Study 3: Local Sample Qualitative DataStudy 1 and 2: National and Local Sample

Quantitative Data

More than Words: The Relations between Teacher-Child Interactions,

Classroom Context and Latino Dual Language Learners’ School Readiness

Maria Cristina Limlingan & Christine McWayneEliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development, Tufts University

Background

Research Question 1: Do child and family characteristics uniquely predict DLLs’ language and socio-emotional outcomes?

• DLLs’ initial skills in English and Spanish uniquely contribute to socio-emotional outcomes

• Differences in outcomes for DLLs’ initial language skills in national and local samples may relate to how construct was measured

Research Question 2: Do teacher-child interactions and classroom language context uniquely predict DLLs’ language and socio-

emotional outcomes?

• Teachers’ Spanish use plays a positive role in DLLs’ socio-emotional outcomes

• Examining the average experience of a child may not be the best way to measure teacher-child interactions for DLLs given the range of DLLs’ initial

language skills in their home language (L1) and English (L2)

• The initial language skills of other children within a classroom play a role in an individual child’s language and socio-emotional development

• Whether the teacher shares the same ethnicity as the children in the classroom may influence the way they interpret normative or disruptive play

Summary of Measures

Research Question 3: What are teachers’ language ideologies and how might they be

linked to teacher characteristics, classroom practice and DLLs’ school readiness?

• Teachers beliefs about how children learn language influence their use of English and Spanish in

the classroom

• Teachers recognize the role that home language plays in social interactions with children and

attempted to speak Spanish, regardless of their Spanish-speaking ability

• Non-Monolingual English-speaking teachers raised challenges that parents may have

maintaining their home language

• Non-native Spanish-speaking teachers relied on their co-teacher for Spanish translation,

expressed occasional frustration because of language barriers and learned Spanish in Head Start

Atkins-Burnett, S., Sprachman, S. & Caspe, M. (2010). Language Interaction Snapshot + End of Visit Ratings (LISN + EVR). Princeton, NJ: Mathetmatica Policy Research.

Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D.C. & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

29(4), 699 – 714.

Chang, F., Crawford, G., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., Burchinal, M. Barbarin, O., Clifford, R. & Pianta, R.(2007). Spanish-speaking children’s social and language

development in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development, 18 (2), 243- 269.

Collins, B.A., Toppelberg, C.O., Suarez-Orozco, C., O’Connor, E., Nieto-Castannon, A. (2011). Cross-sectional associations of Spanish and English competence and well-being

in Latino children of immigrants in kindergarten. International Journal of Sociology of Language. 2011(208), 5- 23.

Duncan, S.E. & De Avila, E.A. (1998). PreLAS2000. [Measurement Instrument] Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Han, W.J. (2010). Bilingualism and socioemotional wellbeing. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 (5), 720 – 731.

Limlingan, M. C. A. (2016). More Than Words: The Relations Between Teacher-Child Interactions, Classroom Context, and Latino DLLs’ School Readiness (Ph.D.). Tufts

University, United States -- Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1795524994/abstract/58A8FA57B84345E4PQ/1

Palermo, F., Mikulksi, A.M., Fabes, R.A., Hanish, L.D., Martin, C.L. & Stargel, L.E. (2014). English exposure in the home and classroom: Predictions to Spanish-speaking

preschoolers’ English vocabulary skils. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35 (6), 1163-1187.

Pianta, R.C., LaParo, K.M., & Hamre, B.K. (2006). Clasroom Assessment Scoring System Manuall, Preschool (Pre-K) Version. Charlottesville, VA: Center for Advanced Study of

Teaching and Learning

Yoshikawa, H., Weisher, T.S., Kalil, A., & Way, N. (2013). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: uses and methodological choices. Qualitative

Psychology, 1(S), 3- 18.

Yow, W. Q., & Markman, E.M. (2011). Bilingualism and children’s use of paralinguistic cues to interpret emotion in speech. Bilingualism, 14(4), 562-569.

For more information please contact:

Maria Cristina Limlingan, PhD

mclimlingan@gmail.com

RESULTS

Some developmental processes are distinct to dual language learners (DLLs)

because of their ability to access multiple languages

• Having two languages influences children’s metalinguistic awareness (Barac et al., 2014)

and their understanding of paralinguistic cues (Yow, 2011)

There is a need to further examine the unique features and contexts of DLLs’ development

• Using multiple methods to increase our understanding of complex questions (Yoshikawa et al., 2013)

Summary and Next Steps

Child and Family Characteristics• DLL’s initial English and Spanish skills uniquely contribute to their socio-emotional outcomes (Collins et al.,2011; Han, 2010)

• What information do programs currently collect on DLLs’ English and home language skills?

Teacher-Child Interactions• Teachers’ Spanish use establishes social connections with DLLs (Chang et al., 2007)

• How, when and why are teachers using Spanish in classrooms?

• What are the best ways to support teachers with different levels of Spanish-speaking ability?

Classroom Language Context• The initial language skills of other children within a classroom play a role in an individual child’s development (Palermo et al., 2014)

• How do programs make decisions on classroom composition?

Method Research and Design

A Heuristic Model for Understanding Classroom-Related Factors that

Influence Dual Language Learners’ School Readiness (Limlingan, 2014)

Analysis

Study 1:National Sample Study 2: Local Sample

• Girls have higher socio-emotional skills

• Mothers with more education had children with higher socio-

emotional skills

• Children with higher initial English and Spanish language levels had

higher interactive peer play scores

• Children with lower initial English language levels had higher

withdrawn or avoidant peer play scores

Study 1:National Sample Study 2: Local Sample

• Teachers who used more Spanish had more children with higher

socio-emotional outcomes

• Classrooms with more Spanish-speaking children had lower scores

on English receptive language and socio-emotional outcomes

• Teachers who used more Spanish had children with higher

interactive peer play scores

• Children in classrooms with more peers who failed the initial English

language screener had higher disruptive peer play scores

• Non-Latino Teachers scored children higher on disruptive peer play

behavior

Measures Study 1:National Sample Study 2: Local Sample

DLLs’ Initial Language Skills Initial English Language Screener Score(English Pre-LAS; Duncan & DeAvila, 1998)

Initial English and Spanish

Language Screener Levels (English and Spanish Pre-LAS; Duncan & DeAvila, 1998)

Teacher-Child Interactions Teacher Spanish Use (Teacher Report)

+

Global Classroom Quality

Class Average(CLASS; Pianta, LaParo & Hamre, 2006)

Teacher Spanish Talk

Individual Chlld Level(LISn; Atkins-Burnett, Sprachman & Caspe, 2010)

Classroom Language Composition % of Spanish-speaking students (Teacher Report) % of Students who failed English Language Screener (English Pre-LAS; Duncan & DeAvila, 1998)

References and Contact Information

This publication was made possible by Grant Number 90YR0080 from the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The project described was supported by the Early Care and Education Scholars: Head Start Graduate Research Program Grant Number 90YR0080,

from the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its

contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,

the Administration for Children and Families, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services