Week 9 - Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011)

Applied Psycholinguistics 32 (2011), 221–241
doi:10.1017/S0142716410000354
The relation between teacher input

and lexical growth of preschoolers
EDMOND P. BOWERS
Tufts University
MARINA VASILYEVA
Boston College
Received: January 23, 2009 Accepted for publication: January 24, 2010
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Edmond P. Bowers, Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, 307 Lincoln–Filene
Building, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: ed.bowers@tufts.edu
ABSTRACT
The present study examined the growth of receptive lexical skills in preschoolers over an academic
year in relation to teacher speech. The participating students were English language learners and their
monolingual English-speaking peers from the same classrooms. The measures of teacher input included
indicators of the amount of speech (total number of words), lexical richness (number of different word
types), and structural complexity (number of words per utterance). These measures were based on a
speech sample collected during a classroom observation. For English language learners, vocabulary
growth was positively related to the total number of words produced by the teacher, but negatively
related to the number of words per utterance. For monolingual speakers, vocabulary growth was
positively related to the number of word types produced by the teacher. The findings underscore the
importance of considering different aspects of verbal input for understanding individual variability in
language growth of preschool students.
The present paper examines the development of receptive lexical skills in stu-
dents attending classrooms with various proportions of English language learners
(ELLs). In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of
ELLs: between 1979 and 2005, the number of children in US schools who spoke
a language other than English at home grew from 3.8 million to 10.6 million (US
Department of Education, 2007). The increase in the number of children from
diverse language backgrounds presents challenges to the educational system as
insufficient English skills prevent students from attaining higher levels of aca-
demic achievement (Amselle, 1996; August & Hakuta, 1997; Guerrero, 2004;
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Our ability to address these challenges critically
depends on the understanding of factors related to language development in ELLs.
Furthermore, a comprehensive approach to this problem requires a better under-
standing of language development in monolingual students from classrooms with
various numbers of ELL peers. Thus, in the present paper, we examined the growth
© Cambridge University Press 2010 0142-7164/10 $15.00
Applied Psycholinguistics 32:1 222
Bowers & Vasilyeva: Teacher input and lexical growth in preschoolers
of receptive vocabulary in both English monolingual and ELL students from the
same classrooms.
The focus of our study is on preschool students. There is convincing evidence
that disadvantages in oral language at preschool age have extensive and long-
lasting effects on the child’s future development. Early language skills provide
the basis for literacy, social skills, and achievement across academic subjects
(Dickinson & McCabe, 2001; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Dionne, Tremblay,
Boivin, Laplante, & Perusse, 2003; Pianta, 1999; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson,
2001). Vocabulary knowledge in particular has been shown to play a significant role
in academic achievement for both monolingual populations (Dickinson & Smith,
1994; Freebody & Anderson, 1983; Harmon, 1999; Scarborough, 2001) and ELLs
(August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Ucceli & Paez, 2007). Researchers have
pointed out that access to a rich vocabulary is critical to explicit uses of language
as well as language comprehension. A meta-analysis conducted by Scarborough
(2001) also revealed that the sizes of both receptive and expressive vocabulary
are significantly related to later reading development. Thus, it is essential to
gain a better understanding of the factors related to vocabulary development in
preschoolers.
EXAMINING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING

IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
Until recently, the discussion of educational issues related to English language
learning has focused primarily on school-aged children and on different instruc-
tional settings and language services they receive (e.g., Cummins, 1981; Cummins,
Bismilla, Cohen, Giampapa, & Leoni, 2005; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders,
& Christian, 2005; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Although this work provides
important insights into the dynamics of second-language acquisition, it is not clear
to what extent the findings can be extrapolated to preschool children. In addition to
developmental differences between preschool and school-aged children, there are
potentially significant differences in educational contexts, with many preschools
not offering special language services to children who are not native speakers of
English.
In contrast to the body of work on school-aged ELLs, there have been relatively
fewer studies on preschool ELLs. Researchers have repeatedly emphasized the
need for a more systematic examination of second-language acquisition in younger
learners (August et al., 2005; Espinosa, 2002; Tabors, 1997). As suggested by
Snow (in Tabors, 1997) and Pearson (2002), the relative paucity of research on
preschool language learners may be due to the assumption that young children
acquire second language quickly and effortlessly through daily exposure. Yet
the available evidence has raised doubts about the validity of this assumption
(Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Paez, Tabors, & Lopez, 2007; Tabors, 1997;
Wong-Fillmore, 1983).
Much of the earlier evidence on ELL preschoolers was based on case studies
involving a few children or a single classroom (e.g., Clarke, 1999; Hakuta, 1976,
Letts, 1991; Saville-Troike, 1987; Tabors, 1997). These studies have revealed
common patterns of English learning in preschoolers: children generally proceed
through a series of stages, beginning with a silent period in which they appear to
comprehend some English without being able to use language productively. The
course of language acquisition in ELLs is generally similar to that of younger
monolingual speakers (Genesee et al., 2004). Even at preschool age, children
acquiring English as a second language do not master it in a matter of months.
Their English language learning is instead a more gradual process than previously
thought, with many difficulties along the way (Tabors, 1997; Van Lier, 1999).
These findings have been confirmed by more recent large-scale investigations.
For example, a study involving a large sample of children drawn from different
classrooms showed that after spending a year in the preschool program, ELL
students performed significantly below the monolingual population norms (Paez
et al., 2007).
Although the studies of language growth in ELL preschoolers have often focused
on commonalities among children, they have also demonstrated the existence of
variability among these students. Individual differences in preschool ELLs have
been revealed even in the studies involving small samples (Tabors, 1997). The
results of larger scale investigations also contain evidence of high variability,
including large standard deviations in vocabulary scores (Paez et al., 2007). Given
this evidence, it is critical to identify factors potentially associated with individual
differences. The overview of current research has led investigators to underscore
that understanding what causes substantial variability among ELL students is one
of the key tasks faced by contemporary researchers (Genesee et al., 2004, 2005).
THE RELATION BETWEEN CAREGIVER INPUT AND ENGLISH

LANGUAGE LEARNING
In explaining variability in the rates of language acquisition, investigators have
pointed out the role of learner characteristics, such as motivation, extraversion, and
language aptitude (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Genesee et al., 2004; Ranta, 2002; Wong-
Fillmore, 1979, 1983). However, in addition to considering the role of individual
learner characteristics, it is important to understand the role of environmental
factors. At present, there is a substantial body of research on the relation between
language growth and linguistic environment in monolingual children (for a review,
see Hoff, 2006) and a relatively small, although growing, number of comparable
studies on young ELL students (e.g., Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Patterson,
2002; Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997).
Language growth in monolingual English speakers

Research conducted on monolingual children shows that vocabulary acquisition is
dependent on input, specifically, on the amount of caregiver language (Goodman,
Dale, & Li, 2008; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003; McCartney, Scarr, Philips,
& Grajec, 1985; Naigles & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1998; Smolak & Weinraub, 1983).
Hart and Risley (1995) conducted a large-scale examination of the conversations
between parents and children. The results revealed large differences in the amount
and types of input provided by parents. These differences in input were related
to differences in children’s vocabularies, with greater amounts of input associated
with larger vocabularies. Similar results were reported in longitudinal investiga-

tions where lexical growth in children was found to be related to the amount of
maternal speech (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991). In addition,
the relative frequency of maternal use of particular words was related to the order
of acquisition of those words in children. Thus, exposing young language learners
to a large amount of verbal input that includes repeated usage of words facilitates
the growth of their lexical skills.
Studies of parent–child interaction involving monolingual speakers also indi-
cate that lexical growth is related to the syntactic structure of parental speech
(Naigles & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1998; Tardif, Shatz, & Naigles, 1997). At the early
stages of language acquisition, children’s word learning appears to benefit from
hearing well-formed sentences, in which individual words are embedded in basic
grammatical relations (Furrow, Nelson, & Benedict, 1979). Researchers have used
the term “motherese” to describe the style of verbal interaction with very young
children that is characterized, among other features, by short and simple sentences
(Gleitman, Newport, & Gleitman, 1984; Hoff-Ginsberg & Shatz, 1982; Snow &
Ferguson, 1977). Processing these simple structures reduces cognitive demands
on the analysis of verbal input and thus may facilitate the identification and
comprehension of individual words.
In addition to investigating parent–child interactions, research on language ac-
quisition in English monolinguals involved examining teacher–child interactions.
This research points to the role of school input in language development. A
national study of early child care found that the amount of language directed at
a child by caregivers in a child care setting was positively related to language
development, although child care experiences accounted for a small proportion of
variance in children (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Early Child Care Network, 2000). In addition, several studies examined children’s
language skills in relation to the type of input provided by preschool teachers. Re-
sults indicated that vocabulary growth in preschoolers was related to the amount
of analytical talk provided by teachers during everyday conversations and book
reading (Dickinson & Smith, 1994; McCartney, 1984).
Language growth in ELLs

Compared to work with monolinguals, there is a relatively limited number of
studies that examined the relation between language growth in ELL students
and linguistic input they receive; this research produced somewhat mixed results.
Several studies that focused on parental input showed that the total amount of
exposure to a particular language at home is related to vocabulary growth in
that specific language (De Houwer, 1995; Pearson et al., 1997; Umbel, Pearson,
Fernandez, & Oller, 1992). In contrast, a study of Spanish/English bilingual
toddlers by Patterson (2002) showed that children’s vocabulary size in a given
language was not related to the overall exposure to that language, although it was
related to the frequency of reading. Furthermore, a study of vocabulary skills in
older (fifth-grade) Latino ELLs suggested that their proficiency in English did not
depend on the use of English at home, whereas proficiency in Spanish required
parental support (Duursma et al., 2007).
With respect to school input, a few available studies with ELLs involved children
of kindergarten age and older. In a study of second-grade students, Gutierrez-
Clellen and Kreiter (2003) did not find any significant relation between exposure
to English (vs. Spanish) at school and children’s language development. However,
it should be noted that the study had methodological limitations, as acknowledged
by the investigators themselves. The main measure of input was the percentage of
time of exposure to each of the two languages reported by teachers. The authors
point out that there is a need for a more detailed measure of language input
at school. In another study involving kindergarten students, Uchikoshi (2006)
examined whether watching educational programs predicted children’s vocabulary
growth. The results indicated that the amount of TV watching at school was
not related to children’s vocabulary. However, Uchikoshi’s work suggests that
preschool experiences might influence English vocabulary growth as children
who had been enrolled in a preschool exhibited higher English vocabulary scores
in kindergarten than those who had stayed at home.
In sum, there has been relatively little work with ELL preschoolers exploring the
relation between their vocabulary growth and the features of linguistic input they
receive, especially at school. Yet, for many young ELL children, the preschool
classroom is the primary source of English. Thus, it is important to investigate
the role of classroom variables as potential factors in lexical development of these
students. The work with monolingual children provides information potentially
relevant for this investigation, in identifying the measures of input that may be
related to language acquisition in preschoolers.
PRESENT STUDY: RELATION OF INPUT TO LEXICAL GROWTH

IN ELL AND MONOLINGUAL PRESCHOOLERS
To interpret the skill level of ELL students in relation to the language input they
receive at school, it is useful to compare their skills to those of native speakers
of English who receive similar input. It has been pointed out in the literature
that there is currently a lack of comparable data for monolinguals and second-
language learners (De Houwer, 1995). In some studies, comparisons are made to
population norms, which is somewhat problematic given the unique experiences
of language minority students. In the present research, ELL and monolingual
children were examined using the same data collection procedure. Furthermore,
the direct comparison between ELLs and monolingual speakers was facilitated
by both types of students in the present study coming from the same preschool
classrooms.
We investigated receptive lexical skills in preschool children over 1 school year,
exploring several factors potentially associated with variability in their vocabulary
growth. For both ELL and monolingual students, we examined the relation between
their language growth and the features of teachers’ input, including the overall
amount of speech, number of different word types, and number of words per
utterance. These variables have been studied in work on parent–child interactions
in monolingual populations and have been shown to affect children’s lexical skills
(e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003). Here we extend the investigation to ELL
students and to caregiver input provided in the school context.
Several researchers have noted that the aspects of input that are related to
language growth may vary depending on the stage of language learning (Barnes,
Gutfreund, Satterly, & Wells, 1983; Hoff-Ginsberg, 1985). Because young ELL
students differ from their monolingual peers in terms of English skills, it is likely
that there may be differences in the pattern of relationship between a particular
aspect of input studied and the growth of lexical skills in these two groups of par-
ticipants. For example, the overall amount of input, containing multiple repetitions
of common words, may be more important for ELLs than for monolingual students
who have already mastered basic English vocabulary, whereas the lexical diversity
of input may be more important for monolingual students who are acquiring lower
frequency words. In the present study, we explore this possibility by examining
the role of each measure of teacher input as a potential predictor of growth in both
groups of students.
METHOD
Participants
The study involved 104 students recruited from 10 preschool classrooms in the
greater Boston area and their teachers (one teacher per classroom). The teachers
were female, nine were Caucasian and one was African American, and all of
them were native speakers of English. The students were approximately equally
distributed between the two gender groups (50 girls, 54 boys). The average age
of the students at the first testing point was 56 months (SD = 4.4 months).
Children’s language status was determined based on the information reported by
each parent in the consent form. The child was classified as monolingual English
speaker if the parents and the child spoke only English at home; the child was
classified as ELL if the parents and the child primarily spoke language other than
English at home. Across the participating classrooms, the average proportion of
ELL students was 24% (SD = 21%, range = 5–50%). Thus, the present study
included classrooms where monolingual English speakers comprised a majority
or at least half of the class. The study sample included 29 ELL participants
(14 males, 15 females); 8 participants identified Japanese as a first language,
7 identified Spanish, and 7 identified Vietnamese; the remaining languages (Por-
tuguese, Cambodian, Chinese, Korean, and French) were represented by one or two
students.
The participating schools were all private, but they varied in the socioeconomic
status (SES) backgrounds of the families they served. SES was determined at
the class level as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Based on this indicator, there were three classrooms that could be characterized
as low SES, three as middle SES and four as high SES (with the percentage of
students eligible for free or reduced lunch being above 60% in the low-SES group,
about 20% in the middle-SES group, and below 6% in the high-SES group). The
ELL participants were distributed relatively evenly across different SES levels, as
indicated by the chi-square test that showed no differences in the number of ELLs
across the three SES groups, χ2 (2, N = 29) = 3.74, p > .05.
Procedure
Conducting child assessment. Each child was tested twice: in the beginning of
the academic year and then again at the end of the same academic year. At both
testing points, children’s language skills were assessed using the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT-IIIB; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). The PPVT is
a standardized receptive vocabulary test in which the child is asked to pick one of
four pictures that matches the item verbalized by the experimenter (Dunn & Dunn,
1997). Items are ordered in sets of 12 based on increasing age-normed difficulty.
At the first testing, the procedure started with the same set for all children (Set 2,
which is indicated for 4-year-olds). At the second testing, different children started
at different items, depending on the basal set determined in the first testing. The
testing was stopped when the child reached the ceiling criteria, that is, indicated
eight incorrect items out of a set of 12. Each testing session lasted about 20
min, with designated breaks for the child. The child’s score was calculated by
subtracting the total number of errors the child made from the number of the last
item in the ceiling set.
Collecting samples of teacher speech. In addition to child data, we collected

language samples from preschool teachers. In the middle of the school year, the
teacher in each classroom was audiotaped for 1.5-hr period that included both a
group instruction (circle time) and snack time. The ratio of circle time to snack
time was approximately 2:1 across teachers. Prior research has shown that these
activities are conducive to teachers engaging in conversations with the class as
a whole and provide reliable indicators of teachers’ speech patterns in preschool
classrooms (e.g., Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Hedges, 2006).
During audiotaping, the teacher wore a lapel microphone that was wirelessly
connected to a recording device. Although there was unavoidable variability in
class schedules, we aimed to obtain recording from different teachers during
comparable activities. The investigator was present to ensure that the recording
took place during the appropriate time.
Even though ideally one should obtain speech samples across several days,
we were limited by practical constraints imposed by school administration, and
carried out audio taping on a single day. In each classroom, this day was identified
by the teacher as a typical school day with no special projects or activities planned.
It should be pointed out that studies examining teachers’ and parental input have
commonly utilized the practice of collecting 45- to 90-min speech samples during
a single observation (e.g., Hoff, 2003; Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, &
Levine, 2002; Weizman & Snow, 2001). Furthermore, investigators who have
conducted multiple observations have pointed out the stability of caregiver speech
over time (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Waterfall, Vevea, & Hedges, 2007; Nelson &
Bonvillian, 1973; Smolak & Weinraub, 1983).
Coding teacher speech. Teacher’s speech was transcribed from audiotapes by

breaking the audio flow into distinct utterances based on intonation and pauses. The
transcripts were put into the Codes for Human Analysis of Transcripts transcription
system and then analyzed using the Child Language Analysis computer program
(MacWhinney, 1995). We obtained measures indicating the quantity, diversity,

and structure of teacher speech. As a measure of input quantity, we used the total
number of words (tokens) produced by the teacher during the 90-min period of
observation. The only types of words that were excluded from the token count
were animal noises (e.g., baa), letters of the alphabet (except for a and I ), and
interjections (e.g., ouch and uh-oh). As a measure of lexical diversity, we calculated
the number of different words (word types) in each transcript. In counting word
types, each unique word was included only once, no matter how many times it
was used by the speaker (in contrast, word tokens included repetitions of the same
word).
As a measure of structural complexity, we calculated the average number of
words per utterance in teacher speech. To compute this measure for each teacher,
we divided the total number of words by the total number of utterances in the
transcript. Note that some utterances may consist of single words (e.g., Great!)
or isolated phrases (e.g., Big boy), whereas others consist of sentences of various
lengths (e.g., Finish your snack or Jenny drew a beautiful picture and even wrote
her name on it). Generally, the number of words per utterance has been used as a
rough indicator of structural complexity of speech (Hoff, 2003; Parker & Brorson,
2005) because more complex structures, such as multiclause sentences, tend to
have more words than simpler structures.
RESULTS
In examining the results, we aimed to determine the extent of variability in vo-
cabulary growth over a course of 1 preschool year and explore factors potentially
associated with this variability. In preliminary analyses, we considered several
factors that have been identified in the literature as associated with vocabulary dif-
ferences among children. One obvious factor is whether the child is a monolingual
speaker of English or an ELL student (Oller & Eilers, 2002; Pearson et al., 1997).
Further, English acquisition in ELLs may be partly affected by how similar their
language is to English (e.g., Dulay & Burt, 1974; Genesee et al., 2004). Another
factor potentially associated with variability in the growth of vocabulary skills is
gender (e.g., Bauer, Goldfield, Reznick, 2002; Kramer, Delis, Kaplan, O’Donnell,
& Prifitera, 1997). Finally, we considered whether lexical growth may be related
to the presence of various numbers of ELLs in the classroom. Peers have been
shown to play a role in language development (Hoff, 2006; Oller & Eilers, 2002),
and it is possible that having more English monolingual classmates may benefit
lexical growth in preschoolers. Thus, in preliminary analyses, we examined how
children’s performance (both their starting level and the growth over the school
year) varied as a function of their language background, gender, and percentage
of ELLs.
Following the preliminary analyses, we addressed our main research questions
by examining how children’s language growth was related to the features of the
linguistic input they received from teachers in their preschool classrooms. Specifi-
cally, we examined whether the total number of words, word types, and the average
number of words per utterance in teacher speech were significant predictors of the
change in children’s PPVT scores. All analyses utilized multiple linear regression
Table 1. Descriptive statistics on students’ PPVT scores
Initial PPVT Growth in PPVT

Score Score
Average SD Average SD
ELLs 37.8 14.5 7.2 8.3

Monolinguals 63.8 16.3 7.8 9.8
Note: PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; ELLs,

English language learners.
procedures. To account for the nesting of students within classrooms, we used the
Huber–White adjustment of variance (Huber, 1967; White, 1982) in our regression
models. This correction does not affect parameter estimates, but tends to make
statistical tests more conservative by increasing the size of estimated standard
errors.
Preliminary analyses
We first examined the performance of ELL students as a function of their language
background. As indicated above, our sample of ELLs represented diverse native
languages. In the present analysis, we looked at the three most represented groups,
Spanish, Japanese, and Vietnamese speakers. A dummy code was created for each
language and entered into the regression model, which was run separately for the
starting level of vocabulary (initial PPVT score) and the growth (change between
final and initial PPVT scores). This analysis showed no differences among ELLs
in either starting scores or growth (both ps > .05). Thus, in subsequent analyses,
we combined all ELL students rather than separating them by native language.
Table 1 presents a summary of descriptive statistics for the whole sample of ELL
students as well as for monolingual participants from the same classrooms.
Next, we ran the analysis using the entire sample of 104 students (using ordinary
least-squares regression and adjusting variance estimates to account for clustering).
Separate models were constructed to predict the starting level and the growth of
PPVT scores. Two dichotomous variables, language status (monolingual vs. ELL)
and gender, were entered into the models as individual-level predictors. One
continuous variable (percentage of ELLs per class) was entered as a classroom-
level predictor. We found a significant difference between monolingual English
speakers and ELLs in the initial PPVT scores. As shown in Table 2, holding other
variables constant, the initial raw scores of monolingual students were about 25
points higher than the initial raw scores of ELLs. At the same time, there was
no significant difference between these two groups of students in the amount of
growth over the school year. Gender and percentage of ELLs were not significant
predictors of either initial scores or growth over a school year.
Thus, consistent with previous findings, preliminary analyses revealed differ-
ences among children at the start of the study as a function of their language status.
Table 2. Multiple regression results predicting initial PPVT and PPVT growth
for the whole sample
Initial PPVT Growth in PPVT

Score Score
Variable B SE t B SE t
Intercept 40.48 5.84 6.94 6.16 2.83 2.18

Speaker status (1 = monolingual) 25.05 2.53 9.91*** 0.86 2.25 0.38
Gender (1 = male) −1.33 3.15 −0.42 0.72 1.72 0.42
ELLs (%) −0.05 0.17 −0.29 0.02 0.03 0.49
Note: Standard errors are adjusted using the Huber–White estimator with class ID as the
clusters. PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; ELLs, English language learners.
***p < .001.
When we converted results to standardized scores, we found that the initial score
for the monolingual English speakers was on average 102 (population mean is
100) and the initial score for the ELL students was on average 81, more than 1
SD below the population mean. Language status accounted for 35% of variance
in initial PPVT scores. Although we were able to account for a sizeable portion of
the variance in the initial scores, language status was not related to lexical growth
over the year. On average, children in our sample showed an increase of about
7.6 points in raw PPVT scores over the preschool year. This increase reflects the
growth in performance that is expected developmentally. At the end of the school
year, the standard score was 103 for the monolingual English speakers and 81 for
the ELL participants.
It should be noted that, although the average PPVT growth was similar for
the monolingual and ELL groups, there was a substantial individual variability
in both groups in how much children changed, ranging from an increase of 44
points to a decrease of 9 points. As this variability was not explained by the factors
considered in the preliminary analysis, in the next set of analyses we examined
the characteristics of caregiver input (specifically, measures of teacher speech) to
determine if they could account for some of the observed variability in the growth
of receptive lexical skills.
Variability among teachers

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the total number of words, word
types, and words per utterance produced by the teachers. It should be noted that
there were some differences between the characteristics of teacher speech during
different activities. For example, the total number of words and the number of
words per utterance were generally greater during circle time than during snack.
The data presented in Table 3 and subsequent analyses are based on samples of
speech collected during the whole observation period. Because the proportion of
time spent on different activities was similar across teachers, it provided us with
a common framework to compare teachers to one another.
Table 3. Teacher input statistics
Total No. of Words/

Words Word Types Utterance
Average 3587.60 551.55 5.41

Minimum 1916 328 4.56
Maximum 5965 729 6.84
SD 1339.25 119.57 0.73
As with children’s lexical growth, we found substantial variability among teach-

ers on the measures of linguistic input. Some teachers produced three times as
many words as others in the same period of observation and during comparable
activities. Furthermore, the differences were not only in how talkative the teachers
were. There were structural differences in speech addressed to children, as mea-
sured by the number of words per utterance in teachers’ speech. There were also
substantial differences in the number of word types produced during comparable
observation periods, with some teachers using more than twice as many different
words than others in talking to children.
It is interesting to note that even when guiding children through similar activities,
teachers varied greatly in lexical choices. For example, when discussing a story
about animals, one of the teachers asked children a variety of questions involving
mostly common words (e.g., “What do we wanna say about the lion? He ate a lot. It
made him what? It made him sleepy. Is it a sleeping time?”). Another teacher used
a much more diverse and challenging vocabulary in discussing with children an
animal story (e.g., “Another name for a pig is a hog. Can you make a hog sound?
Look, why is he surprised? He hopped on a horse and the horse is galloping.”)
Exposing children to a diverse lexicon could facilitate the growth of vocabulary
even in those students who have already mastered the basics of English language
and learned common words—a possibility that we investigate in the next set of
analyses.
Input measures as predictors of children’s PPVT growth

The main focus of the present study was on examining the relation between
children’s vocabulary growth and the features of language input provided by
teachers. Because we were interested in comparing this relation for monolingual
and ELL students, at the first stage of analysis, we entered language status into
the regression model along with input measures to determine if there was an
interaction between these variables. The results showed that two of the input
variables interacted with children’s language status (the interaction was marginally
significant for the total number of words, p = .068, and highly significant for the
number of words per utterances, p < .001). These findings suggest that the effect
of input on PPVT growth varies depending on whether the child is an English
monolingual or ELL student.
Thus, in a follow-up analysis, we looked at the relation between the measures
of teacher input and PPVT growth, separately for English monolingual students
Table 4. Multiple regression results predicting Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
growth for monolingual English-speaking and English language learning preschool
students as a function of teacher input
English Monolingual English Language Learners

Variable B SE t B SE t
Intercept 7.70 0.92 8.41 7.84 0.67 11.68

Number of words 0.006 0.006 0.95 0.02 0.003 7.03**
Words/utterance −0.70 0.57 −1.22 −6.11 0.89 −6.85**
Number of word types 0.025 0.008 3.06* 0.029 0.035 0.82
Note: Standard errors are adjusted using the Huber–White estimator with classroom ID
as the clusters.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
and ELLs. It should be noted that given a relatively small sample size, particularly
for the ELL subsample, we did not include all three input predictors in the same
model (which would have reduced the power of the analysis for each individual
predictor). Rather, in the first regression model, we included the amount of speech
(i.e., tokens) and sentence complexity (i.e., words per utterance) as predictors of
PPVT growth, and in the second model, we replaced sentence complexity with
the measure of lexical diversity (i.e., types). This analytic approach allowed us to
accomplish two goals. First, we were able to maintain an acceptable ratio between
the number of predictors and observations.1 Second, this approach allowed us to
examine the effects of two variables that are often viewed as measuring the quality
of input (word types and words per utterance) while controlling for the overall
amount of input.
In the first model, we found that neither the amount of speech nor sentence
complexity was significantly related to the growth of PPVT scores in monolingual
English-speaking students. In contrast, both measures were significantly related to
the growth of PPVT scores in ELL students (see Table 4). Note that the pattern of
relations was different for each measure of input. Specifically, the total number of
words the teacher produced was significantly and positively related to the PPVT
growth of ELLs, indicating that higher amounts of teacher speech correspond
to higher rates of growth on PPVT. At the same time, the number of words per
utterance was significantly and negatively related to PPVT growth: when teachers
have relatively long utterances, their ELL students exhibit lower rates of growth
on PPVT.
The effect sizes were medium for the total number of words (η2 = 0.065,
Cohen d = 0.5) and large for the number of words per utterance (η2 = 0.237,
Cohen d > 0.8). The two measures together accounted for 24% of variance in the
vocabulary growth of preschool ELL students in our sample. The teacher input
variables remained significant predictors of language growth in ELLs even after
accounting for SES differences. SES was not a significant predictor of children’s
lexical growth ( p > .05) and explained only 1.4% of the variance in PPVT
growth.
In the second regression model, we examined the role of lexical diversity (i.e.,
number of word types) in the PPVT growth in monolingual and ELL students
while controlling for the overall amount of input (i.e., number of word tokens).
The results showed that the number of word types was significantly and positively
related to the PPVT growth in English monolingual students but not in the ELL
students (see Table 4). The effect size for the relation between the lexical diversity
of teacher speech and the receptive vocabulary growth in monolingual students
was relatively small (η2 = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.3).
DISCUSSION
Investigators have emphasized the need for a better understanding of factors as-
sociated with individual differences in language growth of preschool-age ELLs
and English monolingual students (e.g., Genesee et al., 2004; Snow et al., 1998;
Uchikoshi, 2006). Previous studies have examined the role of child characteristics
as well as home-related factors (De Houwer, 1995; Patterson, 2002; Ranta, 2002;
Wong-Fillmore, 1983). In the present study we focused on another potential source
of variability in preschool students: teacher input. Most existing studies concerning
language input within the school setting involved monolingual English speakers
(e.g., Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Huttenlocher et al., 2002). The present study
extended this work as we compared the lexical growth of ELL students and native
English speakers from the same classrooms in relation to the type of teacher input
they received.
Initial vocabulary skills and growth in monolingual and ELL students

Our analyses of receptive lexical skills indicated that the PPVT scores of mono-
lingual English speakers were more than 1 SD above the scores of ELLs. This
finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating large skill differences
between monolingual and ELL students (Oller & Eilers, 2002; Pearson et al.,
1997). Snow and colleagues (1998) have indicated that ELLs are generally behind
their English-speaking peers in English vocabulary upon entering first grade.
Comparable difficulties have also been shown in other language measures. For
example, a sample of bilingual children scored about 2 SD below the monolingual
population mean in oral language subtests of the Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery (Tabors, Páez, & López, 2003). Our study provided further evidence of
the disparity between ELL and monolingual speakers by comparing children from
the same classrooms rather than relying on population norms.
Although the initial lexical skills varied as expected for monolingual and ELL
students, the average rate of vocabulary growth did not vary as a function of lan-
guage status. Previously, similar findings were reported for older children (August
et al., 1999; Umbell et al., 1992). Here, we demonstrated this phenomenon in very
young children; essentially, the gap in vocabulary that existed between English-
speaking and ELL preschoolers in the beginning of the school year remained
unchanged at the end of the year. Based on prior research, one would not expect
ELL preschoolers to catch up with English-speaking children in 1 year (Hakuta
et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998). A recent longitudinal investigation has pointed
to a relative stability of students’ language skills relative to one another (Snow,

Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007). Yet, when considering young ELLs as a group,
one could expect that their initial differences with monolingual peers would reduce
somewhat following a year in an English-speaking school environment.
Because many ELL students had very low scores at the beginning of the school
year, their learning task could be viewed as somewhat easier than the task of
monolingual speakers. That is, ELLs could increase their scores in vocabulary by
acquiring high-frequency words. In contrast, native English speakers have already
mastered basic vocabulary and would need to acquire less frequent and more
complex elements of language to increase their scores. However, it appears that
despite the differential difficulty of the learning tasks, ELLs were not able to
reduce the existing performance gap. A possible explanation is that monolingual
speakers received additional English exposure through their home environment
and therefore may have gained the experience necessary to grow at a higher end
of the scale.
The relation between language growth and teacher input measures

Even though there was no difference in average growth between monolingual
speakers and ELLs as a group, it should not be interpreted as indicative of the
lack of individual differences among our participants. There was substantial vari-
ability in growth both among monolingual and ELL students. In exploring the
possible sources of differences in children, we focused on the features of teachers’
linguistic input provided in the preschool classroom. The teachers in our sample
exhibited a large variability in the amount, lexical diversity, and structural char-
acteristics of speech. Thus, we were able to examine whether differences in input
among teachers were related to differences in language growth among students.
This examination produced distinct patterns of findings with respect to English
monolinguals and ELLs.
Predictors of PPVT growth in English monolingual students. The teacher variable

that predicted the growth of PPVT in monolingual students was the number of
different word types, which is a measure of lexical diversity. In classrooms where
teachers used more diverse vocabularies, English-speaking students showed a
greater increase in receptive lexical skills compared to other classrooms. This
finding is consistent with studies showing a positive relation between vocabulary
growth in monolingual children and the richness of lexical input provided by
parents, in particular the parents’ use of low-frequency words (e.g., Hoff, 2006;
Weizman & Snow, 2001). Generally, caregivers who produce a relatively small
number of word types tend to use common, high-frequency words, whereas care-
givers who produce a large number of word types are more likely to use rare words
(Huttenlocher et al., 2007). The exposure to diverse vocabulary in the classroom
could be essential for the preschoolers who have acquired basic vocabulary and
for whom a further vocabulary growth requires the acquisition of less frequent
words.
Two other measures of teacher speech we examined did not contribute to the
explanation of the variance in lexical growth in monolingual students. This finding
may be somewhat surprising given that previous studies have found that both the
overall amount and complexity of parental speech were related to vocabulary
growth in English-speaking monolinguals (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003;
Huttenlocher et al., 1991). However, that prior research involved younger children
and, as pointed out by several investigators, certain features of input play a greater
role at the earlier stages of language learning (Barnes et al., 1983; Hoff-Ginsberg,
1985). The overall amount of speech may be a relevant measure of input when
children begin building their vocabulary with high-frequency words. However,
this quantitative measure may not capture the differences in input relevant to later
lexical growth because some teachers may talk a lot but use relatively simple
vocabulary. In contrast, the diversity of caregiver vocabulary may be a particularly
relevant measure of input at this stage, which is supported by our findings.
Predictors of PPVT growth in ELLs. In contrast to monolingual speakers, the rate

of lexical growth in ELL students was related to the total number of teachers’
words and the average number of words per utterance, but not related to the
number of different word types. The finding that the overall amount of speech
produced by teachers predicted the PPVT growth in ELLs should not be surprising.
Based on parental reports, all the ELLs in our study spoke languages other than
English at home and thus preschool was one of their main sources of English.
The relation between the total number of words produced by the teacher and
lexical growth in ELLs is consistent with the findings of previous studies that
examined vocabulary growth in monolingual English speakers at the early stages
of language learning in relation to parental input (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff-
Ginsberg, 1991). This suggests that the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of
English vocabulary in preschool ELLs may parallel those in younger monolingual
speakers. As with the parents of monolingual speakers, the preschool teachers serve
as the primary providers of English input to ELL students as they start building their
vocabulary.
The negative relation between the number of words per utterance in teacher
speech and vocabulary growth in ELL students highlights the significance of the
structural characteristics of linguistic input. The number of words per utterance
(or a similar measure of mean length of utterance) has been used as measure of
structural complexity of speech (e.g., Hoff, 2003; Huttenlocher et al., 2002). It
has been suggested that during early word learning children may benefit from
hearing short simple utterances (Berko-Gleason, 1977; Furrow et al., 1979). Some
studies indicated that longer parental utterances were related to larger vocabularies
in children (Hoff, 2003), but this positive relation may be partly because longer
utterances were also associated with richer vocabulary in parental input.
Hoff (2006) acknowledges that processing longer and more complex utterances
may present challenges for language learning. She suggests though that very young
children may filter out input that is too complex. Processing limitations (e.g., limits
on working memory capacity) have been cited as potential facilitators of language
learning at the earliest stages (Johnson & Newport, 1989; Newport, 1990). By
not processing the whole utterance, children may simplify the task of analyzing
incoming speech. However, the ELL students in our sample may not have the
advantage of the cognitive filter that younger children may possess. Because
our study participants were on average 4.5 years old, they would be capable of
holding in memory longer utterances than 2-year-olds. As a result, remembering
and having to deconstruct longer utterances may complicate their task of word
learning. Thus, the exposure to a large amount of input, in which basic words and
structures are likely to be repeated multiple times, and the structural simplicity of
sentences may be critical to the initial progress of ELL students.
It is interesting that, unlike English-speaking monolinguals, the ELLs in our
study did not appear to benefit from the increased lexical diversity of teachers’
input. This could be related to children’s word learning being concentrated on
high-frequency words at the earlier stages of language acquisition. Thus, the
exposure to a diverse lexical input, which is likely to include rare words, may not
be as beneficial to young ELL learners as it is to their monolingual peers who have
already mastered the basic English vocabulary.
In summary, this research adds to the growing body of work exploring con-
textual factors associated with language learning. Researchers studying English
monolingual and ELL students have emphasized the importance of considering
features of classroom environment, but very few studies have looked directly at
the relation between specific characteristics of teacher speech and vocabulary
growth in preschoolers. Our study suggests that the pattern of this relation may
differ for monolingual and ELL students. The differences we observed may be
because these student groups varied in what they already knew and what language
tasks they faced at the time of the study. There were also differences in effect
sizes: the relation between teacher input and the lexical growth was particularly
strong for ELL preschoolers. This could be the case because our monolingual
participants have been receiving their English language input both at school
and at home, whereas ELLs in our study were exposed to English primarily at
school.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The present study had several limitations that can be addressed in subsequent
research. The key limitation was a relatively small sample size and a related
fact that the participants were drawn from only 10 classrooms. This reduced the
statistical power of the analysis and prevented us from using multilevel modeling
in our analytical approach. Significant relations between measures of teacher input
and lexical growth were found in a relatively small sample of ELLs, which points
to the potentially robust nature of this phenomenon. Yet, further work involving
a larger number of participants should allow researchers to systematically inves-
tigate factors that may moderate the relation between teacher input and language
growth in ELLs. In particular, it would be important to have a larger number
of participants from different language backgrounds (Spanish-speaking families,
Chinese-speaking families, etc.) so that researchers could have a greater statistical
power to explore both the role of home language and cultural factors that may
play a role in English language learning.
Further, the present study has focused on one aspect of linguistic input: teacher
speech. It is important to consider other contextual factors that may influence
language development in ELL as well as monolingual preschoolers. These include
other school-related variables, such as the overall quality of the curriculum and
classroom size (Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Oller & Eilers, 2002; Pianta,
La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002) as well as family-related variables, such
as the frequency of book reading at home (e.g., De Houwer, 1995; Uchikoshi,
2006). In the present study we considered two additional variables that could be
related to classroom language environment (SES and percentage of ELL students)
and found that teacher input remained a significant predictor of growth in ELL
students even when controlling for these factors. Although this result suggests
interesting possibilities about the relative importance of different environmental
factors, a more detailed examination of school and home environment would be
needed to provide a comprehensive picture of children’s exposure to English and
the role of different input sources.
Another contextual factor that should be taken into account is a potential in-
fluence of peers. Examining this factor will contribute to a better understanding
of language development for both ELLs and monolingual English-speaking stu-
dents attending linguistically mixed preschool classrooms. After all, preschool is
a critical time in the development of the language abilities not only for ELLs but
for monolingual speakers as well. Therefore, it is important to determine how the
integration of children with different levels of English proficiency may affect their
language skills. In the present study the highest proportion of ELLs per classroom
was 50%, but it may be useful to examine classrooms with a greater range of
variability in ELL representation and to determine whether children’s vocabulary
growth depends on the linguistic composition of the classroom.
Although our study has certain methodological limitations and thus the findings
should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive, it outlines a potentially
productive direction for future research. The examination of contextual factors
associated with variability in language learning prior to children’s entry into ele-
mentary school may have critical implications for our ability to improve students’
long-term academic outcomes. The present study is a first step in examining the
direct relation between teacher input and language development in monolingual
and ELL students from the same classrooms. Future research may do well to extend
the line of investigation delineated in the present study by carrying out empirical
work involving larger samples and exploring multiple sources of language input.
This line of research may lead to the development of an integrated contextual
model of language growth, and to the design of more effective preschool curricula
and teacher training programs.
NOTE
1. We also ran an alternative analysis for the subsample of monolingual students, in
which all three predictor variables were entered in a single model. This analysis
produced results parallel to those obtained with two separate models; that is, word
types significantly predicted PPVT growth in monolingual students, but the other two
variables did not. We did not run a single regression model with three predictors for the
subsample of ELL students, based on the commonly accepted recommendation that
for each independent variable included in the model, there should be at least 10–20
observations (Francis, 2007).
REFERENCES
Amselle, J. (1996). The failure of bilingual education. Washington, DC: Center for Equal Opportunity.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary devel-
opment for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–
57.
August, D., Carlo, M., Lively, T., Lippman, D., McLaughlin, B., & Snow, C. (1999). Enhancing vo-
cabulary knowledge and reading comprehension in English languagelearners. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Barnes, S., Gutfreund, M., Satterly, D., & Wells, G. (1983). Characteristics of adult speech which
predict children’s language development. Journal of Child Language, 10, 65–84.
Bauer, D. J., Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (2002). Alternative approaches to analyzing individual
differences in the rate of early vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 313–
335.
Berko-Gleason, J. (1977). Talking to children: Some notes on feedback. In C. E. Snow & C. A.
Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Clark, P. (1999). Investigating second language acquisition in preschools: A longitudinal study of four
Vietnamese-speaking children’s acquisition of English in a bilingual preschool. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 7, 17–24.
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassess-
ment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132–149.
Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., & Leoni, L. (2005). Timelines and lifelines:
Rethinking literacy instruction in multilingual classrooms. Orbit, 36, 22–26.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading
experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
De Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The
handbook of child language (pp. 219–250). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
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, 186–
202.
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,
104–122.
Dionne, G., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., Laplante, D., & Perusse, D. (2003). Physical aggression and
expressive vocabulary in 19-month-old twins. Developmental Psychology, 39, 261–273.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 24, 37–53.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., et al. (2007). The
role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 171–190.
Espinosa, L. M. (2002). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning
English as a second language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 138–140.
Francis, G. (2007). Introduction to SPSS for Windows: V. 15.0 and 14.0 with notes for studentware
(5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema
availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277–323.
Furrow, D., Nelson, K., & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development:
Some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language, 6, 423–442.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in
U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 10, 363–385.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook
on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Gleitman, L., Newport, E. L., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis.
Journal of Child Language, 11, 43–79.
Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S., & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition
of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515–531.
Guerrero, M. D. (2004). Acquiring academic English in one year: An unlikely proposition for English
language learners. Urban Education, 39, 172–199.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent
and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267–288.
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English. Language Learning, 26, 321–351.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Policy Report, 2000. Davis, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority
Research Institute.
Harmon, J. M. (1999). Initial encounters with unfamiliar words in independent reading. Research in
the Teaching of English, 33, 304–338.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday parenting and intellectual develop-
ment in young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocab-
ulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378.
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review,
26, 55–88.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1985). Some contributions of mothers’ speech to their children’s syntactic growth.
Journal of Child Language, 12, 367–386.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1991). Mother–child conversation in different social classes and communicative
settings. Child Development, 62, 782–796.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E., & Shatz, M. (1982). Linguistic input and the child’s acquisition of language.
Psychological Bulletin, 92, 3–26.
Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions.
Paper presented at the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth
relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248.
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax.
Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–374.
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. (2007). The varieties of speech
to young children. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1062–1083.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive
Psychology, 21, 60–99.
Klibanoff, R., Levine, S., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool children’s
mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk.” Developmental Psychology, 42,
59–69.
Kramer, J. H., Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., O’Donnell, L., & Prifitera, A. (1997). Developmental sex
differences in verbal learning. Neuropsychology, 11, 577–584.
Letts, C. (1991). Early second language acquisition: A comparison of the linguistic output of a preschool
child acquiring English as a second language with that of a monolingual peer. British Journal
of Disorders of Communication, 26, 219–234.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children’s language development.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 244–260.
McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Philips, D., & Grajec, S. (1985). Day care as intervention: Comparison of
varying quality programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 247–260.
Naigles, L., & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of
input frequency and structure on children’s early verb use. Journal of Child Language, 25,
95–120.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network.
(2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development,
71, 960–980.
Nelson, K., & Bonvillian, J. (1973). Concepts and words in the 18-month-old: Acquiring concept
names under controlled conditions. Cognition, 2, 435–450.
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science,14, 11–28.
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Páez, M. M., Tabors, P. O., & López, L. M. (2007). Dual language and literacy development of Spanish
speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 85–102.
Parker, M. D., & Brorson, K. (2005). A comparative study between mean length of utterance in
morphemes (MLUm) and mean length of utterance in words (MLUw). First Language, 25,
365–376.
Patterson, J. (2002). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading and television
experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 493–508.
Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Bilingual infants. In M. Suárez-Orozco & M. Páez (Eds.), Latino remaking
America (pp. 306–320). Los Angeles: University of California Press and David Rockefeller
Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors to
lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten
classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes.
Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238.
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 159–180).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Dilingual discourse: The negotiation of meaning with a common code.
Linguistics, 25, 81–106.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence,
theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press.
Smolak, L., & Weinraub, M. (1983). Maternal speech: Strategy or response. Journal of Child Language,
10, 369–380.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Snow, C. E., & Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, C. E., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to
academic success in adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Tabors, P. O. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning
English as a second language. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Tabors, P. O., Páez, M. M., & López, L. M. (2003). Dual language abilities of Spanish–English
bilingual four-year olds: Initial finding from the Early Childhood Study of Language and
Literacy Development of Spanish-speaking children. NABE Journal of Research and Practice,
1, 70–91.
Tabors, P. O., Snow, C. E., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Homes and schools together: Supporting
language and literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning
literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 313–334). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Tardif, T., Shatz, M., & Naigles, L. (1997). Caregiver speech and children’s use of nouns versus verbs:
A comparison of English, Italian and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language, 24, 535–565.
Ucceli, P., & Páez, M. M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from
kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish
skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 225–236.
Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners: What are the best
predictors? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 33–49.
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s
receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012–1020.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of
education 2007 (NCES Report 2007–064). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Van Lier, L. (1999). Second language acquisition: What we know from case studies of structural devel-
opment. Unpublished manuscript, US Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Languages Affairs.
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical output as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition:
Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37,
265–279.
White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50, 1–25.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. Fillmore,
D. Kempler, & W. S. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language
behavior (pp. 203–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1983). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research on individual
differences for the ESL teacher. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL ’82: Pacific
perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 157–173). Washington, DC: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Week 9 - Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 9 - Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Psycholinguistics 32 (2011), 221–241

The relation between teacher input

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

EXAMINING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING

THE RELATION BETWEEN CAREGIVER INPUT AND ENGLISH

Language growth in monolingual English speakers

with larger vocabularies. Similar results were reported in longitudinal investiga-

Language growth in ELLs

PRESENT STUDY: RELATION OF INPUT TO LEXICAL GROWTH

Collecting samples of teacher speech. In addition to child data, we collected

Coding teacher speech. Teacher’s speech was transcribed from audiotapes by

(MacWhinney, 1995). We obtained measures indicating the quantity, diversity,

Initial PPVT Growth in PPVT

ELLs 37.8 14.5 7.2 8.3

Note: PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; ELLs,

Initial PPVT Growth in PPVT

Intercept 40.48 5.84 6.94 6.16 2.83 2.18

Variability among teachers

Total No. of Words/

Average 3587.60 551.55 5.41

As with children’s lexical growth, we found substantial variability among teach-

Input measures as predictors of children’s PPVT growth

English Monolingual English Language Learners

Intercept 7.70 0.92 8.41 7.84 0.67 11.68

Initial vocabulary skills and growth in monolingual and ELL students

to a relative stability of students’ language skills relative to one another (Snow,

The relation between language growth and teacher input measures

Predictors of PPVT growth in English monolingual students. The teacher variable

Predictors of PPVT growth in ELLs. In contrast to monolingual speakers, the rate

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

You might also like