Dialog, 18(2), 1-30 

Copyright © 2015,  

ISSN: 1930-9325 
 

 

 

Cindy Hoisington, Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development Center, Inc.; Jessica 

Mercer Young, Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development Center, Inc.; Louisa 

Anastasopoulos, Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development Center, Inc.; Sue Washburn, 

Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development Center, Inc. 

This study was conducted as part of RENEW: Reading Enrichment to Nurture Excellence in 

Worcester, supported by the U.S. Department of Education under PR/Award S359B070036. Any opinions, 

findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education. We would like to acknowledge Diane 

Schilder, Celia Gomez, Deborah Spencer, Craig Hoyle, and Linda Hirsch, colleagues who assisted with 

conducting the study and critiquing the manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge the work and 

thinking of the SPLD coaches, and we would especially like to thank the teachers who participated in the 

project. They are the ones who work every day to improve the lives of young children. Correspondence 

concerning this article should be addressed to Cindy Hoisington, Education Development Center, Inc., 43 

Foundry Ave., Waltham, MA 02453. Email: choisington@edc.org 

 

RESEARCH ARTICLE 
 

 

 

Building a Classroom Community that Supports English Learners 

in Preschool 
 

 

Cindy Hoisington, Jessica Mercer Young, Louisa Anastasopoulos, and Sue Washburn 

Education Development Center, Inc. 

 

 
This study details the implementation and evaluation of a professional 

development (PD) intervention program in language and literacy for early 

childhood teachers using a mixed method, quasi-experimental study design. The 

program, Supporting Children with Language Differences (SPLD), was offered 

over a six-month period to 19 teachers in a federally-funded preschool program. 

The PD, incorporating instructional course sessions, classroom-based 

assignments, and onsite coaching, was designed to build teachers’ capacity to 

promote the language and literacy development and learning of English Learner 

(EL) children in their classrooms. Results showed a significant positive effect of 

the intervention on preschoolers’ oral language, receptive language, and pre-

literacy skills. Moreover, the results of this study suggest that intentional 

inclusion of ELs in classroom activities and a sustained emphasis on the 

practices, strategies, and adaptations that support their inclusion may be the key 

to promoting ELs’ language success in early childhood classrooms. 

 

 

Keywords: early childhood; preschool; language learning; ELS 

 

 
 



2     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

It’s ten o’clock on a weekday morning in a preschool classroom, and children are 

enjoying “choice time,” moving among a variety of small group learning areas: dramatic 

play, blocks, art, writing, science, and the cozy classroom library. The teacher, Grace, 

has set out interesting materials and activities for children to use and talk about, and 

most of the children are excitedly engaged. Several children however—Maria, Gloria, 

and Aaron—seem to be on the periphery of the fun and learning. Maria stands next to the 

writing table and watches transfixed as two other girls draw and talk about their daddies. 

She scribbles briefly on a piece of paper and holds the paper up in front of the girls, as if 

trying to get their attention. When she gets no response, she throws the paper in the trash 

and walks away. When Grace takes some lemons and juicers over to the science table so 

she can help children make lemonade, Gloria quickly picks up a slice of lemon and pops 

it in her mouth. “Ew!” yell two other children. “That’s gross!” Gloria spits out the 

lemon and starts to cry. Meanwhile, in the block area, Aaron has built a simple structure 

out of unit blocks. Another boy comes over and asks, “Hey, what are you making?” 

Aaron angrily pushes the boy away and loudly yells, “No!” (Composite excerpt from a 

literary coach’s journal). 

  
 The number of children in pre-K to twelfth grade U.S. classrooms who speak 

languages other than English at home has risen by 60% over the past ten years 

(Ballantyne, Sanderman, & McLaughlin, 2008), and children like Maria, Gloria, and 

Aaron, referred to as English Learners (ELs), English Language Learners (ELLs), or 

Dual-language Learners (DLLs), now comprise almost 30% of the population of Head 

Start classrooms (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, 2013). Not yet in Kindergarten, these children face challenges that 

will compromise their English vocabulary development, negatively impact their later 

reading ability and long-term literacy outcomes, and make them increasingly vulnerable 

to underachievement and dropping out as they approach the high school years 

(Ballantyne et al., 2008; Capps et al., 2005). Research also indicates that the literacy 

development of ELs is impacted by their oral language development in both English and 

their home language (Miller et al., 2006).   

The need for high-quality language and literacy instruction in preschool is well 

documented (Dickinson & Neuman, 2006; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Indeed, 

research paints a clear picture of what preschool language and literacy instruction should 

look like, emphasizing oral language and extended discourse skills (Dickinson, 2001; 

Pellegrini & Galda, 1993), phonological awareness including rhyming, blending, and 

segmenting (Adams, 1990; Bryant, et al., 1990; Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1999; Ehri, 1995; 

Ehri et al., 2001), sense of storybook language and vocabulary (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 

1998; Hart & Risley, 1995; Kamil, 2004; Scarborough, 1998; Sulzby, 1994), knowledge 

about print and awareness of environmental print (Lonigan, 2003; Dickinson & Snow, 

1987; Ehri, 1991; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984), letter recognition ability (Adams, 

1990; Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997; Scanlon & Vellutino, 

1996; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Vellutino et al., 1996), and emergent writing 

(Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Schickedanz, 1999). 

In order to improve preschool instructional practices in language and literacy, 

there has been a concerted effort to promote intensive professional development (PD) in 

these domains. A review of early childhood PD programs found that PD which includes 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      3 

specific learning goals for children, links educator knowledge and practice, and includes 

assessment as a tool for ongoing progress monitoring is more effective (Zaslow et al., 

2010). Professional development also has a bigger impact when it is content-specific and 

integrates all aspects of teaching, including curriculum, instruction, and assessment 

(Darling-Hammond, 2012).  

Children who are acquiring two languages, however, may have educational needs 

beyond those of monolingual children (Haager & Windmueller, 2001) whether they are 

learning two languages simultaneously (two languages are used with the child from birth) 

or sequentially (the second language is introduced at three years old or later, typically in 

Pre-K) (McLaughlin, Blanchard, & Osanai, 1995). According to Tabors and Snow 

(1994), sequential learners in particular may experience different stages of second 

language acquisition including home language use (child communicates using the home 

language regardless of whether it is understood), a nonverbal period (child is actively 

listening to the features and sounds of the second language and developing receptive 

vocabulary), telegraphic or formulaic speech (child uses words or syllables in the second 

language to stand for entire thoughts or sentences), and productive language (child uses 

the second language with increasing confidence and simultaneously explores its rules and 

structure). 

In order to adjust their expectations and instruction to be responsive to the 

language needs of ELs, teachers need to understand the overlapping and flexible nature of 

these stages and the fact that all of them contribute positively to the second language 

learning process. Teachers also need to understand the relationship between first and 

second language development and recognize the diversity among their EL children in 

terms of their home language experiences (Espinosa, 2008). Teachers need to know for 

example that different EL children may understand and use a different set of words in 

each language and that moving back and forth between languages (code-switching) is a 

normal part of the second language learning process (Tabors & Snow, 1994). PD aimed 

at increasing the quality of EL teaching should communicate specific pedagogical 

strategies that promote a language-rich classroom culture, maximize EL children’s 

opportunities to hear and use language, and address the specific language needs of 

individual EL children (Santos, Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2012). 

Most early childhood teachers do not have deep knowledge of EL language 

development, nor are they prepared to provide the types of English language supports 

ELs need: more explicit vocabulary instruction, more exposure to rich language, and 

more specific support for language in context (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Moreover, 

children like Maria, Gloria, and Aaron need direct support to enter actively into the life of 

the classroom and to develop the types of social relationships with their English-speaking 

peers that promote language learning (Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2007; Tabors, 2008).  

While researchers have demonstrated the potential of intensive, sustained 

professional development (in contrast to episodic training) to improve teacher instruction 

and classroom environments (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008; Grace, et al., 2008), evidence 

suggests that it may be easier to change concrete aspects of the environment (such as 

increasing the number of discrete literacy activities) than to promote changes in teachers’ 

instructional strategies (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007).  

Early childhood teachers are a diverse group who come to the work with a wide 

range of knowledge and skills. Effective PD recognizes the self-motivation and capacities 



4     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

that adults bring to the learning experience (Dickinson & Brady, 2006) and the role of 

collaboration in teachers’ construction of knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 

1998). Effective PD also respects the dynamic relationship between theory and practice, 

and it harnesses the authentic power of the classroom as a context for bridging the two 

(Webster-Wright, 2009).   

Incorporating coaching into PD has the potential to play a significant role in 

supporting instructional change. When it is content-focused and collaborative, coaching 

fosters teachers’ pedagogical skills (Appleton, 2008) and supports their capacity to reflect 

on children’s learning and their own teaching (Neufeld & Roper, 2003), particularly 

when the coaching consists of iterative cycles of implementation, collaborative reflection, 

and fine-tuning of practice (Darling-Hammond, 2012; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). 

When coaches facilitate teacher reflection that emphasizes teacher action and inquiry, 

teachers are more likely to refine their practices, identify their own growing edges, try 

new strategies, and address teaching challenges proactively (Ball & Cohen, 1999). 

Coaching may be particularly effective for early childhood teachers, since it is 

implemented with small groups and individual teachers and is therefore responsive to the 

wide range of teaching knowledge and skills typically found in early childhood programs 

(Landry, 2009; Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008).  

This study examines the effectiveness of a PD program—including a course and 

onsite reflective coaching—designed to build teachers’ abilities to support the language 

and literacy learning of EL preschoolers. The program incorporates the use of research-

based language-teaching practices and strategies, and it emphasizes the role of children’s 

social interaction and on-going formative assessment in fostering EL children’s language 

and literacy development and learning. This study draws upon quantitative and 

qualitative data collected during the course of the program, including a qualitative case 

study meant to illustrate the program as enacted and to reveal the complexities of 

language teaching and learning in a preschool classroom. We investigate two overarching 

research questions: 

 

1. Does a prolonged research-based PD program that includes on-site coaching 

and reflective practice, and provides on-going assessment, improve the quality 

of teachers’ instructional strategies that support language and literacy 

development for ELs?  

2. Do EL children in classrooms whose teachers receive the PD have greater 

gains in their language and literacy skills than children in comparison 

classrooms?  

 

 

METHOD 
 

Overview 
 

Based on the literature, we designed a multifaceted three-year professional development 

intervention in language and literacy for early childhood teachers. All three years 

included one-to-one coaching for all participating teachers for the full school year. The 

goal of the first year of the program was to create high-quality classroom language and 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      5 

print environments that provided all children with optimal language and literacy learning 

opportunities. The current study was conducted during the program’s second year as we 

implemented Supporting Children with Language Differences (SPLD), a two-credit 

course delivered in three full-day sessions over a six-month period. SPLD reinforced the 

ideas introduced in the first year of the PD and presented additional practices and 

strategies targeted at supporting ELs’ language and literacy development. Coaches, as 

well as teachers, attended the instructional PD sessions during both years.  

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the SPLD PD on teachers’ language and 

literacy practices and children’s language and literacy learning, we conducted a mixed-

methods, quasi-experimental study. The methodology in this study involves integrating 

quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis within a single study or program 

of inquiry (Creswell et al., 2003). The use of qualitative and quantitative analyses 

expands both the breadth and the depth of our understanding of teachers’ language and 

literacy instructional practices as they relate to ELs’ language and literacy development.  

 

 

Participants 
 

In an effort to promote a community of practice among participating educators, we 

partnered with a Head Start program from a large urban district in the Northeast and 

recruited teachers from the program’s five centers to take part in the three-year PD 

program. Our goal was to maximize the participation of lead teachers in full-day 

classrooms, and the final sample of participants included 19 lead teachers in full-day 

classrooms, three assistant teachers, and five education managers, one from each of the 

Head Start program’s five centers. Throughout the three years of the program, 

intervention teachers used Opening the World of Learning; OWL (Schickedanz & 

Dickinson, 2005), a research-based curriculum that was selected because of its rigorous 

scope and sequence, evidence-based instructional strategies, and close alignment with the 

language and literacy emphasis of the PD.  

Comparison classrooms were recruited from three other Head Start programs in 

nearby urban communities; all comparison teachers were lead teachers in their 

classrooms. This was a “business as usual” comparison condition. Comparison teachers 

were not offered the language and literacy PD or any additional strategies for working 

with ELs. Both the comparison and intervention programs serve economically 

disadvantaged families (at least 90% of enrolled families are at or below the federal 

poverty level) that are racially and ethnically diverse. There were 16 comparison teachers 

that agreed to allow the researchers to observe their classroom practice and assess their 

preschoolers. Teachers from the comparison classrooms used The Creative Curriculum® 

for Preschool, 4
th

 ed. (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002), which according to the authors 

addresses the latest education research, best practices, and needs of individual learners. 

Incentives were given to both intervention and comparison classrooms in the form 

of materials purchased for participating classrooms. In addition, teachers in SPLD 

received stipends for time spent at course sessions, since these were scheduled outside of 

regular work hours. Teachers also received two college-level credits from a neighboring 

institution of higher education for successful completion of the course.  



6     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

While SPLD teachers had higher levels of education, on average, than comparison 

teachers—26% of SPLD teachers had an AA and 74% had a BA or higher, compared to 

9% of comparison group teachers with a high school diploma, 41% with an AA and 50% 

with a BA or higher—the two groups were comparable in terms of early childhood 

experience, both averaging approximately 13 years in the field. For research purposes, 

the ELs were identified as children whose parental consent forms indicated that the child 

spoke a language other than English in the home, information that was then confirmed by 

the child’s teacher. A total of 33 different languages were spoken by children or in 

children’s homes, including Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Farsi, Arabic, Italian, Fanti, 

Igbo, Polish, Creole, and Twi. In the fall, 181 children from the 19 SPLD classrooms and 

73 children from the 16 comparison classrooms were identified as ELs. In the fall, the 

average age for EL children in SPLD classrooms was 48.0 months (SD = 5.9) and the 

average age for EL children in comparison classrooms was 52.5 months (SD = 7.0). 

 

 

Procedure 
 

Data collection.    As mentioned above, this study utilized a mixed-methods 

approach. Qualitative data, collected from the intervention group, included a case study 

of one teacher and information provided by teacher and education manager focus groups. 

In addition, quantitative data were collected from teachers and students from both the 

treatment and comparison groups. Details about data collection procedures follow.  

 

Qualitative case study.     We approached the case study from the perspective of 

Cochran-Smith (2013) and her suggestion that “we need researchers who can get at the 

nuances of the work of teaching and learning” (p. xi), because “teaching [is] 

unforgivingly complex, not simply good or bad, right or wrong” (p. x). Similar to Mitton 

Kukner and Murray Orr (2015) we tried to understand the “multiple realities” (Creswell, 

2007, p.16) of teachers’ experiences as they developed and refined their language and 

literacy teaching practices with an emphasis on ELs. To illustrate the key concepts of 

SPLD, we conducted a qualitative case study of “Grace,” a teacher participating in the 

SPLD course who was strongly committed to infusing her instructional practice with 

language and literacy enrichment strategies and engaging ELs in all aspects of the 

classroom community. This case study is based on the field notes, classroom 

observations, reflective conferences, and other coaching communications of the language 

and literacy coach who worked with Grace during all three years of the program, 

including the SPLD school year. Grace was the preschool teacher of “Maria,” who was 

learning English in a typical preschool classroom. 

Qualitative focus group data collection.     Teachers and education managers in 

SPLD participated in separate focus groups at the end of the school year.  In order to 

triangulate the data, the same semi-structured interview questions were asked of both 

groups. These data were transcribed by a research assistant and qualitatively coded to 

capture the key themes, categories, and concepts related to teachers’ instructional 

practices.  

 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      7 

Quantitative data collection.   Teachers’ instructional strategies and their 

language and literacy practices were observed twice per school year, once in the fall and 

once in the spring, by a team of data collectors who were blind to classroom condition 

and blind to the study’s hypothesis. Each observation session began after children arrived 

at preschool (around breakfast) and concluded after lunch (before naptime). Child data 

were collected in the fall and spring for all children whose parents agreed to participate in 

the study by a separate team of data collectors who were also blind to study condition and 

had not observed teachers’ instructional practices. Data were collected in two testing 

sessions so as not to over-burden the preschoolers; each session lasted approximately 30 

minutes.  

 

Quantitative measures.    We used one classroom observation tool, the Early 

Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Pre-K Tool (ELLCO Pre-K; Smith, 

Brady, & Anastasopoulos, 2008) to assess the language and literacy quality of 

intervention and comparison classrooms. We assessed children using four measures 

including the preLAS 2000 (Duncan & DeAvila); the Preschool Language Scale, 4th ed. 

(PLS-4; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002); the Phonological Awareness Literacy 

Screening for preschool (PALS Pre-K; Invernizzi, Sullivan, & Meier, 2001); and the 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007).  In addition to 

informing the research, data from these standardized assessments were selectively shared 

with the teachers, coaches, and five education managers for formative assessment 

purposes. This process will be described in greater detail below. 

 

Teachers’ instructional strategies.    Classrooms were observed by trained data 

collectors who were blind to the study condition using the ELLCO Pre-K, an 

observational tool that examines the quality of language and literacy practices and 

materials in early childhood classrooms. The ELLCO Pre-K is designed specifically for 

early childhood settings, focusing on important pre-literacy activities like storybook 

reading, circle time conversations, and child-originated story-writing. The tool examines 

19 items in 5 critical areas: Classroom Structure, Curriculum, Language Environment, 

Books and Book Reading, and Print and Early Writing. In addition, the ELLCO produces 

subscale scores in General Classroom Environment (composite of Classroom Structure 

and Curriculum) and Language and Literacy (composite of Language Environment, 

Books and Book Reading, and Print and Early Writing) and an ELLCO total score.   

Classroom observers participated in a three-day training run by the ELLCO co-

author who is also a co-author of this study. After the training, observers with a weighted 

Cohen’s kappa score lower than .70 participated in additional observations and training 

until they reached an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability. In addition to the initial 

training, and prior to each data collection period, all returning observers participated in 

reliability checks, which included joint classroom observations followed by the 

calculation of inter-rater reliability, to ensure reliability among all individuals conducting 

ELLCO Pre-K observations. All completed ELLCO Pre-K observations were reviewed 

by the researchers to ensure that data collectors were collecting adequate evidence, and to 

confirm that the evidence corresponded with the scores assigned to each item. 

 



8     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

Children’s language and literacy knowledge.    EL children were first 

assessed on the preLAS 2000, a language screener used for 4–6 year-old children that 

provides an assessment of oral English language speaking ability. The oral language 

subscale provides a range of scores from 0–100 and a corresponding proficiency score of 

1–5, where 1 is a non-English speaker, 2–3 corresponds to a limited English speaker, and 

4–5 is a fluent English speaker. Children were also assessed on the auditory 

comprehension subscale of the PLS-4, a norm-referenced assessment of receptive 

language skills that provides insight into children’s comprehension of English but does 

not require them to produce oral language. The PALS Pre-K was used to assess 

children’s fundamental literacy skills including Letter Knowledge, Beginning Sounds and 

Print Word Awareness. Finally, the PPVT-4, a norm-referenced assessment, was used to 

assess receptive vocabulary in English.  

 

Data sharing.     As part of the intervention, the research team provided program 

administrators and education managers with formative evaluation feedback to inform the 

implementation of ongoing curricular activities. In addition, classroom data and 

individual child-level data were shared with each teacher and her coach semi-annually 

(fall and spring) for the purposes of improving classroom practice and tailoring 

instruction for individual ELs. More detail about how data were used as part of the 

intervention is provided below under the heading, “Standardized assessments.”  

 

Professional development intervention.    The SPLD intervention focuses 

specifically on promoting effective language and literacy instructional practices targeted 

at preschool EL children so that they will be prepared to benefit from the formal reading 

instruction that begins in kindergarten (August & Hakuta, 2007). The intervention 

educates teachers about the process of second language acquisition and supports their 

knowledge and skills in engaging and working with the significant numbers of EL 

children in their classrooms.  SPLD’s approach is based on three fundamental and 

interconnected ideas: 

 

 conducting thorough language assessments is key to developing a responsive 

language curriculum for ELs, 

 implementing specific language support strategies intentionally throughout the 

classroom day sets the stage for EL language development, and  

 grouping children intentionally maximizes opportunities for ELs to hear and 

use language in context by engaging them in classroom activities.  

 

The SPLD program as enacted in this study consisted of three integrated 

components: three full-day sessions of college-level coursework over six months, 

classroom-based assignments, and weekly on-site coaching. The assignments required 

teachers, with the support of their coaches, to implement new practices and strategies 

introduced in the sessions with specifically-chosen “focus” EL children in their own 

classrooms.  

 

Reflective coaching component.    Five coaches were selected based on their 

educational backgrounds (all had master’s degrees in education or a related field) and 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      9 

their previous experience working with, or coaching, early childhood teachers. Four 

coaches remained with the program for all three years and one coach left and was 

replaced before SPLD began. Initially, coaches were steeped in a reflective approach to 

coaching, and throughout the duration of SPLD, coaches met regularly to reflect 

collaboratively with the SPLD instructor on their work with teachers.  

Throughout the SPLD year coaches worked with teachers using an iterative 

observation and reflective conferencing cycle as teachers implemented SPLD practice-

based assignments in their classrooms. Coaches visited and observed teachers working 

with their “focus” EL students and video-recorded teachers facilitating language-based 

activities and using language-support strategies introduced in the SPLD course sessions. 

After each video-recording, the coach and teacher watched the video separately and then 

met for a joint viewing and analysis. Coaches facilitated teachers’ close observations of 

children’s language and behavior in the context of the SPLD instructional activities and 

strategies teachers were implementing. They helped teachers identify evidence of 

children’s language development and learning and reflect on the effectiveness of their 

own teaching. Finally coaches supported teachers’ planning of follow-up language 

activities and strategies that would continue to bolster children’s learning and promote 

teachers’ ongoing inquiry into children’s learning. In addition, coaches supported 

teachers’ use of data from family interviews and standardized assessments to further 

inform their individualized planning for ELs.  

SPLD was designed to support teachers in integrating three practices—collecting 

and using language assessment data from multiple sources, implementing language 

support strategies, and grouping children intentionally—into all aspects of the classroom 

day. Teachers were encouraged to use these practices to adapt classroom activities to 

meet the needs of ELs. The PD focused on adapting two typical preschool activities—

dramatic play and book reading—and introduced an adaptation to the grouping idea—

Language Helpers (Hirschler, 2001)—that would enlist EL children’s peers as active 

supporters of ELs’ language. We focused on adapting these activities in particular 

because of their great potential to support ELs’ engagement in classroom activities, 

increase their social interaction, and promote their English language development. 

 

Collecting and using assessment data from various sources.    Although 

ongoing individualized assessment is well-recognized as best practice in preschool 

classrooms, there is a tendency for teachers to generalize about the language abilities of 

their EL children (Espinosa & Lopez, 2007). The SPLD instructor stressed the 

importance of considering assessment information from a variety of sources in planning 

language experiences for groups and for individual EL children. At the first PD session, 

instructors facilitated discussions with teachers about three primary sources of assessment 

data: family interviews, teacher observations, and standardized assessments. Assessment 

data from these sources were then collected and analyzed with the help of the teacher’s 

coach. 

 

Family interviews.    Instructors introduced a family questionnaire adapted from 

Patton Tabors (Tabors, 2008) to help teachers get information from families about 

children’s language use, and to reinforce the idea that families are a valuable and often 

untapped source of information about their children’s skills. This instrument includes 



10     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

prompts such as “What language or languages do you use to talk to your child?” “Who 

else does your child spend time with besides you?” and “If English is not your home 

language, please estimate how many English words your child knows.” 

 

Teacher observations.    The instructor in SPLD asked teachers to explicitly 

observe and document the specific words and phrases that their focus EL children 

understood, used, or repeated throughout the day using the Observing Children Learning 

English (OCLE) observation tool, adapted from Tabors (2008). By dating each word or 

phrase according to when they heard it, teachers could establish a language baseline for 

each child and a portfolio of the child’s language learning over time.  

 

Standardized assessments.    Assessments of children’s receptive vocabulary, 

oral language, and emergent literacy skills and of teachers’ instructional practices were 

implemented in the fall before the beginning of the PD and in the spring after the PD had 

been completed. The data from these assessments were used to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the PD. They were also used formatively in feedback sessions as part of the SPLD 

intervention.  In order to prepare the SPLD teachers and coaches for the feedback 

sessions, researchers first fully described the ELLCO Pre-K and each of the standardized 

child language and literacy assessments in a group meeting. Feedback was then presented 

individually to each SPLD coach-teacher team after each assessment period. Feedback on 

teachers’ instructional strategies as assessed by the ELLCO Pre-K was provided orally to 

each teacher and included areas of strength and areas for growth; however, teachers were 

not given their actual individual ELLCO scores. Feedback was provided this way in order 

to avoid comparison of scores among teachers and to ensure that data would not be used 

for making personnel decisions. Child data were provided, shared, and interpreted with 

individual teacher and coach teams by a member of the research team. Coaches then 

supported each teacher’s use of the data to individualize instruction for EL children. In 

addition, aggregate classroom and child outcomes were shared at the end of each 

intervention year with education managers, teachers, and coaches as a group.  

 

Implementing specific language support strategies.    Teachers were 

assigned readings in Patton Tabors’ (2008) book, One Child, Two Languages, which was 

used to reinforce the SPLD course content. During the first session of SPLD, instructors 

encouraged participating teachers to begin using the following support strategies (Tabors, 

2008) with EL children immediately: 

 

 Adjust language to meet the needs of the child. 

 Restate and reframe comments and questions. 

 Provide definitions in context. 

 Scaffold oral language with pictures, props, and body language. 

 Interpret understanding from behavior and provide relevant vocabulary. 

 Follow up to check for understanding.  

 Increase the complexity of your own language as child is ready. 

 

Although these strategies are applicable to teachers’ work with all young children, 

instructors emphasized that they are especially critical for ELs. They support language 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      11 

development directly, make learning activities more accessible, and scaffold participation 

in the social life of the classroom. These teacher/child language interactions also yield 

valuable assessment information about EL children’s growing language abilities.  

 

Grouping children intentionally.   During the SPLD course, the instructor 

suggested ways of grouping children that would potentially increase child-child social 

interactions and support ELs’ language development. These strategies included (a) 

considering language assessment data in decisions about how to group children, (b) 

pairing and grouping EL children with temperamentally compatible children (including 

fluent English speakers) during learning activities, and (c) shifting activities like book-

reading (typically done with children in large groups) to smaller groups whenever 

possible. 

Social development is a major focus in quality preschools, and teachers were 

encouraged to think and talk about how children’s social interactions might also impact 

their language development. Peers provide “comprehensible” input for ELs, since the 

language they use is usually linked to the immediate context and is more direct and 

simple than the language used by adults (Krashen, 1981). The instructor supported 

teachers to think about groupings that would increase opportunities for EL children to 

engage in conversations, stimulate their child-child interactions, and promote a sense of 

community among all the language learners in the classroom, including ELs. 

 

Adapting activities—Dramatic play supports.  Research indicates that teacher-

child conversations are an important part of language development, particularly when 

child-talk predominates (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Dramatic play scenarios provide the 

concrete and familiar props that EL children need as scaffolds. The teacher can introduce 

sets of related words, use complex language to describe children’s play behaviors, and 

extend language by connecting the play to children’s everyday experiences. In the SPLD 

course, teachers were introduced to specific adaptations for supporting dramatic play 

conversations from the inside and the outside (Hadley, 2002). When the teacher supports 

play from the inside, she takes the role of a character in dramatic play. Supporting play 

from the outside allows the teacher to act as stage manager. She supplies materials, ideas, 

and information to enrich children’s play and language, but she isn’t tied to a role in the 

scenario herself.  

 

Adapting activities—Book reading.    Book reading has the potential to provide 

exactly the type of mutually reinforcing language, cognitive, and social supports that EL 

children need. A compelling story is a rich source of interesting new words, and it has the 

potential to provoke children’s thinking and make language connections to personal and 

shared experiences. SPLD’s primary adaptation of the book reading routine included 

reading the same book multiple times, with the teacher planning each reading based on an 

analysis of the previous one. Coaches collaboratively planned the readings with teachers, 

and they analyzed each reading together using video-recorded observations. Over the 

course of four readings the teacher was encouraged to:  

 

 initiate discussion of increasingly challenging words and language,  

 support deeper conceptual understanding,  



12     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

 group children to maximize interaction, and  

 gradually transfer responsibility for “reading” the story to the children.  

 

Adapting activities—Language helpers.    “Language Helpers” is a type of 

peer coaching based on the idea that even very young children can be taught to support 

the language use of their EL peers intentionally by initiating play and conversation, and 

by adjusting, restating, and reframing their words if they sense they are not being 

understood (Hirschler,1994). Teachers were encouraged to select language helpers based 

on children’s levels of social maturity and their interest in interacting with other children, 

as well as their English language fluency. The concept of “language helper” builds on 

and extends the grouping children intentionally concept. The teacher actively coaches 

designated language helpers to initiate and maintain contact with their EL peers by using 

body language, asking questions, checking for understanding, and waiting for responses. 

 

 
RESULTS 

 

As stated in the introduction to this article, our study was guided by two overarching 

research questions: 

 

1. Does a prolonged research-based PD program that includes on-site coaching 

and reflective practice, and provides on-going assessment, improve the quality 

of teachers’ instructional strategies that support language and literacy 

development for ELs?  

2. Do EL children in classrooms whose teachers receive the PD have greater 

gains in their language and literacy skills than children in comparison 

classrooms?  

 

Table 1 below, lists the different sources of data used for this study and shows which 

research question(s) each one was intended to address. In the remainder of this section, 

we describe the results obtained from each measure and relate them to the corresponding 

research question(s).   

 

 

TABLE 1 
Study Data Sources and the Research Questions They Address 

 Research question 

Data source 1 2 

Qualitative case study X X 

Qualitative focus groups X  

ELLCO Pre-K X  

preLAS 2000  X 

PLS-4  X 

PPVT-4  X 

PALS  X 

 

 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      13 

Qualitative Case Study: Grace and Maria 
 
Field notes, classroom observations, reflective conferences, and other coaching 

interactions from three teachers were read, re-read, and inductively analyzed (Creswell, 

2007). The data were then coded for teachers’ willingness to infuse their instructional 

practice with strategies to engage ELs in the classroom and for the degree of alignment of 

their current teaching with the key components in the SPLD course. Grace was chosen as 

an illustrative example of a teacher who was strongly committed to infusing her teaching 

practice with new strategies to engage ELs and whose practice was well-aligned with the 

intended pedagogy of SPLD. The data from Grace’s coach were then reviewed and 

summarized and are presented below as a case study that addresses our exploration of 

both research questions. In relation to Question 1 it provides an in-depth look at the types 

of learning experiences in which EL children in SPLD classrooms were engaged and 

some of the ways in which SPLD strategies were enacted in classrooms. In relation to 

Question 2 it paints a detailed picture of one child’s language and literacy development 

over time that augments the quantitative results.  

The case study of Grace and her focus EL preschooler, Maria, is presented 

chronologically in an effort to illustrate how Grace’s EL teaching progressed over time in 

concert with her learning in SPLD.  The case study also illuminates the relationship 

between Grace’s evolving practice and Maria’s language and literacy development. We 

have summarized the key components of the intervention as they were enacted by Grace 

throughout the school year (see Table 2). 
 

 

TABLE 2 
Overview of the Strategies Grace Employed with Maria Throughout the School 

Year 
September October November December January Februar

y 

March 

First 

coaching 

meeting 

 

Family 

interview 

 

Teacher 

observation 

Review of 

standardized 

assessments 

Implementing 

language 

supports 

 

Grouping 

children 

intentionally 

Grouping 

children 

intentionally 

 

Adapting 

dramatic 

play 

Adapting 

dramatic 

play 

 

Adapting 

book 

reading 

Adaptin

g book 

reading 

Languag

e helpers 

 

 

September 
 

First coaching meeting.    In her first coaching conference, Grace mentioned 

that one of her EL children, Maria, “talks all the time, is very happy, and has lots of 

friends” and that she didn’t think Maria would be an appropriate focus child for SPLD. 

However, Grace also revealed that she often had to remind Maria of the classroom rules, 

and that she had observed other children saying, “No, Maria!” and moving away from her 



14     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

during choice time. Maria was also “inattentive” at the large-group circle time and often 

distracted other children. After discussion with her coach, Grace agreed that it would be 

interesting to collect more evidence of Maria’s language and social relationships.  

 

Family interview.      Grace arranged a meeting with Maria’s mother, relying on a 

Portuguese-speaking colleague to translate. She learned that Maria’s family spoke 

primarily Portuguese, her afterschool babysitter spoke primarily Spanish, and her only 

exposure to English outside of the classroom was from television and occasional 

conversations with her brother. Grace was surprised to realize that the classroom was 

Maria’s only English language environment.  

 

Teacher observation.    Grace and her coach watched a video that had been 

taken of Maria during dramatic play. Although Maria didn’t directly interact with the 

other children, she did play alongside them. She also used the phrases, “Put it,” “C’mon,” 

and “Take it out” with an adult volunteer. Grace added these words and phrases to a list 

that already included “my shirt,” “I put it here,” “good morning,” “you my friend,” 

“corn,” “milk,” and some color names including pink, red, and blue. Documenting 

Maria’s receptive vocabulary and the words Maria understood was more challenging for 

Grace, and she and her coach talked about the importance of observing Maria’s behavior 

to assess whether or not she knew a word’s meaning. 

 

 

October 
 

Standardized assessments.    Grace learned that Maria’s vocabulary was 

below the fifth percentile for other children her age. In addition, her oral language ability 

indicated a score of “1,” equivalent to a “non-English speaker.” Grace was surprised by 

the information she had obtained from Maria’s mother, her own observations, and 

Maria’s scores on the standard language assessments, and she decided to work closely 

with Maria as a focus child in SPLD. 

 

 

November 
 

Implementing language supports.    Grace described the steps of a structured 

science activity for Maria, showing her how to squeeze a plastic bottle to test moving a 

variety of small objects with air. When Maria couldn’t get air out of the bottle, Grace 

said, “You have to squeeze the bottle harder,” and demonstrated by squeezing her hands 

into fists. “Squeeze means to press.” Grace then placed each object one by one in front of 

the bottle, named it, and invited Maria to try to move it by pointing to it and saying, “Try 

to move the rock by squeezing the bottle. Does the air push the rock?” 

During their conference her coach acknowledged Grace’s use of several language 

strategies and asked her why she hadn’t asked Maria to draw a picture of the results of 

the experiment as she had asked other children to do. Together the coach and Grace 

agreed that Grace would continue to use clear, short sentences, define words in context, 

supplement verbal definitions with body language, and follow up with Maria to check for 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      15 

understanding. Grace also planned to take advantage of opportunities for Maria to create 

drawings or documentation that could be used as props for language and to pair Maria 

with compatible English-fluent peers in subsequent activities. 

 

 

November and December 
 

Grouping children intentionally.    Grace paired Maria with multiple children; 

below are some examples of the interactions Maria had with her fellow preschoolers. 

Germaine. Maria and Germaine made “telescopes” with unifix cubes. Maria 

repeated the word “telescope” after Germaine and used the sentence “I making 

telescope.” She also used the longest phrases the coach and teacher had noted up until 

now, “That little piece for me put it” and “I no like no brother. Love you.” 

Kaneisha. Maria and Kaneisha made “oobleck” (liquid starch and glue) together. 

Kaneisha showed Maria what she was making, and that stimulated Maria to ask, “For 

your mommy or for your daddy?” When Kaneisha and the teacher joked back and forth 

“Who made the mess?” “You made the mess!” “No, you made the mess,” Maria repeated 

and played with their words, saying to herself, “You made the mess. No, you made the 

mess. Big mess. You made it the mess. You guys made the mess, big mess.”  

Terry. Maria and Terry looked at books together. When Terry began reciting her 

story, Maria imitated her saying, “Pooh said….” When the teacher was looking for a 

specific book, Maria said, “I no put it. Terry put it.” When the teacher responded, “Terry 

put it in the library?” Maria said “I think,” and “Miss B. Look. I reading Terry.” 

Ashley. Maria and Ashley used the computer together, and Ashley pointed out the 

names of items on the screen and described what was happening. During one story, 

Ashley said to Maria, “He’s under the rug see?” and “He’s sneaking under the rug.”  

During her reflective conference, Grace noted Maria’s growing expressive 

vocabulary (mess, piece, big, time, read/reading, like book/books), the words she was 

repeating, the increasing complexity of her sentences, and her even faster growing 

receptive vocabulary. Grace also shared Our Classroom Friendship Book that Grace had 

made with Maria to document Maria’s emerging social relationships. Grace commented 

that she had observed Maria leafing through it, pointing out her friends, and saying their 

names.  

 

 

December and January 
 

Adapting dramatic play.    During restaurant play with a small group, Grace 

supported the dramatic play by taking part in the role-play and supporting the play from 

the inside. Grace said, “I’d like Maria to be my waitress. Will you take my order, Maria?” 

Planned vocabulary included the names for table items (plate, bowl, napkin), words for 

appliances (stove, refrigerator, sink), kinds of food (salad, meat, vegetables, dessert), and 

action words like set, serve, place, and order. Grace reframed sentences to provide 

definitions for new words. For example, she said, “Maria, are you going to set the table 

now? Are you going to put the plates and cups on the table now?” She also built 

sentences around the familiar word “corn” by saying, “Maria is getting the corn out of the 



16     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

cabinet,” “Maria is serving the corn,” and “This corn is delicious!” Grace maintained her 

customer role as Maria explored different roles, alternating from waitress to cook to 

customer saying, “I hungry too!”  

In her coaching conference, Grace and her coach wondered whether Maria would 

get a deeper language experience if Grace encouraged her to stick with a particular role. 

They also talked about ways that Grace could reinforce and extend Maria’s “restaurant” 

words and language by using them when Maria helped set the classroom tables for lunch.  

During a unit on families, Grace supported play from the outside. She brought 

new baby items to the dramatic play area, named and described each item, and talked 

about how Maria and Claudia might use them. She showed children a small terrycloth 

bathrobe and encouraged them to touch it, saying, “This is the baby’s bathrobe. Isn’t it 

soft?” “Like my kitty soft,” responded Maria. Grace acknowledged Maria’s comment and 

then suggested Maria put the bathrobe on the doll “to keep her warm and dry.” “Make 

baby cry,” said Maria. “Wah wah.”  

During her next reflective conference, Grace and her coach talked about how 

Grace’s intentional choice of items, along with her suggestions for using them, invited 

the children to engage in more complex play and use more language. Her coach pointed 

out to Grace that it was clear Maria understood what soft meant because she had 

compared the softness of the baby’s bathrobe to the softness of her kitty. She suggested 

that Grace consider other ways to help Maria make connections between new words, such 

as warm and dry, and familiar concepts.  

 

 

January and February 
 

Adapting book reading.    Grace facilitated four small group readings of Max’s 

Dragon Shirt (Wells, 1991), a story about a young rabbit named Max who goes shopping 

for new pants with his older sister Ruby. Max falls asleep while Ruby tries on dresses, 

and then gets lost looking for her. In the meantime he discovers a “dragon shirt,” puts it 

on, and spills ice cream on it. At the end of the story, Max is found, with the help of a 

policeman and a teenager, and Ruby has to buy the shirt instead of the pants they 

originally planned to buy.  

 

First read.     Grace focused on “getting lost” and “asking adults for help” as 

story concepts and on conceptual questions such as, “Why did Max get lost?” She 

emphasized vocabulary for articles of clothing such as pants, shirt, dress, and other 

words critical to story understanding such as dragon, disgusting, looked for, and 

screamed. The six participating children were engaged in the reading, however Maria and 

the other three EL children didn’t say much. During the reflective conference her coach 

pointed out the strategies Grace used during the book-reading, defining shirt, pants, and 

dress by pointing to the children’s own clothing, and disgusting as “messy, nasty, and 

faded.” Grace had also demonstrated looked for and screamed and restated important 

information like, “Max fell asleep in the dressing room. He’s sleeping. See? His eyes are 

closed.” However, the coach also pointed out that when Grace asked “why” questions 

about the story like, “Why did Max follow the teenager?” and, “Why was Ruby looking 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      17 

for Max?” the children didn’t answer and seemed confused about basic information such 

as how the characters were related.  

Grace and her coach talked about the idea that the answers to Grace’s “why” 

questions were never explicitly stated in the story but had to be inferred from the context. 

They also noted that Maria had pointed to a picture and said, “She mad, ‘cause he dirty.” 

It was clear to Grace and her coach that Grace needed to help the children make sense of 

the characters and the sequence of story events before they could make inferences and 

understand the concepts she had originally planned to explore. They decided that Grace 

would center the second read around the pictures in the book. 

 

Second read.    Grace invited the four EL children to the reading. She asked 

children what they remembered about the story, and Maria said, “Max got dirty the shirt” 

and “Max eat ice cream.” During the reading Grace pointed at each picture and asked, 

“What do you see?” On subsequent pages Maria responded, “Mommy and baby,” 

“Ruby’s dress too small,” and “Max goed to sleep.” Grace acknowledged and extended 

these comments by providing direct repetitive commentary for each picture including, 

“Now Ruby is talking to the perfume lady. She is asking, ‘Have you seen my brother 

Max?’” She talked with children about the words escalator, dressing room, department, 

and lost and responded to children with simple but important follow-up questions like, “Is 

that Ruby?” and “Are they going up or down?” which further served to uncover their 

misconceptions about story characters and events. Although children were still confused 

about how Max got found (Maria said the policeman would “put Max to jail”) and how 

Max and Ruby got reunited, they were clearly making progress.  

 

Third read.    Grace read the story to the large group with Maria sitting next to 

her, stopping periodically to invite Maria and the other EL children who had participated 

in the first two reads to fill in details. Maria seemed pleased and comfortable with her 

role and contributed the comments, “Max’s pants are nasty!” “This is not…Ruby’s 

dress,” and “Max scream because the lady there.” When prompted by Grace, Maria told 

the children the characters’ names, that Ruby was a girl and Max was a boy, and that they 

were brother and sister. She also provided some story details such as, “It’s red but it’s too 

small” in regard to the dress Ruby tried on, and at the end she announced, “I told you she 

find him!”  

Grace invited Maria to fill in some words (disgusting, screamed, tight, and 

teenager), reviewed the definitions of others (department, fitting room, and vacuum) and 

introduced new ones (sportswear, perfume, and appliances). She wrapped up the reading 

by asking the whole group, “Have you ever been lost?” and children excitedly responded, 

“My daddy lost me in the park,” and “I got lost in the store just like Max!” Grace used 

this opportunity to bring up her original planned concepts and talked about safety rules 

including, “Always stay with an adult,” and “Look for a policeman to help you if you get 

lost.” In the reflective coaching conference, Grace planned the fourth read. She decided 

to have the EL children tell the story as she read it, using props she made out of copies of 

pictures from the book. She also planned to emphasize each of the vocabulary words. 

 

Fourth read.     Grace provided the four EL children with paper cut-outs of each 

story character with a plan to invite them to act out the story as she facilitated with the 



18     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

pictures in the book. She asked more open-ended questions such as, “What happened to 

Max in the dressing room?” and “What did Ruby do next?” inviting children to give more 

complex answers. Maria chose to play Max and the teenager. On each page Grace 

prompted the appropriate child to verbalize what his or her own character was doing, and 

she modeled what the character might say, such as, “I’m lost!” for Max and, “Where is 

Max?” for Ruby. In response to children’s comments, she also pointed out details in the 

story that hadn’t been mentioned yet, like the safety pin that was holding up Max’s pants, 

and the make-up the teenager was wearing. Maria used the words “nasty,” “messy,” and 

“disgusting” to describe Max’s pants, and she used the terms “looked for” and 

“screamed,” illustrating these behaviors with her characters. She answered the question 

“What happened to Max in the dressing room?” by saying, “Look at him eyes is closing.” 

When Grace asked, “Why was Max eating ice cream?” Maria said, “The policeman!” and 

when she asked, “Who helped Max?” Maria said, “Teenager help too!”  

By the end of the fourth read, it was clear that Maria had a solid understanding of 

story characters and events, and that she had learned some new vocabulary that could be 

reinforced during classroom conversations. It was also clear that she enjoyed the readings 

and the social interactions they had stimulated. After the fourth read, Maria held onto the 

book and “read” it to another EL child, ending by saying, “I tell my mom buy you dragon 

shirt. Okay?”  

 

 

March 
 

Language helpers.    Grace chose Haley, a socially mature native English 

speaker with a strong vocabulary, to be Maria’s language helper. During a multisensory 

finger painting activity she coached Haley and facilitated her interactions with Maria by 

asking questions: “Haley, what does Maria’s painting feel like compared to yours?” (“It 

feels rough”); suggesting ways to work together: “Haley, what can Maria help you with?” 

(“She can pass me the paint bottles”); restating Maria’s comments: “Haley, Maria is 

asking you for the green paint,” and prompting: “Haley, why don’t you ask Maria if she 

wants to help paint that side?” Toward the end of the painting activity, Grace left the 

table to get more paint. Maria and Haley giggled as they conspired to add water to the 

paint bottles, turning to see if Grace was watching. “You my friend,” Maria said to 

Haley. During the follow-up conference Grace shared how surprised and pleased she was 

to see this video-recorded interaction between the two girls. She noted that it probably 

wouldn’t have occurred had she not intentionally paired the girls, scaffolded their 

interactions, and then provided them with time alone together.   

This qualitative case study clearly illustrates the specific strategies that one 

teacher made to adapt classroom activities to meet the needs of ELs. In addition, it points 

to the great gains that one EL child can make when she is supported in her language 

development through specific strategies that engage her in classroom activities.  

 

 

 

 

 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      19 

Qualitative Focus Groups 
 

Focus groups were conducted with teachers and education managers after the SPLD 

program ended and close to the end of the Head Start program year. Teacher focus groups 

were conducted separately at each of the Head Start program’s five centers. The five 

education managers met together in one focus group. Similar semi-structured interview 

protocols were used for teacher and education manager focus groups and each one was 

audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded using three coding steps: open 

coding, creating categories, and abstraction (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). In the open coding 

stage, exclusive codes were assigned to meaningful segments of text. These codes were 

compared for their consistency and differences. In the second stage, codes with similar 

meanings or pointing to similar basic ideas were grouped to form categories. The 

abstraction stage produced a set of higher order categories that captured teachers’ 

language and literacy instructional approaches.  

Teachers shared their thoughts about the PD program as a whole and the SPLD 

course in particular. While teachers noted that there was too little time in the day to 

implement all of the assigned activities and strategies, they indicated that they had 

changed their classroom practice based on SPLD and that SPLD had benefitted their EL 

students. Teachers thought that rereading books was a particularly effective strategy for 

all students, especially ELs. Although teachers had begun rereading books to children 

during Year 1 of the three-year program, SPLD elucidated for teachers how ELs 

especially benefit from multiple readings. One teacher said: 

He picked up language from the book and was able to retell the stories, which I 

hadn’t noticed before. I mean, I knew that… he would sit and listen to stories and be very 

attentive, but for him to retell it was something new that I saw after so many book 

readings, and he really liked them. 

Another SPLD practice that teachers noted as particularly beneficial for EL 

language and literacy development was the Language Helper model. While some teachers 

assigned language helpers on an as-needed basis, other teachers established “Language 

Helper” as an official classroom job, incorporating this practice into their ongoing daily 

routine. In a separate focus group, education supervisors also pinpointed the Language 

Helper model as one of the techniques they felt made a real difference for the ELs in the 

intervention classrooms. One education manager stated, “It [the language helper model] 

was a good technique, and I think it even surprised [the teachers] by how well it worked.” 

A third practice specifically mentioned by focus group participants was using 

props to support language. In describing how she individualized her instruction for an EL 

student who arrived in the middle of the school year, one teacher stated, “I started with 

pictures. If we sang any songs I made sure that I had pictures, I had puppets, or a flannel 

board to go with it.” Finally, teachers made a connection between EL children’s language 

development and their social interactions. As one teacher said, “Before it was kind of like 

[he was a] bystander. He would just watch … now he’s more in there, and he’s playing 

cooperatively. And he’s included.” 

Furthermore, education managers noted the importance of the instructional 

coaches and their ability to mentor teachers effectively. The education managers cited 

that they felt one of the most beneficial aspects of the PD program was the coaching 

component, and they indicated that they noticed a large difference in the classroom 



20     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

quality of SPLD teachers as compared to their other staff. In the focus group, many other 

managers agreed after one of them said, “It’s just you look at those [SPLD] classrooms 

compared to the other [non-participants] and it’s a vast difference . . . Just some of the 

things that they do. Definitely there is a big benefit to the coaching.”   

Education managers also demonstrated an understanding of the role of reflective 

coaching and the use of video-recorded observations to help teachers reflect on their 

teaching and instructional goals. The education supervisors noted that, in addition to 

providing teachers with a concrete way to evaluate their own performance, the video-

recordings gave them “a baseline for rapport with their coach and the ability for them to 

grow,” which they felt was one of the biggest benefits offered to teachers. 

 

 

Quantitative Results: Teachers’ Instructional Strategies (ELLCO Pre-K) 
 

As mentioned above, SPLD was implemented during the second year of a three-year PD 

program. The first year of the program focused specifically on promoting research-based 

language and literacy practices and creating a print-rich environment. During Year 1, 

three teachers moved or dropped out of the intervention and three more teachers took 

their places. The new teachers had education levels similar to those of the teachers that 

left: Two new teachers had BAs and one had a master’s degree. In addition, one 

comparison teacher moved out of the sample.  

Data from the ELLCO Pre-K were collected in the fall and spring of Year 1 and 

again in the fall and spring of Year 2 (during SPLD). To analyze the quantitative data 

gathered on teachers’ instructional practices, we conducted repeated measures analyses of 

variance (RM-ANOVA) using ELLCO Pre-K data collected at four time points (fall and 

spring of Year1 and Year 2) in both SPLD and comparison classrooms.   

RM-ANOVA results for the General Classroom Environment (GCE) subscale of 

the ELLCO Pre-K (Table 3) indicate no significant interaction between SPLD and time, 

but they do show significant main effects of both SPLD (F(1, 98) = 9.04, p < .01) and 

time (F(1, 98) = 30.91, p < .001).  

 

 

TABLE 3 
Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance for General Classroom Environment 

Subscale 
Effect MS df F P 

SPLD 2.39 1 9.04 <.01 

Time 8.20 1 30.91 <.001 

SPLD*Time 0.05 1 0.20 0.66 

Error 26.00 98   

 

 

 It is important to note that RM-ANOVA is an omnibus test statistic and cannot 

tell us which specific time points within each group were significantly different from 

each other. In order to isolate these differences, post hoc comparisons were conducted. 

Corresponding GCE means by group and time point are illustrated in Figure 1. 

Bonferroni corrections indicate no significant differences between the mean GCE 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      21 

subscale scores of SPLD and comparison teachers in Year 1, but significant differences 

between the two groups in both the fall and spring of Year 2. Within the SPLD group, 

significant differences were evident between baseline GCE subscale scores (Fall Year 1) 

and GCE subscale scores at all other time points. Mean scores from subsequent time 

points (Spring Year 1, Fall Year 2, Spring Year 2) were not significantly different from 

one another. The comparison group showed no significant differences in GCE subscale 

scores across time.  

 

 

 
RM-ANOVA of the Language and Literacy (LL) subscale (Table 4) show results similar to those for the 

GCE subscale: the interaction between SPLD and time is not significant, but there are significant main 

effects of both the SPLD condition F(1, 98) = 15.09, p < .001 and time F(1, 98) = 18.01, p < .001.   

 

 

TABLE 4 
Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance for Language and Literacy Subscale 

Effect MS df F P 

SPLD 4.64 1 15.09 <.001 

Time 5.54 1 18.01 <.001 

SPLD*Time 0.17 1 0.55 0.46 

Error 30.16 98   

 

 

Bonferroni correction results indicate no significant differences between the mean LL 

subscale scores of SPLD and comparison teachers at baseline (Fall Year 1), but 

significant differences between the two groups at all other time points. Within the SPLD 

group, significant differences were evident between baseline LL subscale scores (Fall 

Year 1) and LL subscale scores at all other time points. Mean scores from subsequent 

time points (Spring Year 1, Fall Year 2, Spring Year 2) were not significantly different 

from one another. The comparison group showed no significant differences in LL 

subscale scores across time. Language and Literacy subscale means by group and time 

point are illustrated in Figure 2.  

2.68 

3.13 3.08 
2.82 

3.00 

3.74 3.77 
4.15 

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Fall Year 1 Spring Year 1 Fall Year 2 Spring Year 2
Comparison (n=12)

Figure 1. ELLCO General Classroom Environment means for SPLD (n=14) and  



22     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Taken together, these results suggest that SPLD and comparison teachers were 

comparable to one another in both Language and Literacy and General Classroom 

Environment prior to the intervention. The results further indicate significant growth in 

both subscales for the SPLD teachers in Year 1 with this growth sustained into Year 2. 

Finally, the results show no significant change for the comparison group on either the 

Language and Literacy or the General Classroom Environment subscales. 

 

 

Quantitative Results: EL Children’s Language and Literacy Knowledge 
(preLAS 2000, PLS-4, PPVT-4, and PALS) 

 
The SPLD intervention had a statistically significant effect on the language and emergent 

literacy development of EL children in participating teachers’ classrooms, as measured 

by the standardized assessments delivered before and after the PD (see Table 5). In the 

fall of Year 2 the average oral language ability score on the preLAS 2000 for ELs in 

SPLD (n = 162; ELs with proficient English were not included in this analysis) was 

41.75. This indicates that, on average, the ELs in SPLD had a baseline oral language 

ability equivalent to the non-English speaker category (proficiency level 1, 0-56) whereas 

the children in the comparison classrooms had a baseline language ability of 56.4 which 

was at the cutoff of non-English speaker and limited-English speaker, (proficiency level 

2, 57-66). In the spring, the mean oral language subscale score for SPLD children was 

2.27 
2.53 2.53 2.48 

2.72 

3.83 3.73 3.78 

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Fall Year 1 Spring Year 1 Fall Year 2 Spring Year 2

Comparison (n=12) SPLD (n=14)

Figure 2. ELLCO Language and Literacy means for SPLD (n = 14) and 

 comparison group (n = 12) 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      23 

66.93. This constituted a scale score increase of 25.18 points, and is at the cutoff for 

proficiency level 3 (limited-English speaker, 67-76) an increase of almost two full 

proficiency levels. Children in the comparison classrooms (n = 67) also showed gains, 

but the average gain on the preLAS was much smaller, only 11.27 points over the same 

period, though they did make the cutoff for proficiency level 3 (comparison mean = 

67.67). Both comparison and SPLD ELs showed approximately equivalent gains on the 

English vocabulary assessment, the PPVT-4; however, on the PLS-4 vocabulary 

assessment, ELs in the comparison group (n = 73) did not make gains from fall to spring. 

On the literacy assessment, the PALS Pre-K, ELs in SPLD (n = 171) showed gains on 

Letter Knowledge, Beginning Sounds and Print Word Awareness, as did the comparison 

ELs (n = 73).  

 

 

TABLE 5 
SPLD and Comparison Means and SDs, Gain Scores for preLAS, PLS-4 and 

PALS assessments 

  Fall Spring   

 

SPLD  Comp  SPLD  Comp  SPLD Comp 

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) 
 Gain Gain 

preLAS 
41.75 

(24.78) 

56.40 

(22.26) 

66.93 

(17.75) 

67.67         

(16.54) 

25.18 11.27 

PPVT-4 81.07 

(13.11) 

83.48 

(14.76) 

88.04 

(13.38) 

90.25 

(12.96) 

6.79 6.77 

PLS-4 93.25 

(12.61) 

94.79 

(11.51) 

96.82 

(11.60) 

94.32 

(13.94) 

3.75 -0.47 

PALS 

Letters 

6.52 (9.11) 4.93 

(7.24) 

12.20 

(9.95) 

9.71 (8.81) 5.68 4.78 

PALS Beg 

sounds 

2.16 (2.69) 2.38 

(3.07) 

4.49 (3.44) 3.22 (3.63) 2.33 0.84 

PALS PWA 3.13 (2.62) 4.06 

(2.55) 

5.75 (2.62) 5.55 (2.44) 2.62 1.49 

Note: SPLD = treatment group, Comp = comparison group, PALS Letters = PALS Pre-K Letter 

Knowledge subscale, PALS Beg Sounds = PALS Pre-K Beginning Sounds subscale, PALS PWA = PALS 

Pre-K Print Word Awareness subscale.   
 

 

Beyond simply observing that ELs made gains in their language and literacy skills from 

fall to spring, we wanted to assess the impact of the intervention on those skills. 

Specifically, using OLS regression analysis, we found that SPLD had a statistically 

significant effect on the spring scores of EL children’s receptive language ability, oral 

language ability, and beginning sound awareness (measured by the PLS-4, preLAS, and 

PALS Beginning Sounds subscale respectively), even after taking into account children’s 

fall scores. EL children who were in SPLD classrooms showed greater gains in their 

language and literacy development than children in comparison classrooms, even after 

controlling for initial language and literacy skills (see Table 6). In addition, EL children 

who participated in SPLD classrooms also had slightly higher print and word awareness 



24     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

than non-SPLD children (this result approached statistical significance). After controlling 

for fall scores, the SPLD intervention did not have a statistically significant effect on the 

PALS letter knowledge subscale.   

 

 

TABLE 6 
Variables Predicting Spring Language and Literacy Skills for ELs 

Model 
B 

SEB Β R
2
 

Model 1: Predicting spring PLS-4 score    .282*** 

Fall PLS-4 score 0.518 0.053  .524***  

SPLD intervention 3.365 1.373  .132*  

 

Model 2: Predicting spring preLAS score 

    

.482*** 

Fall preLAS Score
1
 0.469 0.034 .720***  

SPLD intervention 6.605 1.894 .173***  

 

Model 3: Predicting spring PALS score 

    

.126*** 

Fall PALS Beginning Sounds score 0.391 0.076 .311***  

SPLD intervention 1.385 0.469  .180**   

 

Model 4: Predicting spring PALS score 

    

.229*** 

Fall PALS Print & Word Awareness score 0.464 0.056 .484***  

SPLD intervention 0.622 0.32  .113~  
Note: SPLD intervention is the reference variable. 

˜p = .054  *p < .05  **p < .01  ***p < .001 
1
Fall preLas does not include children scoring proficient in English. 

 

 

While all EL children made significant gains from fall to spring on the PPVT-4 as 

measured by a paired samples t-test (p < .05), there was not a statistically significant 

effect of the intervention after controlling for fall scores. One potential reason for this 

lack of an intervention effect may be that the PPVT-4, which is an assessment of 

receptive vocabulary, is not a sensitive enough instrument to detect smaller effects in this 

population; the PPVT-4 was also normed on native English-speaking children and 

therefore may not be the most appropriate measure of language gains for ELs. Whereas 

the PLS-4 is also a receptive language assessment, it does more than assess vocabulary; 

rather it evaluates children’s basic receptive communication and language skills and 

therefore may be more sensitive to changes and development in children’s overall 

language understanding. Interestingly, on the PLS-4, children in SPLD classrooms started 

slightly behind their comparison peers but made greater gains, ending the year with 

higher oral language skills than the students in the comparison group.  

 

 

DISCUSSION 
 

The PD program described in this study included foundational early language and literacy 

training and emphasized the instructional practices, strategies, and adaptations that 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      25 

support ELs’ inclusion and engagement in classroom activities. Teachers who 

participated in the PD showed statistically significant gains in measures of instructional 

quality compared to comparison group teachers. These results are consistent with 

research that indicates PD is more effective when it is content-specific, incorporates 

collaborative coaching, and utilizes assessment for progress monitoring (Appleton, 2008; 

Darling-Hammond, 2012; Zaslow et al., 2010). Analysis of classroom observation data 

from four time points (across two years) revealed that during the first year of the 

professional development teachers made significant gains in the quality of their language 

and literacy practices and general classroom environment, and sustained these gains 

during the SPLD year. In addition, qualitative findings revealed that SPLD teachers used 

SPLD practices—particularly multiple book-readings, the Language Helper model, and 

contextualizing conversations with props—and credited these with supporting ELs’ 

language and literacy development.  

The case study explicates these practices by detailing the multiple adaptations 

Grace made to her typical classroom activities, including pairing and grouping children 

intentionally, facilitating dramatic play from the inside and the outside, and employing 

multiple readings of the same book. It also illuminates the interactions between a teacher 

and a coach over multiple conferences. In so doing, the case study begins to uncover the 

mechanisms through which reflective coaching supports a teacher’s capacity to apply EL 

focused language-teaching strategies. For example, after the second reading of Max’s 

Dragon Shirt, Grace’s coach helped her identify how and why EL children were not 

responding to the questions about the story. As a result, Grace was able to reconfigure her 

questions to improve their effectiveness as evidenced by children’s increased responses. 

The qualitative data are certainly consistent with the research that coaching, when it 

emphasizes collaborative reflection and teacher action and inquiry, fosters teachers’ 

pedagogical skills (Appleton, 2008; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). The case study and 

education manager focus groups also indicate that coaching promoted teachers’ 

application of content introduced in the SPLD course. In addition, the case study 

underscores the use of video-recording as a coaching tool. By making children’s 

language and behavior visible to the teacher and coach, and making them available for 

joint reflection, video-recordings seemed to promote the teacher’s ability to identify 

connections between children’s learning and her instructional practices.   

Although teachers in the focus group did not emphasize formative assessment as a 

beneficial SPLD practice, the case study serves to illuminate the iterative nature of the 

relationship between formative assessment and responsive language teaching. Collecting 

and analyzing data from multiple sources alerted Grace to Maria’s specific language 

needs, which stimulated her to implement more responsive language-support strategies 

and subsequently to collect more specific data about Maria’s language development. 

Moreover, the qualitative data (from both the case study and the education manager focus 

group) suggest that analyzing formative data with the facilitation of an experienced coach 

builds teachers’ capacity to identify effective language-teaching strategies and refine their 

practices.  

In addition to the gains SPLD teachers made in their instructional practices and 

the adaptations that teachers made for ELs, the results of the quantitative study indicate a 

statistically significant effect of the intervention on EL children’s language and literacy 

learning. After controlling for fall scores, EL preschoolers in intervention classrooms 



26     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

made significantly greater gains than comparison group EL preschoolers on measures of 

oral language development, receptive language development, and emergent literacy. The 

qualitative case study also provided a detailed picture of one child’s English language 

learning over time. Specifically, the case study indicates that the adaptations Grace made 

to classroom activities increased Maria’s opportunities to engage in contextualized 

conversations. This engagement exposed Maria to a wide range of words from more 

simple and “comprehensible” to more complex, and helped her to make meaning of 

words and concepts relevant to different situations (a science activity, a restaurant scene, 

taking care of a baby, a shopping excursion). This seemed to stimulate a recursive, 

positive cycle. Maria’s increasing language skills created more opportunities for 

interaction, which in turn presented her with more opportunities to hear and use language. 

This relationship between language and social interaction was also noted by teachers in 

the focus group.  

For ELs’ emergent literacy knowledge, the quantitative data indicate that ELs in 

the intervention classrooms made greater gains in beginning sounds and print and word 

awareness but not in letter knowledge. We speculate that while most preschool 

classrooms focus on alphabet knowledge as a part of regular classroom practice, the 

book-reading adaptations that support ELs’ early literacy development are not typically a 

part of regular classroom practice and may have contributed to the intervention effect for 

beginning sounds and print and word awareness.  

In a review of the first year of the language and literacy program (Young, 

Schilder, & Anastasopoulos, 2011), the authors examined the effect of the intervention on 

ELs’ language and literacy development. It is interesting to note that, while all children in 

the intervention made gains in their language and literacy development, there was not a 

statistically significant effect of the intervention for ELs in Year 1. This suggests that, in 

order to impact the language development of EL children, teachers need PD that 

specifically targets ELs and delineates the pedagogical knowledge and skills needed to 

support second language development. However, the fact that there was not a statistically 

significant effect of the intervention for ELs in Year 1 suggests that the course sessions 

may have also played a central role in focusing coaches’ attention on the specific 

language needs of ELs. In Year 1, as in Year 2, coaches attended the instructional course 

sessions and worked one-on-one with teachers. 

The overall findings from this study suggest that the intentional inclusion of ELs 

in classroom activities and a sustained emphasis on the practices, strategies, and 

adaptations that support their inclusion, may be the key to promoting ELs’ language 

success in early childhood classrooms.  

 

 

LIMITATIONS 
 

Teachers were not randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, and therefore the 

results of this study are correlational in nature. Comparison teachers were recruited from 

three different Head Start programs, whereas all of the teachers in the PD came from one 

program. There may have been some differences in program quality that were not taken 

into account in our models; however, all preschoolers in this study were ELs with similar 

family SES. In addition to the precautions taken to ensure reliable and valid data, 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      27 

researchers aimed to reduce any possible observer expectancy effects by not 

distinguishing between intervention and comparison classrooms with data collectors. 

However, over time, data collectors may have noticed differences between the two 

groups, as intervention classrooms tended to be of a noticeably higher quality with regard 

to language and literacy practice, and this may have introduced some observer bias. 

An additional limitation of the study is that it does not clearly separate the effect 

of SPLD instructional sessions from the effect of one-to-one coaching, nor do the 

quantitative data explicate the relationship between the two. Although it seems clear from 

the qualitative data that coaching increases the impact of the instructional sessions, a 

quantitative study would help to further uncover the mechanisms through which it does 

so. 

 

 

Future Directions 
 
Research suggests that content-focused coaching that is responsive, relational, and 

reflective has the potential to play a significant role in supporting teachers’ content 

knowledge and pedagogy (Appleton, 2008; Kochan, 2002), their reflective capacity, and 

their ability to implement new practices (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). One interesting aspect 

of the current research is the inclusion of the qualitative case study which illustrates the 

interaction between a teacher and coach who worked together in SPLD. Further research 

in this area could specifically parse out the value added to the PD by the coaching 

component through systematic investigation of a PD-without-coaching intervention and a 

PD-with-coaching intervention. This type of study might also further describe the 

mechanisms through which coaching influences teacher practice.  

In the present study, video-recorded observations were used during reflective 

conferences for a critical examination of the teachers’ instructional practices in relation to 

the strategies presented in the PD. These video-recordings may have played a key role in 

promoting ELs’ language and literacy development as they served to focus the teachers’ 

and coaches’ joint attention on discrete classroom interactions. Future research might 

further describe the role of video-recording as a coaching tool. Moreover, future research 

could also plan a randomized-control (RCT) fully powered study to test for a cause and 

effect relationship between the SPLD program and changes in ELs’ language and literacy 

skills. In addition, because SPLD was conducted as part of a three-year language and 

literacy program and was not evaluated as a stand-alone intervention, future studies could 

investigate whether SPLD could be replicated without an initial year of language and 

literacy professional development. 

 

 

REFERENCES 
 

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary 

teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 523–545. doi: 10.1007/s10972-008-9109-4 

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research 

agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 



28     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based 

theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Syke, (Eds.), Teaching as the 

learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & McLaughlin, N. (2008). Dual language learners in the early years: 

Getting ready to succeed in school. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English 

Language Acquisition. 

Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme 

detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429–438. 

Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of 

experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 403–414. 

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of 

America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

Cochran-Smith, M. (2013). Foreword. In N. F. Dana, Digging deeper into action research: A teacher 

inquirer’s field guide (pp. ix–xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five 

approaches (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd. 

Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Guttmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed method 

research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and 

behavioral research (pp. 209–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective 

teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.  

Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Putting the pieces together: Impact of preschool on children's language and 

literacy development in kindergarten. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning 

literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 257–287). Baltimore: 

Brookes. 

Dickinson, D., & Brady, J. (2006). Toward effective support for language and literacy through professional 

development. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood 

professional development (pp. 141–170). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Dickinson, D. K., & Caswell. L. (2007). Building support for language and early literacy in preschool 

classrooms through in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy Environment 

Enrichment Program (LEEP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 243–260. 

Dickinson, D. K., & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2). New 

York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral language skills in 

kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2(1), 1–25. 

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children 

learning at home and school. Baltimore: Brookes. 

Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2002). The creative curriculum® for preschool (4th ed.). 

Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. 

Duncan, S., & De Avila, E. (2000). Preschool Language Assessment Scales 2000 (preLAS 2000). 

Monterey, CA: CTB McGraw-Hill. 

Dunn, L., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4
th

 ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson. 

Ehri, L. C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to 

read: Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Ehri, L. C. (1995). Teachers need to know how word reading processes develop to teach reading effectively 

to beginners. In C. N. Hedley, P. Antonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Thinking and literacy: The 

mind at work (pp. 167–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). 

Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading 

Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. 

Espinosa, L. M. (2008). Challenging common myths about young English language learners. (FCD Policy 

Brief Advancing PK–3 No. 8). New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. Retrieved 

from http://fcd-us.org/resources/challenging-common-myths-about-young-english-language-

learners 



       BUILDING A CLASSROOM COMMUNITY      29 

Espinosa, L. M. & Lopez, M. L. (2007). Assessment considerations for young English language learners 

across different levels of accountability. Retrieved from 

www.first5la.org/files/AssessmentConsiderationsEnglishLearners.pdf  

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). Early interventions for 

children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A 

Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 63–71. 

Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language learners at-risk 

for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability 

Quarterly, 24(4), 235–250. 

Hadley, E. (2002). Playful disruptions. Early Years, 22(1), 9–17.  

Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, 

NH: Heinemann. 

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American 

children. Baltimore: Brookes. 

Hirschler, J. A. (1994). Preschool children´s help to second language learners. Journal of Educational 

Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 227–239. 

Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., & Meier, J. (2001). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for 

Preschool. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. 

Kamil, M. L. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the 

National Reading Panel findings. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in 

reading research (pp. 213–234). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Kochan, F. K. (2002). The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring across diverse 

settings. In F. K. Kochan (Ed.), The organizational and human dimensions of successful 

mentoring programs and relationships. Perspectives in mentoring. Greenwich, CT: Information 

Age Publishing.  

Krashen, S. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London, UK: Prentice Hall 

International. 

Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of 

comprehensive professional development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448–465. 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Lonigan, C. J. (2003). Development and promotion of emergent literacy skills in children at-risk of reading 

difficulties. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing 

science to scale (pp. 23–50). Timonium, MD: York Press. 

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2007). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. 

M. Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research 

evidence (pp.176–222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  

McLaughlin, B., Blanchard, A., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in bilingual 

preschool children. NCBE program information guide series No. 22. Washington, DC: National 

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Oral language 

and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(1), 30–43. doi: 

10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00205.x 

Mitton Kukner, J., & Murray Orr, A. (2015). Inquiring into pre-service content area teachers’ development 

of literacy practices and pedagogical content knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher 

Education, 40(5), 41–60. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.3  

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy 

Panel. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. 

Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. 

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity, promises, 

and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Program on Education; Providence, RI: 

Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved from 

http://www.annenberginstitute.org/publications/list.html 

Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher professional 

development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19–24.  



30     HOISINGTON ET AL. 

 

Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and literacy 

research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 163–175. 

Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012, January). Teacher development to support English 

language learners in the context of Common Core State Standards. Paper presented at the 

Understanding Language conference, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from 

http://ell.stanford.edu/papers/policy 

Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade 

reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental 

Disabilities Research Reviews, 2(1), 54–63. 

Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological 

awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo. & A. J. Capute 

(Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp.75–119). Timonium, MD: York 

Press. 

Schickedanz, J. A. (1999). Much more than the ABCs: The early stages of reading and writing. 

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 

Schickedanz, J. A., & Dickinson, D. K. (2005). Opening the world of learning: A comprehensive early 

literacy program. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Early Learning. 

Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early Language and Literacy Classroom 

Observation Tool, Pre-K (ELLCO Pre-K). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: 

Preparing teachers for a changing world. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass. 

Sulzby, E. (1994). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. In R. B. 

Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., 

pp. 244–280). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 

Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning 

English as a second language (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Tabors, P. and Snow, C. (1994). English as a second language in preschool programs. In F. Genesee (Ed.), 

Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole 

community (pp.103–125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2013). Report 

to Congress on dual language learners in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. 

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/report_to_congress.pdf 

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). 

Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention 

as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of 

specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. 

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic 

professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739. doi: 

10.3102/0034654308330970 

Wells, R. (1991). Max’s dragon shirt. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Books for Young Readers. 

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 

69(3), 848–872. 

Young, J. M., Schilder, D., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2011). RENEW: Reading Enrichment to Nurture 

Excellence in Worcester. Grant performance report to the U.S. Department of Education. Newton, 

MA: Education Development Center. 

Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., Lavelle, B., & Trends, C. (2010). Toward the 

identification of features of effective professional development for early childhood educators: 

Literature review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool Language Scale. (4th ed.) (English 

edition). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.