I end the chapter with the my
own reflections on the experience of conducting the study, identifying changes in my
thinking that occurred as a result of conducting the study.
Overview
The purpose of this quantitative, nonexperimental study was to develop an
instrument that may be used to measure preschool teachers’ perceived level of knowledge
and actual knowledge of strategies that support oral language development and literacy
foundations in the preschool classroom, including engaging in dialogic reading,
promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare words. Upon
completion of primary analyses, I determined that the second section of the instrument,
120
knowledge of promoting extended discourse, was most valid and reliable for measuring
preschool teachers’ knowledge. Therefore, I revised the research questions to reflect
further analysis of only the second section of the instrument, knowledge of promoting
extended discourse. I addressed the following revised research questions in this study:
1. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving
promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total number of
years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of professional
development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
2. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving promoting extended discourse for developing oral language by total
number of years experience teaching preschool and number of hours of
professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years?
3. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and
actual knowledge of strategies involving promoting extended discourse for
developing oral language?
Analyses revealed no significant differences in preschool teachers’ knowledge of
promoting extended discourse by years experience teaching preschool or number of hours
of professional development related to early literacy completed in the last 2 years.
Similary, there were no significant differences in preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge of promoting extended discourse by years experience teaching preschool or
number of hours of professional development related to early literacy completed in the
last 2 years. However, analysis of the relationship between preschool teachers’
121
knowledge and perceived knowledge revealed several significant patterns, as I discussed
previously in Chapter 4. Teachers with low knowledge knew they had low knowledge but
believed others would also have low knowledge. On the contrary, teachers with high
knowledge knew they had high knowledge and believed their knowledge was higher than
others. Although teachers who rated their knowledge as high did perform the highest
when compared to the other teachers, on average, they answered less than half the
questions correctly. Results were similar for teachers performing at low and average
levels. Furthermore, Cohen’s
d demonstrated that the variability in the test scores
between low and high performing teachers was significant.
Interpretation of Findings
The results of the study indicate that preschool teachers’ knowledge of promoting
extended discourse for developing oral language literacy foundations is low. Although
teachers were accurate when rating their own knowledge, teachers with low knowledge
incorrectly rated their knowledge as the same as others. According to Cunningham et al.
(2009), teachers “tend to overestimate what they know, creating a potential obstacle for
seeking knowledge” (p. 487). This study confirmed and extended upon Cunningham’s
findings, revealing that more than three-fourths of the teachers with low knowledge were
unable to accurately rate their knowledge when compared to others. Although
professional development was not significantly related to teachers’ knowledge, the low
knowledge scores of all participants coupled with the fact that 157 of 197 teachers
indicated they had completed less than 90 hours of professional development in early
122
literacy in the last 2 years demonstrates a need for more professional development for
preschool teachers.
Examination of the types of questions teachers answered incorrectly provided
further information about the needed focus of professional development for preschool
teachers. Answers to questions about the type of talk teachers should engage in with
children revealed that teachers believe simple language is best, yet research is clear that
children need to be exposed to language which includes rare words and more challenging
vocabulary (Dickenson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995). As discussed in detail in
Chapter 2, during mealtimes, teachers should remain stationary and engage children in
extended conversations about decontextualized events and activities, also known as
nonpresent talk. These conversations should focus on nonpresent events, experiences,
people, and objects that are familiar to children. This type of talk engages children in
higher levels of thinking and challenges them to use more extensive vocabulary
(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). When engaging in conversations with children, teachers
should also use targeted vocabulary that may not be familiar to students (Christ & Wang,
2010). Despite these facts, 153 of the 214 teachers who responded to Section 2 of the
instrument believed familiar words and phrases, descriptions of events happening in the
present, and simple sentences that are easily understood by all students are the best
supports of oral language development in the preschool classroom. Similary, 165 of the
214 teachers who responded believed nonpretend talk and nontoy talk are most
supportive of language and literacy skills that are important for children a year later in
kindergarten. However, it is pretend talk that engages children in higher levels of
123
language interactions, requiring children to talk about pretend elements and use a
nonliteral approach to features that are in the child’s immediate environment (Dickenson
& Tabors, 2001).
Consistent with the findings of previous research, this study indicates a need for
continued training and professional development in early literacy for preschool teachers
(Corrigan, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2009; Lane et al., 2009; Mather et al., 2001; Moats
& Foorman, 2003). On average, teachers answered fewer than half of the questions
related to promoting extended discourse correctly. Even teachers with the highest
knowledge when compared to others answered fewer than half the questions correctly.
Walpole et al. (2004) states that “teacher expertise, more than any other variable accounts
for increases in student achievement in reading and other academic areas” (p. 277). Thus,
it is essential for preschool teachers to have knowledge of the most appropriate uses of
language to support children’s oral language development associated with foundations of
critical reading.
Implications for Social Change
This study contributes to positive social change by providing questions that may
be used in future research studies about connections between oral language and literacy
and teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual knowledge. Data obtained from the
instrument may be used to understand teachers’ decisions, to inform preschool teachers’
preparation, and to determine what type of professional development should be offered.
Furthermore, the results of this study not only contribute to the limited body of research
on preschool teachers’ knowledge, but the study also extends upon the research by
124
including a measure of preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge as it relates to oral
language development. The development of effective professional development modules
for preschool teachers is dependent on knowing teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge
and actual knowledge of strategies for oral language development in the preschool
classroom. The results of the study may be used as a guide for policy makers, researchers,
administrators and professors in higher education, state level coordinators, district level
administrators, and school level personnel to improve the training and ongoing support
that preschool teachers receive. President Obama’s recent Race to the Top Early Learning
Challenge (RTT-ELC) focused on supporting states in their efforts to improve early
learning and development programs for children from infancy to preschool. The findings
from this study support the goal of the federal RTT-ELC and other similar efforts by
identifying specific areas for teacher training and ongoing professional development to
improve early childhood programs. High-quality early learning programs which support
oral language development for children are of upmost importance, especially for the most
disadvantaged children. As demonstrated by the research of Hart and Risley (1995),
children from disadvantaged homes tend to have smaller expressive vocabularies than
their peers from more affluent homes. Thus, at the start of preschool, these children are
already at a disadvantage and must learn and develop early language and literacy skills at
a faster rate than their peers in order to close the achievement gap.
Recommendations for Action and Further Study
The results of this study may be valuable to policy makers, researchers,
administrators and professors in higher education, state level coordinators, district level
125
administrators, and school level personnel. Information gained by the study may be used
to improve preservice training and inservice professional development provided to
preschool teachers. The results also contribute to the body of evidence on teachers’
knowledge and existing instruments to measure teachers’ knowledge. Results of the study
may be circulated through my own place of employment, the Colorado Department of
Education, in order to suggest state-wide professional development opportunities for
preschool teachers in Colorado. Additionally, the results may be presented at local and
national conferences on topics related to early childhood education, including annual
conferences held by the Colorado Association for the Education of Young Children and
the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Although the results of this study indicate implications for training and ongoing
professional development to improve early childhood programs, future administration of
the instrument piloted through this study could be improved in a number of ways. First,
calculations of internal consistency revealed that Sections 1 and 3 of the instrument may
contain questions which assess more than the one construct they were intended to assess.
As noted in Chapter 4, Section 1 was intended to assess teachers’ knowledge of engaging
in dialogic reading, yet the data revealed four factors. Section 3 of the instrument was
intended to measure teachers’ knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare words,
yet the data for section 3 also revealed four factors. A revised version of the instrument
should take into account the results of the factor analyses and group questions more
appropriately in each section so the questions truly assess the construct they were
intended to assess.Additionally, revisions to the third section of the instrument,
126
knowledge of using specific vocabulary and rare words, should include changes to the
four questions which included the answer selections,
all of the above. Improving these
four questions by providing more appropriate answers may increase the internal
consistency among the items within Section 3. Furthermore, Appendices A through I
include tables to show the frequency and percentage of responses for each question in
each section of the instrument. Response patterns shown in the tables may reveal
suggestions for item revision and/or elimination. For example, the data associated with
Question 6 as shown in Appendices D and E demonstrates that the majority of
participants selected
all of the above, including the full range of teachers with few to
many years experience teaching preschool and few to many hours of professional
development in early literacy. Responses to this question, in addition to Questions 20 and
25 (Appendices H and I), indicate a need to revise these questions to include a different
answer selection to increase internal consistency among the questions.
Another recommendation for future use of the instrument in studies is to include
additional demographic variables by which to compare teachers’ perceived competency
and actual knowledge. For the purpose of this study, only teachers’ years experience
teaching preschool and number of hours of professional development in early literacy
completed in the last 2 years were examined. Future studies might include variables such
as teachers’ highest degree earned with information regarding areas of study, teachers’
primary language, and more specific information about professional development
received.
127
Future experimental research might also include the use of the instrument to
measure preschool teachers’ perceived competency and knowledge as each relates to
students’ performance on assessments of oral language development. This study did not
examine students’ performance. Research that compares preschool teachers’ perceived
knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies for developing oral language to students’
performance would provide additional support for and emphasize the importance of
related preservice and inservice professional development for preschool teachers.
Finally, future studies might include preschool teachers from a variety of types of
preschool programs. For this study, only teachers from the Colorado Preschool Program
were included. Teachers who may be a part of the sample in future studies include
teachers from child care settings and Head Start. Broadening the scope of the sample will
increase the ability to generalize the results of the study to include all preschool teachers
from a variety of types of programs.
Given the suggestions for future research, questions examined in additional
studies using the instrument might include:
1. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies involving (a)
engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and (c) using
specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by teachers’
highest degree earned, area of study, and primary language spoken?
2. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of strategies
involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting extended discourse, and
128
(c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for developing oral language by
teachers’ highest degree earned, area of study, and primary language spoken?
3. Is there a difference in preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge of strategies involving (a) engaging in dialogic reading, (b) promoting
extended discourse, and (c) using specific vocabulary and rare words for
developing oral language by type of preschool program?
4. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies for
developing oral language and students’ performance on measures of oral language
development?
5. What is the relationship between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge of
strategies for developing oral language and students’ performance on measures of
oral language development?
Reflections
Many years of experience teaching in the elementary grades and consulting in
both elementary and preschool classrooms has given me insight into the instructional
strengths and needs of teachers. When I began this study, I had some preconceived
notions about what my results may be, based on both the research and my own
experiences. I expected that while preschool teachers may realize the importance of
extended discourse in the classroom, they may not know the particular strategies that best
support language development such as using targeted vocabulary and intellectually
challenging language. I recognized that preschool teachers vary in their educational
experiences and therefore, at no fault of their own, they may not have had the training
129
and ongoing professional development necessary to develop this knowledge. However,
given the importance of the preschool years, I realized that my research was extremely
important and could be beneficial, especially for preschool teachers in the state of
Colorado, where I currently live. As the research unfolded, teachers began participating
in the study, and participants started reaching out to me for answers to the questions and
related research. I began to realize how concerned preschool teachers are about their daily
practice and how important it is to them to have the knowledge of the most effective
instructional practices in their classrooms. It is also possible that as teachers participated
in the study, they became more aware of potential areas for growth in their own
knowledge of strategies for supporting oral language development. I’m hopeful that as a
result of this study, participants began to seek professional learning opportunities through
provided references to research.
Conclusion
The results of this study, despite a need to revise the developed instrument,
indicate a need for preservice and inservice training for preschool teachers related to
strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. As Section 2 of the
instrument demonstrated, teachers lacked the necessary knowledge of strategies for
promoting extended discourse for supporting children in oral language development. This
study provided an instrument unlike any other, with a focus on preschool teachers and
their perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies that support oral language
development in the preschool classroom. Tools such as this one will serve as an
important support in future research for determining preschool teachers’ perceived and
130
actual knowledge in order to provide the most appropriate professional development
opportunities for preschool teachers. Investments in early childhood programs are one of
the most important investments we can make. As Nobel Memorial Prize winner in
economics James Heckman (2011) writes,
The logic is quite clear from an economic standpoint. We can invest early to close
disparities and prevent achievement gaps, or we can pay to remediate disparities
when they are harder and more expensive to close. Either way, we are going to
pay. And, we’ll have to do both for a while. But, there is an important difference
between the two approaches. Investing early allows us to shape the future;
investing later chains us to fixing the missed opportunities of the past (p. 47).
Investing now in early childhood programs by improving upon the training and ongoing
professional development opportunities preschool teachers receive will pay off in the
future. Given sufficient and appropriate learning opportunities, teachers will have a better
sense of what is important to teach and the best methods for teaching those skills related
to oral language development in the preschool classroom.
131
References
Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.),
Literacy
for all issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73-99). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories:
The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts.
Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235-251.
Beron, K. J., & Farkas, G. (2004). Oral language and reading success: A structural
equation modeling approach.
Structural Equation Modeling, 11(1), 110-131.
Bursuck, W. D., Smith, T., Munk, D., Damer, M., Mehlig, L., & Perry, J. (2004).
Evaluating the impact of a prevention-based model of reading on children who are
at risk.
Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 303-313.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42.
Caspe, M. (2009). Low-income Latino mothers’ booksharing styles and children’s
emergent literacy development.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3), 306-
324.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor
comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading.
Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, B. (1999). Language basis of reading
132
and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation.
Scientific
Studies of Reading, 3(4), 331-361.
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (2003).
Put reading first: The
research building blocks for teaching children to read kindergarten through
grade 3 (2
nd
ed.). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy at ED Pubs.
Chall, J. S. (1996).
Learning to read: The great debate: An inquiry into the science, art,
and ideology of old and new methods of teaching children to read (3
rd
ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S. (1996).
Stages of reading development (2
nd
ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace.
Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year
teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction.
Teacher Education
and Special Education, 32(3), 270-289.
Chun, K. T. (1975).
Measures for psychological assessment: A guide to 3,000 original
sources and their applications. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Colorado Department of Education (2011).
Working together: Colorado preschool
program legislative report. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cpp/
Corrigan, R. (2011). Effects of pre-service teachers’ receptive vocabulary knowledge on
their interactive read-alouds with elementary school students.
Reading and
Writing, 24(7), 749-771.
Courtland, M. C., & Leslie, L. (2010). Beliefs and practices of three literacy instructors in
elementary teacher education.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(1),
133
19-30.
Creswell, J. (2003).
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. London, England: Sage Publications.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later.
Developmental Psychology,
33(6), 934-945.
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., & Callahan, M. D. (2009). Starting small: Building
preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development,
Reading &
Writing, 22, 487-510.
Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects
of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension
performance.
Annals of Dyslexia, 59(34/54), 34-54.
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension:
Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other
cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured.
Scientific Studies
of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.
Dail, A. R., & McGee, L. M. (2011). Expanding preschoolers’ vocabulary.
The Free
Library. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expanding preschoolers'
vocabulary: the role of professional...-a0250133770
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-46.
DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading
134
instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 351-367.
Dickinson, D. K., & McCabe, A. (2001). Bringing it all together: The multiple origins,
skills, and environmental supports of early literacy.
Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 16(4), 186-202.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of opportunity we must
open to all: The case for preschool with high-quality support for language and
literacy. In Dickinson, D. K. & Neuman (2
nd
ed.).
Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 11-28). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long term effects of preschool teachers’ book
readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension.
Reading
Research Quarterly, 29(2), 105-122.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001).
Young children learning at home and school:
Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co.
Ehri, L. (1999). Phases of development in learning to read words. In J. Oakhill & R.
Beard.
Reading development and the teaching of reading: A psychological
perpective (pp. 79-108). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Ehri. L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues.
Scientific
Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188.
Ehri, L. C., & Williams, J. P. (1996). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F.
B. Murray.
The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the
preparation of teachers (pp. 231-234). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
135
Emmerson, G. J., & Neely, M. A. (1998). Two adaptable, valid, and reliable data
collection measures: Goal attainment scaling and the semantic differential.
The
Counseling Psychologist, 16, 261-271.
Evans, G. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty.
American Psychologist, 59(2),
77-92.
Ezell, H. K., Justice, L. M., & Parsons, D. (2000). Enhancing the emergent literacy skills
of pre-schoolers with communication disorders: A pilot investigation.
Child
Language Teaching & Therapy, 16(2), 121-140.
Field, A. (2009).
Discovering statistics using spss (3
rd
edition). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Fink, A. (2006).
How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998).
The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing failure in at-risk children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997).
The case for early reading intervention. In B. Blachman (Ed.).,
Foundations of
reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243-
264). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Foster, M. A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F., & Franze, S. (2005). A model
of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to children’s
emergent literacy and social outcomes.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20,
136
13-36.
Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability.
Remedial
and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on
children’s intellectual development.
Demography, 37(4), 431-447.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995).
Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Hawken, L. S., Johnston, S. S., & McDonnell, A. P. (2005). Emerging literacy views and
practices: Results from a national survey of Head Start preschool teachers.
Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(4), 232-243.
Heckman, J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood
education.
American Educator, 31-35.
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T. (2008). The importance of early vocabulary for literacy
achievement in high-poverty schools.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 13, 426-451.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects
early vocabulary development via maternal speech.
Child Development, 74(5),
1368-1378.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004).
Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Johnson, D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003).
Teachers’ sense of efficacy for literacy
instruction scale: The development of a new instrument. Paper presented at the
137
National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Johnson, O. (1971).
Tests and measurements in child development: A handbook. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Kainz, K., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2007). The ecology of early reading development for
children in poverty.
The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 407-427.
Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading
comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral
language and decoding skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765-
778.
Kirkland, L. D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing oral language in primary classrooms.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 391-395.
Lane, H. B. et al. (2009). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of
students’ fluency growth in reading first schools.
Reading and Writing Quarterly,
25, 57-86.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent
literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-
variable longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 596-613.
Lynch, J. (2010). Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about students’ knowledge of print
literacy and parental involvement in children’s print literacy development.
Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 157-171.
138
Lynch, J. (2009). Preschool teachers’ beliefs about children’s print literacy development.
Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 29(2), 191-
203.
McCutchen, D., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge,
teacher practice, and student learning.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69-
86.
McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for
teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five.
Reading and Writing, 22, 401-423.
McGill-Franzen, A. (2010). The national early literacy panel report: Summary,
commentary, and reflections on policies and practices to improve children’s early
literacy.
Educational Researcher, 39(4), 275-278.
McGill-Franzen, A., Lanford, C., & Adams, E. (2002). Learning to be literate: A
comparison of five urban early childhood programs.
Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(3), 443-464.
Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and
inservice teachers about early literacy instruction.
Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34(5), 472-482.
Mahar, N. E., & Richdale, A. L. (2008). Primary teachers’ linguistic knowledge and
perceptions of early literacy instruction.
Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 13(1), 17-37.
Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson,
139
C., & Grek, M. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer-assisted
instruction to struggling first-grade readers.
The Elementary School Journal,
103(5), 460-479.
Mehta, P. D., Foorman, B. R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a
unidimensional multilevel construct: Validation, sources of influence, and
implications in a longitudinal study in grades 1 to 4.
Scientific Studies of Reading,
9(2), 85-116.
Merlo, L. J., Bowman, M., & Barnett, D. (2007). Parental nurturance promotes reading
acquisition in low socioeconomic status children.
Early Education and
Development, 18(1), 51-69.
Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition
as a function of vocabulary development.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
3-19.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling.
Reading and
Writing, 22, 379-399.
Moats, L. C. (2009).
Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling, modules
1-12. Boston, MA: Sopris West Educational Services.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of
language and reading.
Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45.
Moats, L., Carreker, S., Davis, R., Meisel, P., Spear-Swerling, L. & Wilson, B. (2010).
Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Retrieved from
International Dyslexia Association website:
140
http://www.interdys.org/standards.htm
Moats, L. C., & Hennessy, N. (2010).
Language essentials for teachers of reading and
spelling, modules 1-12. Boston, MA: Sopris West Educational Services.
Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes
of inservice and prospective teachers: Results of a questionnaire survey.
Journal
of Teacher Education, 59(4)
, 313-321.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2010).
The condition of education 2010.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from website:
http://nces.ed.gov/
National Center for Family Literacy (2008).
Developing early literacy: Report of the
National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Retrieved from website:
http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html
National Institute for Literacy (2010).
Learning to talk and listen: An oral language
resource for early childhood caregivers. Washington, DC: RMC Research
Corporation. Retrieved from website:
http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/publications.html
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
141
Neuman, S. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. In Dickinson,
D. K. & Neuman, S. B. (2
nd
ed.).
Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 29-40).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Neuman, S.B. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the National Early
Literacy Panel report.
Educational Researcher, 39(4), 301-304.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of
oral language in the transition to reading.
Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 428-
442.
O’Conner, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005). Layers of reading
intervention in kindergarten through third grade.
Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38(5), 440-455.
Oles, H. J., & Bolvin, J. O. (1972). The reliability and usability of a semantic differential
attitude scale with third through fifth grade students. Paper presented at the
convention of National Council of Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
Paulson, L. H., & Moats, L. C. (2010).
LETRS for early childhood educators. Boston,
MA: Cambium Learning.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’
knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224-248.
Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional development
in scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading
outcomes.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 403-417.
142
Pressley, M., Warton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C., Morrow, L., Tracey,
D., . . . Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction.
Scientific Studies of Reading,
5(1), 35-58.
Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print
awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children.
Intervention in School
and Clinic, 39(2), 87-98.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn
new vocabulary words.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, (1), 54-64.
Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the
connection between oral language and early reading.
The Journal of Educational
Research, 95(5), 259-272.
Routman, R. (1996).
Literacy at the crossroads: Critical talk about reading, writing, and
other teaching dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading
(dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickenson,
Handbook of early literacy (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford Press.
Scarborough, H. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading:
Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H.W. Catts & A.G.
Kamhi,
The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3-24).
Mahwah, NJ: L.Erlbaum Associates.
Serry, T., Rose, M., & Liamputtong, P. (2008). Oral language predictors for the at-risk
reader: A review.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(6),
143
392-403.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C.,
& Torgesen, J. (2010).
Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten
through 3
rd
grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
Shanahan, T., & Lonigan, C. J. (2010). The National Early Literacy Panel: A summary of
the process and the report.
Educational Researcher, 39(4), 279-285.
Shaw, D. M., Dvorak, M. J., & Bates, K. (2007). Promise and possibility - hope for
teacher education: Pre-service literacy instruction can have an impact.
Reading
Research & Instruction, 46(3), 223-254.
Smith, F. (1979).
Reading without nonsense. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sousa, D. A. (2005).
How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to
reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model.
Developmental
Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.
Straub, S. (1999). Books for babies: An overlooked resource for working with new
families.
Infants and Young Children, 11(3), 79-88.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationship between
word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children.
Scientific
Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
144
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B., & Straus, M. (2001).
Handbook of family measurement
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of
reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading
development.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3-32.
Walpole, S., Justice, L. M., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2004). Closing the gap between research
and practice: Case study of school-wide literacy reform.
Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 20, 261-283.
Weaver, C. (1994).
Understanding whole language: From principles to practice (2
nd
ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., Bennett, K. K. (2005). Ecological influences of the home and
the child-care center on preschool-age children’s literacy development.
Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(2), 204-233.
Wilkins, J. L. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11,
139-164.
145
Appendix A: Teachers’ Knowledge of Oral Language Development (TKOLD)
Instructions: This instrument is designed to assess your current knowledge of strategies
for supporting oral language development in the preschool classroom. Please carefully
read the directions for each section and mark the answers you feel are most appropriate.
1. During book reading activities, the most effective types of questions for
building oral language skills include (Caspe, 2009; Dickinson & Tabors,
2001, pp. 36, 194-199; Ezell, Justice, & Parsons, 2000; Kirkland &
Patterson, 2005; Pullen & Justice, 2003):
a. questions that can be answered directly from the story, including
who
and
what questions
b. questions that challenge children to think, including
why, how, and
when questions
c. factual questions asked before, during, and after reading the story
d. questions that are closely tied to the illustrations and/or words in the
text
2. In order to support children’s language growth, book reading activities
should include (Caspe, 2009; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 199):
a. discussions about the words, pictures, and events in the story
b. opportunities for children to join in with the reading of the text
c. analytical conversations and talk about vocabulary
d. discussions about topics that are familiar to the children
3. When selecting books for read aloud activities that will support oral
language development, choose books that (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p.
185; Kirkland & Patterson, 2005):
a. have words that will be easily understood by all students
b. have high quality illustrations that relate directly to the text
c. are predictable in nature and can be read along with the teacher
d. include real-life experiences, communicate information, and/or contain
varied vocabulary
4. During book reading activities, teachers should deal with new and
unfamiliar vocabulary by (Christ & Wang, 2010; National Institute for
Literacy, 2010):
Section I: Knowledge of Engaging in Dialogic Reading
146
a. stopping and asking children what they think the word means
b. continuing to read and telling students the definition of the word later
c. embedding definitions during the reading of the text
d. referring to pictures that give clues to the meaning of the words
5. An effective strategy for reading books aloud is often referred to as
dialogic reading. This strategy includes (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;
National Center for Family Literacy, 2008; McGill-Franzen et al., 2002;
Paulson & Moats, 2010; Pullen & Justice, 2003):
a. the adult reading the text aloud and doing the majority of the talking
about the text as it is read
b. a shared reading approach in which the adult engages the child in
storytelling by discussing the text and asking questions about the text,
and the child takes on a more active role, becoming the teller of the
story
c. the adult reading the story aloud, asking questions throughout, and
summarizing the book after it is read
d. the adult and child previewing the text, discussing key vocabulary,
reading the text aloud, and engaging in conversations about the text as
directed by the child
6. In order to support children’s oral language development when reading
books aloud, the type of talk teachers and children should engage in
includes (Dail & McGee, 2011; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001):
a. nonimmediate talk and decontextualized language or talk that connects
story events to personal experience
b. immediate talk or talk about the events and characters in the story
c. discussions about the illustrations and words in the story
d. all of the above
7. Shared reading has a significant effect on children’s (National Center for
Family Literacy, 2008, p. 155 & 162; Pullen & Justice, 2003):
a. alphabet knowledge
b. phonemic awareness and reading readiness
c. oral language and print knowledge
d. cognitive ability
8. An example of a scaffolding technique during a read-aloud activity is
(Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 44):
a. pausing while reading to have children fill in words they know
147
b. asking direct questions while reading the book
c. creating stories about pictures or providing a storyline using only the
pictures while reading
d. all of the above
9. A teacher is selecting a book for the read-aloud portion of the day in order
to support children’s receptive vocabulary development. He/she should
(National Institute for Literacy, 2010; Pullen & Justice, 2003):
a. select a book that the children have never heard before
b. re-read the book introduced on the previous day
c. choose a book with familiar words and concepts
d. pick a book with more text and few illustrations
Directions: Regarding the questions asked in section I (questions 1-9) above, please
answer the following: (Cunningham, Zibulsky, & Callahan, 2009; Emmerson & Neeley,
1998; Oles & Bolvin, 1972).
10. How well do you think you did on questions 1-9?
Poorly 0-------1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6 Very well
11. Of all the preschool teachers completing questions 1-9, how well do you
think you did compared to the other teachers?
Well below average 0------1------2------3------4------5------6 Well above average
12. During mealtimes, teachers can support students’ oral language
development by (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 215-221):
a. engaging children in conversations about events happening in the
present (present talk)
b. remaining stationary and engaging children in extended discussions
about decontextualized events or activities (nonpresent talk)
c. moving around the classroom engaging many children in short
conversations
d. having discussions that are supported by things in the classroom
environment
Section II: Knowledge of Promoting Extended Discourse
148
13. When engaging in conversations with children, teachers should use
language that includes (Christ & Wang, 2010):
a. familiar words and phrases that students can understand
b. decriptions of events happening in the present
c. simple sentences that are easily understood by all students
d. targeted vocabulary that may not be familiar to students
14. In order to support children’s oral language development during free play,
teachers should (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 234-254):
a. spend time engaged in very short conversations with many children
b. move around the room frequently
c. engage children in extended conversations that are intellectually
challenging
d. ensure that there are ample amounts of time for free play throughout
the day
15. Throughout the day, teachers can model how our language works by
(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; National Institute for Literacy, 2010; Paulson
& Moats, 2010; Pullen & Justice, 2003):
a. engaging in parallel talk or the type of talk that narrates or describes
what the child is doing at that moment
b. doing the majority of the talking when engaging in conversations with
students
c. using concrete and specific words
d. speaking in simple sentences that are easily understood
16. Children’s oral language development is supported by conversations that
(Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 103):
a. include vocabulary that students are familiar with
b. include informative uses of rare words
c. are primarily focused on events occurring in the here and now
d. rely on the adult to guide the discussion
17. Of three types of talk (pretend, non-toy, and non-pretend) that may
accompany free play in preschools, which type is most supportive of
language and literacy skills that are important for children a year later in
kindergarten? (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 60-71)
a. pretend talk – talk with pretend elements and a nonliteral approach to
features in the immediate environment
149
b. non-toy talk – talk about events or concerns that are unrelated to the
immediate play setting
c. non-pretend talk – talk that maintains a literal approach to actions and
toys
d. all of the above
18. During a conversation, a child points to a toy and says, “A car.” The
facilitative way to respond in order to stimulate oral language
development is (National Institute for Literacy, 2010; Paulson & Moats,
2010):
a. “Yes, a car.”
b. “Yes, you are playing with a big, blue car.”
c. “This is a car.”
d. “You are playing with a car.”
19. In order for children to develop language, adults must intentionally engage
children in conversations using language stimulation techniques.
Examples of language stimulation techniques often used in preschool
classrooms include (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 41):
a. parallel talk, self-talk, and expansion
b. interaction and language modeling
c. waiting and extending
d. pausing, confirming, and imitating
20. An example of an interaction response in which the teacher is using the
“labeling” technique to support language development is (Paulson &
Moats, 2010):
a. A child says, “I drew a circle,” and the teacher responds, “Yes, you
drew a circle.”
b. A child says, “I drew a circle,” and the teacher responds, “You drew a
small, yellow circle.”
c. A child chooses a crayon and the teacher says, “You are drawing a
circle. What are you drawing?”
d. A child draws a circle with a crayon and the teacher says, “You are
drawing a circle.”
Directions: Regarding the questions asked in section II (questions 10-18) above, please
answer the following: (Cunningham, Zibulsky, & Callahan, 2009; Emmerson & Neeley,
1998; Oles & Bolvin, 1972).
21. How well do you think you did on questions 10-18?
150
Poorly 0-------1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6 Very well
22. Of all the preschool teachers completing questions 10-18, how well do you
think you did compared to the other teachers?
Well below average 0------1------2------3------4------5------6 Well above average
23. Teachers can encourage the continued development of new vocabulary
during free play by (Christ & Wang, 2010):
a. setting up play areas that extend upon a classroom theme and related
vocabulary
b. setting up media centers (DVDs, electronic books, computers) that
engage children in interactions with the new vocabulary
c. providing props related to the theme that may elicit theme-related
vocabulary use
d. all of the above
24. Large group time provides an opportunity for teachers to extend upon
children’s language development through the use of (Dickinson & Tabors,
2001, p. 248):
a. rare words
b. common words
c. non-pretend talk
d. all of the above
25. An effective strategy for teaching new words is to (Christ & Wang, 2010;
Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 105-110; National Institute for Literacy,
2010):
a. provide a single definition and example in order to avoid complicating
the explanation
b. ask the children to explain what they think the word means
c. use demonstrations and/or pictures, provide multiple definitions and
examples, and connect new words to concepts children already know
d. ask children to use the word in a sentence
Section III: Knowledge of Using Specific Vocabulary
151
26. The predominant way that children acquire vocabulary is by (Christ &
Wang, 2010; Hart & Risley, 1995):
a. having words explicitly taught to them
b. hearing new words used in their environment, including in
conversations, television, and storybooks read aloud to them
c. asking adults to explain what words mean
d. reading books themselves, including a wide variety of themes
27. It is important to build children’s _________while working to increase
children’s vocabulary because the two skills are related (Paulson & Moats,
2010, p. 28).
a. alphabet knowledge
b. concepts of print
c. phonological awareness
d. all of the above
28. One very important aspect of vocabulary development is __________
because the ability to say a word is dependent on the ability to hear the
word in your mind (Paulson & Moats, 2010, p. 28).
a. phonological representation
b. expressive language
c. receptive language
d. decontextualized language
29. During mealtime conversations, teachers can extend upon vocabulary that has
been previously taught during the day by (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, p. 220):
a. asking open ended questions to elicit thoughtful and elaborate uses of words
b. discussing events that have taken place in the classroom during the day
c. talking about the book that was read earlier in the day
d. all of the above
30. A teacher is reading aloud a story and comes across a word for which she knows
the children have not been exposed. What is the best way to approach the word in
order to begin the process of intentionally adding it to the children’s vocabulary?
(Christ & Wang, 2010; National Institute for Literacy, 2010).
a. replace the word with another word while reading
b. continue reading and explain the meaning of the word if children ask
c. embed the definition of the word into the reading of the text
d. ask children what they think the word means
152
31. Direct and explicit vocabulary instruction includes (National Institute for
Literacy, 2010):
a. providing students with a student friendly definition, examples, and non-
examples
b. directing students to a visual in order to determine the word’s meaning
c. using the word in a sentence before asking children to think about the word’s
definition
d. asking children to determine the word’s meaning through context in the story
Directions: Regarding the questions asked in section III (questions 19-27) above, please
answer the following: (Cunningham, Zibulsky, & Callahan, 2009; Emmerson & Neeley,
1998; Oles & Bolvin, 1972).
32. How well do you think you did on questions 19-27?
Poorly 0-------1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6 Very well
33. Of all the preschool teachers completing questions 19-27, how well do you
think you did compared to the other teachers?
Well below average 0------1------2------3------4------5------6 Well above average
34. What is your total number of years experience teaching preschool,
including the current year?
____0-2 years
____3-6 years
____7-10 years
____11-20 years
____More than 20 years
35. In the last two years, how many hours of professional development in early
literacy have you received? (1 semester hour equals 15 clock hours)
____0-90 clock hours
____91-180 clock hours
____181-270 clock hours
____more than 270 clock hours
Section IV: Demographics
153
Appendix B: Consent Form
You are invited to take part in a research study to develop an instrument to measure
preschool teachers’ knowledge of strategies for oral language development. You were
chosen for the study because you are a preschool teacher during the 2011–2012 school
year in a Colorado Preschool Program. This form is part of a process called “informed
consent” to allow you to understand this study before deciding whether to take part.
This study is being conducted by a researcher named Dian Prestwich, who is a doctoral
student at Walden University. The researcher has over 15 years of experience in K-12
education at both the school and state level, although her most passionate years of
experience were in early childhood classrooms.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to develop an instrument that may be used to measure
preschool teachers’ perceived level of knowledge and actual knowledge of strategies that
support oral language development in the preschool classroom, including engaging in
dialogic reading, promoting extended discourse, and using specific vocabulary and rare
words.
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to use an internet program (Survey
Monkey) to:
• Answer 27 questions to measure knowledge of strategies for oral language
development.
• Answer 6 questions to measure your perceptions of your knowledge related to
each set of questions.
• Answer 2 questions related to demographic information about you.
Completing the questions will take about 20-30 minutes of your time.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. This means that everyone will respect your
decision of whether or not you want to be in the study. No one at Colorado Preschool
Program centers will treat you differently if you decide not to be in the study. If you
agree to participate and at any time change your mind, you may discontinue participation
without penalty. By completing the online instrument, it is implied that you have given
your consent and agreed to participate in the study.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:
154
The study is not experimental in nature, and there are no known risks to participants.
Potential benefits include the opportunity for you to examine your own knowledge and
perceptions about your knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the
preschool classroom. Additionally, the results of the study may provide information for
future professional development for preschool teachers and suggestions for changes to
preservice and inservice teacher preparation programs.
Compensation:
There is no compensation for participating in the study.
Confidentiality:
Any information you provide will be kept anonymous. No identifying information is
required of you during completion of the online instrument. The researcher will not use
your information for any purposes outside of this research project.
Walden University’s approval number for this study is 10-13-11-0014488 and it expires
on October 12, 2012.
You may keep this copy of the consent form for your records.
155
Appendix C: Emails to Participants
Dear Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) Teacher,
Coming soon to your email inbox is an invitation to participate in an online survey
regarding preschool teachers’ perceived level of knowledge and actual knowledge of
strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. Once you receive the
email invitation, I hope that you will take 20-30 minutes to complete the survey. This
survey is part of my doctoral research at Walden University. Your participation will
provide valuable information to support preservice and inservice training for preschool
teachers.
Thank you in advance.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dian Prestwich
Doctoral Candidate
Walden University
156
Dear Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) Teacher,
I am writing to invite you to participate in an important study regarding the development
of an instrument to measure preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. You
have been invited to participate because you are a CPP teacher in the 2011-2012 school
year in the state of Colorado. This study is a part of my doctoral research at Walden
University. Your participation will provide valuable information to support preservice
and inservice training for preschool teachers.
Participation involves completion of an online survey. The survey can be accessed by
clicking the following link or by copying and pasting the URL into your browser.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CG7NBV3
Your participation is voluntary. If at any time, you choose not to participate, there will be
no penalty; simply exit the online survey and your survey will be deleted. There are no
foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with participating.
Submission of the survey accessed through the above link will be considered your
consent to participate. Your responses will be anonymous.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this request. I appreciate your time and your
willingness to help me explore preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge of strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom.
Sincerely,
Dian Prestwich
Doctoral Candidate
Walden University
157
Dear Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) Teacher,
On Thursday, October 20
th
, you received an email inviting you to participate in an online
survey regarding preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge and actual knowledge of
strategies for developing oral language in the preschool classroom. Your participation
will provide valuable information to support preservice and inservice training for
preschool teachers.
I hope you’ll take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete the survey.
The survey can be accessed through the following link or by copying the URL into your
browser.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CG7NBV3
Your participation is voluntary. If at any time, you choose not to participate, there will be
no penalty; simply exit the online survey and your survey will be deleted. There are no
foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with participating.
Submission of the survey accessed through the above link will be considered your
consent to participate. Your responses will be anonymous.
I appreciate and value your time. Thank you for completing the survey.
Sincerely,
Dian Prestwich
Doctoral Candidate
Walden University
158
Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) Teachers,
You’re invited!
Please remember to participate in the online survey for CPP teachers in Colorado. Your
participation will provide valuable information to support preservice and inservice
training for preschool teachers. The survey can be accessed through the following link, or
you can copy and paste the URL into your browser.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CG7NBV3
Your participation is voluntary. If at any time, you choose not to participate, there will be
no penalty; simply exit the online survey and your survey will be deleted. There are no
foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with participating.
Submission of the survey accessed through the above link will be considered your
consent to participate. Your responses will be anonymous.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dian Prestwich
Doctoral Candidate
Walden University
159
Dear Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) Teachers,
Thank you to all of you who have completed the online survey titled
Teachers’
Knowledge of Oral Language Development. Your input is vital to the success of this
study and will provide valuable information to support preservice and inservice
training for preschool teachers. If you have not already completed the survey, I would
like to encourage you to do so. This is the last opportunity to complete the survey, as
data collection will be ending on Sunday, December 18, 2011.
The survey is available online at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CG7NBV3
Your participation is voluntary. If at any time, you choose not to participate, there will be
no penalty; simply exit the online survey and your survey will be deleted. There are no
foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with participating.
Submission of the survey accessed through the above link will be considered your
consent to participate. Your responses will be anonymous.
Thank you for responding to this request. I really appreciate and value your time.
Sincerely,
Dian Prestwich
Doctoral Candidate
Walden University
160
Appendix D: Responses for Engaging in Dialogic Reading by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
1. During book reading activities, the
most effective types of questions for
building oral language skills include:
a. questions that can be answered
directly from the story, including
who
and
what questions
b. questions that challenge children
to think, including why, how, and
when questions
c. factual questions asked before,
during, and after reading the story
d. questions that are closely tied to the
illustrations and/or words in the text
12 (70.6)
40 (39.6)
9 (52.9)
16 (50)
2 (11.8)
29 (28.7)
1 (5.9)
8 (25)
3 (17.6)
32 (31.7)
7 (41.2)
8 (25)
2. In order to support children’s
language growth,
book reading activities should include:
a. discussions about the words,
pictures, and events in the story
b. opportunities for children to join in
with the reading of the text
c. analytical conversations and talk
about vocabulary
d. discussions about topics that are
familiar to the children
52 (44.1)
11 (47.8)
5 (71.4)
9 (47.4)
31 (26.3)
4 (17.4)
1 (14.3)
4 (21.1)
35 (29.7)
8 (34.8)
1 (14.3)
6 (31.6)
(table continues)
161
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
4. During book reading activities,
teachers should
deal with new and unfamiliar
vocabulary by:
a. stopping and asking children what
they think the word means
b. continuing to read and telling
students the definition of the word
later
c. embedding definitions during the
reading of the text
d. referring to pictures that give clues
to the meaning of the words
25 (44.6)
0 (0)
22 (40.7)
30 (52.6)
14 (25)
0 (0)
16 (29.6)
10 (17.5)
17 (30.4)
0 (0)
16 (29.6)
17 (29.8)
6. In order to support children’s oral
language
development when reading books
aloud, the type of talk teachers and
children should engage in includes:
a. nonimmediate talk and
decontextualized language or talk
that connects story events to
personal experience
b. immediate talk or talk about the
events and characters in the story
c. discussions about the illustrations
and words in the story
d. all of the above
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (64.7)
66 (44.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
40 (26.8)
1 (100)
0 (0)
6 (35.3)
43 (28.9)
(table continues)
162
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
7. Shared reading has a significant
effect on children’s:
a. alphabet knowledge
b. phonemic awareness and reading
readiness
c. oral language and print
knowledge
d. cognitive ability
0 (0)
11 (34.4)
59 (49.6)
7 (43.8)
0 (0)
10 (31.3)
25 (21)
5 (31.3)
0 (0)
11 (34.4)
35 (29.4)
4 (25)
8. An example of a scaffolding
technique during a read-aloud activity
is:
a. pausing while reading to have
children fill in words they know
b. asking direct questions while
reading the book
c. creating stories about pictures or
providing a storyline using only the
pictures while reading
d. all of the above
7 (50)
2 (66.7)
8 (50)
60 (44.8)
3 (21.4)
0 (0)
5 (31.3)
32 (23.9)
4 (28.6)
1 (33.3)
3 (18.8)
42 (31.3)
163
Appendix E: Responses for Engaging in Dialogic Reading by Hours of Professional
Development
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
1. During book reading activities, the
most effective types of questions for
building oral language skills include:
a. questions that can be answered
directly from the story, including
who
and
what questions
b. questions that challenge children
to think, including why, how, and
when questions
c. factual questions asked before,
during, and after reading the story
d. questions that are closely tied to the
illustrations and/or words in the text
16 (80.8)
95 (77.9)
14 (82.4)
31 (83.8)
4 (20)
27 (22.1)
3 (17.6)
6 (16.2)
2. In order to support children’s
language growth,
book reading activities should include:
a. discussions about the words,
pictures, and events in the story
b. opportunities for children to join in
with the reading of the text
c. analytical conversations and talk
about vocabulary
d. discussions about topics that are
familiar to the children
112 (80.6)
23 (82.1)
3 (37.5)
18 (85.7)
27 (19.4)
5 (17.9)
5 (62.5)
3 (14.3)
(table continues)
164
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
4. During book reading activities,
teachers should
deal with new and unfamiliar
vocabulary by:
a. stopping and asking children what
they think the word means
b. continuing to read and telling
students the definition of the word
later
c. embedding definitions during the
reading of the text
d. referring to pictures that give clues
to the meaning of the words
54 (84.4)
1 (50)
51 (73.9)
50 (82)
10 (15.6)
1 (50)
18 (26.1)
11 (18)
6. In order to support children’s oral
language
development when reading books
aloud, the type of talk teachers and
children should engage in includes:
a. nonimmediate talk and
decontextualized language or talk
that connects story events to
personal experience
b. immediate talk or talk about the
events and characters in the story
c. discussions about the illustrations
and words in the story
d. all of the above
1 (100)
0 (0)
16 (84.2)
139 (79)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (15.8)
37 (21)
(table continues)
165
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
7. Shared reading has a significant
effect on children’s:
a. alphabet knowledge
b. phonemic awareness and reading
readiness
c. oral language and print
knowledge
d. cognitive ability
0 (0)
29 (76.3)
112 (80)
15 (83.3)
0 (0)
9 (23.7)
28 (20)
3 (16.7)
8. An example of a scaffolding
technique during a read-aloud activity
is:
a. pausing while reading to have
children fill in words they know
b. asking direct questions while
reading the book
c. creating stories about pictures or
providing a storyline using only the
pictures while reading
d. all of the above
13 (81.3)
4 (100)
14 (73.7)
125 (79.6)
3 (18.8)
0 (0)
5 (26.3)
32 (20.4)
166
Appendix F: Responses for Promoting Extended Discourse by Number of Years
Experience Teaching Preschool
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
10. During mealtimes, teachers can
support students’ oral language
development by:
a. engaging children in conversations
about events happening in the present
(present talk)
b. remaining stationary and
engaging children in extended
discussions about decontextualized
events or activities (nonpresent talk)
c. moving around the classroom
engaging many children in short
conversations
d. having discussions that are
supporting by things in the classroom
environment
49 (40.2)
9 (23.7)
12 (57.1)
7 (43.8)
23 (18.9)
13 (34.2)
2 (9.5)
2 (12.5)
50 (41)
16 (42.1)
7 (33.3)
7 (43.8)
12. In order to support oral language
development during free play, teachers
should:
a. spend time engaged in very short
conversations with many children
b. move around the room frequently
c. engage children in extended
conversations that are intellectually
challenging
d. ensure that there are ample amounts
of time for free play throughout the
day
18 (45)
8 (50)
32 (37.6)
19 (33.9)
6 (15)
3 (18.8)
18 (21.2)
13 (23.2)
16 (40)
5 (31.3)
35 (41.2)
24 (42.9)
(table continues)
167
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
13. Throughout the day, teachers can
model how our language works by:
a. engaging in parallel talk or the
type of talk that narrates or
describes what the child is doing at
that moment
b. doing the majority of the talking
when engaging in conversations with
students
c. using concrete and specific words
d. speaking in simple sentences that
are easily understood
66 (39.5)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
7 (33.3)
35 (21)
0 (0)
1 (11.1)
4 (19)
66 (39.5)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
10 (47.6)
14. Children’s oral language
development is supported by
conversations that:
a. include vocabulary that students are
familiar with
b. include informative uses of rare
words
c. are primarily focused on events
occurring in the here and now
d. rely on the adult to guide the
discussion
32 (44.4)
13 (31)
32 (39.5)
0 (0)
11 (15.3)
12 (28.6)
17 (21.0)
0 (0)
29 (40.3)
17 (40.5)
32 (39.5)
2 (100)
(table continues)
168
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
15. Of the three types of talk
(pretend, non-toy, and non-pretend),
which type is most supportive of
language and literacy skills that are
important for children a year later in
kindergarten?
a. pretend talk – talk with pretend
elements and a nonliteral approach
to feature in the immediate
environment
b. non-toy talk – talk about events or
concerns that are unrelated to the
immediate play setting
c. non-pretend talk – talk that
maintains a literal approach to actions
and toys
d. all of the above
19 (54.3)
2 (33.3)
0 (0)
56 (36.8)
5 (14.3)
1 (16.7)
1 (25)
33 (21.7)
11 (31.4)
3 (50)
3 (75)
63 (41.4)
16. During a conversation, a child
points to a toy and says, “A car.” The
facilitative way to respond in order to
stimulate oral language development
is:
a. “Yes, a car.”
b. “Yes, you are playing with a big,
blue car.”
c. “This is a car.”
d. “You are playing with a car.”
4 (50)
65 (38)
3 (42.9)
5 (45.5)
0 (0)
36 (21.1)
2 (28.6)
2 (18.2)
4 (50)
70 (40.9)
2 (28.6)
4 (36.4)
169
Appendix G: Responses for Promoting Extended Discourse by Hours of Professional
Development
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
10. During mealtimes, teachers can
support students’ oral language
development by:
a. engaging children in conversations
about events happening in the present
(present talk)
b. remaining stationary and
engaging children in extended
discussions about decontextualized
events or activities (nonpresent talk)
c. moving around the classroom
engaging many children in short
conversations
d. having discussions that are
supporting by things in the classroom
environment
96 (78.7)
31 (81.6)
17 (81)
13 (81.3)
26 (21.3)
7 (18.4)
4 (19)
3 (18.8)
12. In order to support oral language
development during free play, teachers
should:
a. spend time engaged in very short
conversations with many children
b. move around the room frequently
c. engage children in extended
conversations that are intellectually
challenging
d. ensure that there are ample amounts
of time for free play throughout the
day
31 (77.5)
12 (75)
62 (72.9)
52 (92.9)
9 (22.5)
4 (25)
23 (27.1)
4 (7.1)
(table continues)
170
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
13. Throughout the day, teachers can
model how our language works by:
a. engaging in parallel talk or the
type of talk that narrates or
describes what the child is doing at
that moment
b. doing the majority of the talking
when engaging in conversations with
students
c. using concrete and specific words
d. speaking in simple sentences that
are easily understood
133 (79.6)
0 (0)
7 (77.8)
17 (81)
34 (20.4)
0 (0)
2 (22.2)
4 (19)
14. Children’s oral language
development is supported by
conversations that:
a. include vocabulary that students are
familiar with
b. include informative uses of rare
words
c. are primarily focused on events
occurring in the here and now
d. rely on the adult to guide the
discussion
55 (76.4)
35 (83.3)
66 (81.5)
1 (50)
17 (23.6)
7 (16.7)
15 (18.5)
1 (50)
(table continues)
171
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
15. Of the three types of talk (pretend,
non-toy, and non-pretend), which type
is most supportive of language and
literacy skills that are important for
children a year later in kindergarten?
a. pretend talk – talk with pretend
elements and a nonliteral approach
to feature in the immediate
environment
b. non-toy talk – talk about events or
concerns that are unrelated to the
immediate play setting
c. non-pretend talk – talk that
maintains a literal approach to actions
and toys
d. all of the above
31 (88.6)
5 (83.3)
3 (75)
118 (77.6)
4(11.4)
1 (16.7)
1 (25)
34 (22.4)
16. During a conversation, a child
points to a toy and says, “A car.” The
facilitative way to respond in order to
stimulate oral language development
is:
a. “Yes, a car.”
b. “Yes, you are playing with a big,
blue car.”
c. “This is a car.”
d. “You are playing with a car.”
7 (87.5)
135 (78.9)
5 (71.4)
10 (90.9)
1 (12.5)
36 (21.1)
2 (28.6)
1 (9.1)
172
Appendix H: Responses for Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words by Number of
Years Experience Teaching Preschool
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
19. Teachers can encourage the
continued development of vocabulary
during free play by:
a. setting up play areas that extend
upon a classroom theme and related
vocabulary
b. setting up media centers (DVDs,
electronic books, computers) that
engage children in interactions with
the new vocabulary
c. providing props related to the
theme that may elicit theme-related
vocabulary use
d. all of the above
11 (52.4)
0 (0)
1 (50)
65 (45.1)
4 (19)
0 (0)
1 (50)
35 (24.3)
6 (28.6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
44 (30.6)
20. Large group time provides an
opportunity for teachers to extend
upon children’s language
development through the use of:
a. rare words
b. common words
c. non-pretend talk
d. all of the above
2 (66.7)
8 (80)
1 (33.3)
66 (43.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (33.3)
39 (25.8)
1 (33.3)
2 (20)
1 (33.3)
46 (30.5)
(table continues)
173
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
21. An effective strategy for teaching
new words is to:
a. provide a single definition and
example in order to avoid
complicating the explanation
b. ask the children to explain what
they think the word means
c. use demonstrations and/or
pictures, provide multiple
definitions and examples, and
connect new words to concepts
children already know
d. ask children to use the word in a
sentence
8 (50)
9 (50)
60 (45.5)
0 (0)
3 (18.8)
3 (16.7)
33 (25)
1 (100)
5 (31.3)
6 (33.3)
39 (29.5)
0 (0)
22. The predominant way that
children acquire vocabulary is by:
a. having words explicitly taught to
them
b. hearing new words used in their
environment, including in
conversations, television, and
storybooks read aloud to them
c. asking adults to explain what
words mean
d. reading books themselves,
including a wide variety of themes
2 (100)
73 (44.8)
1 (100)
1 (100)
0 (0)
40 (24.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
50 (30.7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(table continues)
174
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
0-6 Years
7-10 Years
11 or More
Years
25. During mealtime conversations,
teachers can extend upon vocabulary
that has been previously taught
during the day by:
a. asking open ended questions to
elicit thoughtful and elaborate uses
of words
b. discussing events that have taken
place in the classroom during the day
c. talking about the book that was
read earlier in the day
d. all of the above
6 (42.9)
3 (60)
2 (66.7)
66 (45.5)
4 (28.6)
2 (40)
0 (0)
34 (23.4)
4 (28.6)
0 (0)
1 (33.3)
45 (31)
175
Appendix I: Responses for Using Specific Vocabulary and Rare Words by Hours of
Professional Development
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
19. Teachers can encourage the
continued development of vocabulary
during free play by:
a. setting up play areas that extend
upon a classroom theme and related
vocabulary
b. setting up media centers (DVDs,
electronic books, computers) that
engage children in interactions with
the new vocabulary
c. providing props related to the
theme that may elicit theme-related
vocabulary use
d. all of the above
20 (80)
0 (0)
2 (100)
134 (79.3)
5 (20)
0 (0)
0 (0)
35 (20.7)
20. Large group time provides an
opportunity for teachers to extend
upon children’s language
development through the use of:
a. rare words
b. common words
c. non-pretend talk
d. all of the above
5 (100)
8 (80)
4 (100)
139 (78.5)
0 (0)
2 (20)
0 (0)
38 (21.5)
(table continues)
176
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
21. An effective strategy for teaching
new words is to:
a. provide a single definition and
example in order to avoid
complicating the explanation
b. ask the children to explain what
they think the word means
c. use demonstrations and/or
pictures, provide multiple
definitions and examples, and
connect new words to concepts
children already know
d. ask children to use the word in a
sentence
14 (77.8)
16 (84.2)
125 (79.1)
1 (100)
4 (22.2)
3 (15.8)
33 (20.9)
0 (0)
22. The predominant way that
children acquire vocabulary is by:
a. having words explicitly taught to
them
b. hearing new words used in their
environment, including in
conversations, television, and
storybooks read aloud to them
c. asking adults to explain what
words mean
d. reading books themselves,
including a wide variety of themes
2 (100)
152 (79.2)
1 (100)
1 (100)
0 (0)
40 (20.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(table continues)
177
Frequency (Percent)
Questions and Answers (correct
answer is in bold print)
<=90 Hours
>90 Hours
25. During mealtime conversations,
teachers can extend upon vocabulary
that has been previously taught
during the day by:
a. asking open ended questions to
elicit thoughtful and elaborate uses
of words
b. discussing events that have taken
place in the classroom during the day
c. talking about the book that was
read earlier in the day
d. all of the above
13 (76.5)
5 (100)
3 (100)
135 (78.9)
4 (23.5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
36 (21.1)
178
Curriculum Vitae
Dian T. Prestwich, M.Ed.
Education:
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2012
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Measuring Preschool Teachers’ Perceived Competency and Knowledge of Oral
Language Development
4.0 GPA
Master of Education – Curriculum and Instruction
Oct. 2003
Literacy: Language, Reading, and Writing
Lesley University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
4.0 GPA
Bachelor of Arts – Elementary Education
May 1995
Computer Literacy Certification
Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana
3.2 GPA
Relevant Professional Experience:
Senior Consultant; Read to Achieve Grant Program
2009-Present
Colorado Department of Education, Denver, Colorado
Manage all aspects of the Colorado Read to Achieve grant program for 47 participating
schools, including reviewing and approving budgets, scheduling and coordinating
professional development, coordinating consultants’ work in buildings, conducting on-
going site visits, coordinating development of content for the Read To Achieve website,
webinars, and other forms of communication, writing the annual Read To Achieve report
to the Governor, and planning and facilitating Read To Achieve Board meetings.
Coordinate implementation of the Colorado Basic Literacy Act (CBLA) including
providing technical assistance to all elementary schools in the state of Colorado, acting as
the primary CBLA contact for the state’s elementary schools, providing resources to
schools to assess, monitor, and analyze data of K-3 students, facilitating the state level
literacy expert team through the revision of CBLA to align with Common Core State
Standards, and serving on the state’s early childhood assessment team for implementation
of Colorado’s Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K). Conduct program reviews for higher
education teacher preparation programs and lead the state department’s cross-unit
leadership team in the development of the Colorado Comprehensive Literacy Plan birth
through grade 12.
179
Literacy Coach
2004- 2009
Dupont Elementary School, Commerce City, Colorado
Collaborated with building principal to coordinate and design focused and purposeful
professional development for 25 classroom teachers, grades PreK-5, which improved
teacher effectiveness and collaboration. Assisted district’s seven elementary schools in
the implementation of research-based screening and progress monitoring assessments.
Provided classroom demonstration lessons and coached teachers in the use of
scientifically-based core reading programs and research-based instructional strategies.
Facilitated weekly grade-level and vertical team planning discussions to analyze student
work, review classroom assessment information, and plan for instruction. Facilitated the
school’s Leadership Team to plan and coordinate implementation of a Response to
Intervention model, including the selection and execution of a variety of scientifically-
based intervention programs.
Other Experience:
Classroom Teacher, Grades 2, 3, and 4
1997-2004
Dupont Elementary School, Commerce City, Colorado
Performed duties of regular education classroom teacher, including teaching all basic
subject areas, using formative and summative assessments to guide instruction, and
planning and teaching lessons to align with state standards.
Title One Reading Rescue Teacher, Grade 1
1996-1997
R. V. Kerr Elementary, Bossier City, Louisiana
Classroom Teacher, Grade 2
1995-1996
Franklin Elementary, Sterling, Colorado
Professional Presentations:
Prestwich, D., Bamberry, L., Meyers, C., & Boyer, M. (2012).
Leveraging and sustaining
the education reform agenda to improve literacy outcomes. Panel Discussion at
the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Formula Grantee Conference.
Prestwich, D. (2011).
Celebrating language. Keynote presented at the Montana
Instructional Institute.
Prestwich, D. (2011).
Phonological and phonemic awareness. Keynote presented at the
180
Montana Early Reading First Winter Institute.
Prestwich, D., & Scheffel, D. (2010).
The colorado basic literacy act. Presentation to the
House of Representatives and Senate Joint Education Committee.
Prestwich, D., Almeida, P., & Heronema, K. (2008).
Accelerating english language
acquisition:How it’s possible. Presented at the Colorado Reading Summit.
Prestwich, D. (2008).
Basic early assessment of reading. A webinar presented for the
Colorado Department of Education Literacy Grants & Initiatives Unit.
Prestwich, D. & Passmore, C. (2004).
Models of co-teaching. Presented at the University
of Denver Conference.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Member, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Member, Colorado Association for the Education of Young Children (CAEYC)
