Effects of academic and non-academic instructional approaches on preschool English language learners’ classroom engagement and English language development

Abstract

This research compared the relative impact of different preschool activities on the development of bilingual students’ English-language skills. The study investigated whether bilingual preschool children would engage more, and use more of their second language (English), during free-play (non-academic) versus teacher-structured (academic) activities. The researcher utilized both quantitative and qualitative research approaches; data sources included 285 preschool observations made in three classrooms in Northern California. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies/percentages, mean values, and standard deviations). In addition, children’s observed scores were also analyzed by normative scales using standardized z-scores. The findings of this study indicated that bilingual children engaged and interacted significantly more during free-play (non-academic) preschool classroom activities than during teacher-structured (academic) activities. Specific free-play activities enabling optimal engagement and second language acquisition were pretend play, free play, and monkey bars. The study’s major implication is that free-play (non-academic) activities may be much more helpful in developing bilingual preschoolers’ English-language skills than teacher-structured (academic) activities. Free-play activities are an affordance for making language available, which helps with building academic skills and cultural capital. This study proves that free-play activities are an affordance for language learning because bilingual children have shown dramatically greater engagement in non-academic activities (vs academic activities). The importance of free-play activities may extend beyond preschool classrooms (e.g. greater English-language development in early preschool may subsequently positively impact student performance in kindergarten). Thus, unstructured, social-based activities should be implemented for bilingual students in K-12 classrooms. Free-play (i.e. non-academic) activities should be implemented in preschool.

Keywords

child development early childhood curriculum language acquisition linguistic minorities policies for early education

Statistics show that the number of English-language learners (ELLs) in the United States has grown at an increasingly rapid rate in recent years. Over the last three decades, while the overall US population has increased by 34 percent, the subset of those speaking a primary language other than English has increased by 140 percent (Kindler, 2002; US Census Bureau, 2010). Nowhere is this growth more evident than in the US public school system, particularly at the preschool level where more than one-third of children speak a language other than English at home (California Department of Education, 2013). Shonkoff and Philips (2000) have predicted that in 20 years, English will be the primary language of fewer than 50 percent of children under the age of 5 years. This would imply a sustained growth pattern.

For many ELL children, preschool programs are the only avenue for acquiring and developing English-language skills prior to kindergarten. Thus, in recent years, many education scholars have focused their efforts on finding new ways to help foster the acquisition of a second language in the early stages of child development. Interestingly, research shows that preschoolers, with only basic English proficiency upon starting their educations, experience greater cognitive growth via preschool programs than their more English-proficient peers (Loeb et al., 2007). With better English-language skills, children do better in other academic areas, and they continue to do so into (and throughout) their elementary school years. When children do better academically, they feel more confident about their future academic abilities, and they are less easily discouraged.

What is less certain, however, is what preschool activities best facilitate English-language proficiency. Generally speaking, preschool activities may be categorized into two groups: academic and non-academic. Academic (Fromberg, 2002; Stipek, 2004; Stipek and Byler, 1997) activities imply the teacher is in charge and preschoolers follow the teacher’s instructions (e.g. circle time, library time, alphabet and number learning, worksheets, and storytelling). Non-academic activities (Fromberg, 2002; Stipek and Byler, 1997, 2004) are child-centred, play-based, and enable the preschoolers to interact and explore (e.g. free play, peer-book readings, dramatic play, pretend play, and outdoor and monkey bars playtime).

Gormley et al. (2005) and Magnuson et al. (2004) found that academically oriented preschool activities are most beneficial for promoting children’s competency in math, letter recognition, and spelling; thus, academic-oriented instruction in preschools is generally preferred among parents (Vail, 2003) and policymakers (Raver and Zigler, 2004; Whitehurst, 2001) over non-academically oriented, or free-play, instruction (Bodrova and Leong, 2003; Zigler et al., 2004). Academically oriented preschools are generally regarded as “high-quality” preschools, and teacher qualifications and academic curricula are regarded as most important (Cardiff and Stringham, 2006; Yamamoto and Li, 2012). These high-quality preschools have, in fact, been shown to produce children who perform better in math and reading, are more socially competent, and have fewer behavioral problems than their peers in other schools (Burchinal et al., 2010; Magnuson et al., 2004).

But the important question facing this study is whether these teacher-structured academic classroom activities also benefit the development of preschool ELLs. Elkind (2001) suggests that social interactions occurring during children’s play (Elkind, 2001), and linguistic engagement activities generally lacking an academic focus, are such crucial components in language learning and acquisition that bilingual preschool children would benefit more from free-play, non-academic classroom activities.

This illustrates a significant gap in research since studies in second language acquisition (SLA) do not generally focus on the pre-kindergarten (pre-K) student population. Indeed, Saunders and O’Brien (2006) have indicated a lack of empirical research regarding second language development for preschool children, which is a critical time for cognitive development and learning (Brown, 2007; Doidge, 2007). If US children do not acquire solid English-language skills during their preschool years, they cannot hope to progress successfully in elementary school (Scarborough, 2005). Thus, the central issue is whether preschool ELLs benefit more from academic activities (vs non-academic activities) in attaining English-language proficiency. Ultimately, this study will help identify the most highly efficient classroom activities for bilingual learners’ development of English language.

According to Hamers (2004), all language development happens via interactions embedded in the context of social environments. How many opportunities the child gets to interact with other English-language speakers depends on the classroom activity.

Oral language development

Oral language skills are indisputably critical for young ELLs future academic success; in fact, Hammer et al. (2014) state that “children’s oral language and early literacy development serve as the foundation for later reading abilities and overall academic success” (p. 716). However, there is a gap in research when it comes to oral language development and early literacy skills in young ELLs. This is primarily due to the fact that most studies focus on monolingual learners (Hammer et al., 2014). Thus, while research on ELLs in early childhood care has been increasing, it is still “considered emergent” (Castro, 2014: 696).

Second language learners’ oral proficiency in English is generally acquired before reading and writing skills; this is simply the natural sequence of L1 and L2 acquisition and affects preschoolers as young as age 3. When children in this age category are to acquire a second language, they do so through exposure and conversations (as they cannot read or write); however, the development of oral English-language proficiency still involves a wide range of skills (e.g. learning new vocabulary, having control of grammatical rules, and being aware of the semantics of the English language (Saunders and O’Brien, 2006)).

According to Ballantyne et al. (2008), oral language proficiency is divided into two types: productive (speaking) and receptive (listening). Both are considered to be important components of social skills. Oral proficiency is considered by some researchers to be a predictor of successful reading, writing skills, and general literacy in later years (Reese et al., 2000; Scarborough, 2005). Reese et al. (2000) conducted a longitudinal study examining whether proficiency in oral language skills would have an effect on later literacy development and, in particular, later reading skills. The participants included 121 Spanish–English bilingual children with Latino cultural backgrounds. These children were followed for 8 years starting from an early kindergarten entry until the seventh grade. The results indicated that early oral proficiency (in English) was found to be a predictor of higher reading skills until the seventh grade.

Hammer et al. (2014) reviewed all recent studies, conducted between 2005 and 2013, on the language development of young ELLs and concluded that there is an important relationship between children’s oral language development in preschool and emergent literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade. Focusing on the growth of children’s oral language development in preschool helped with acquiring reading abilities in first grade and enhanced letter-word recognition in kindergarten. This is significant since many studies have shown that ELLs are behind their monolingual peers at the start of elementary school.

L2 oral development and in specific preschool classroom activities

The development of oral language includes the development of both speaking and listening skills in bilingual preschool children. Developing oral skills through the utilization of songs, rhymes, and book reading will be discussed next.

The most common daily preschool classroom activities are singing songs and telling rhymes. As far as scholars can remember, music and songs have been utilized for the enhancement of learning in classrooms with young toddlers and preschoolers (Ohman-Rodriguez, 2004). The utilization of songs in the preschool classroom provides opportunities for children to develop their listening and speaking abilities. In addition, songs help them learn diverse language items (e.g. vocabulary, adjectives, adverbs, sentence pattern, rhythm, pronunciation, and speaking), which are very important for second language learners (Saricoban and Metin, 2000; Woodall and Ziembroski, n.d.). The utilization of songs (to teach English as a second language) provides a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom; also, children do not feel pressured to be understood when singing since they usually sing in a group. Additionally, such songs are easy to follow and are generally easy to remember.

According to Brown (2006), songs and nursery rhymes are excellent sources for ELLs to practice articulation and pronunciation of certain English sounds such as the “R” sounds (e.g. in the “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” song). Besides the practice of sounds and pronunciation, other benefits of songs for second language learners include repetitiveness (Woodall and Ziembroski, n.d.), which is very helpful when learning and remembering the English-language vocabulary. A good example is “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” (Brown, 2006).

According to Woodall and Ziembroski (n.d.), a first introduction to the patterns of language occurs when children hear songs, rhymes, and chants, which are usually repeated myriad times throughout childhood. When children become familiar with these patterns of language, they are able to take part in oral language experiences. Music, in general, facilitates children’s communication, which is first oral (Ohman-Rodriguez, 2004). Although there is no empirical research examining the use of songs and music with second language learners, Paquette and Rieg (2008) confirmed the benefits of utilizing music and songs to promote second language development (especially due to the repetitiveness and pronunciation aspects that songs provide).

The second most common daily preschool classroom activity that has proven to enhance children’s language skills in general (Dickinson and Smith, 1994)—and more specifically development of vocabulary (which includes listening and speaking skills)—is the utilization of book reading. Senechal (1997) conducted a study to demonstrate the forms of book reading in the preschool classroom that have an effect on children’s expressive and receptive vocabulary acquisition. The sample consisted of 3- and 4-year-old monolingual preschoolers who were predominantly Caucasian followed by a small number of Asian children. Their parents were of a middle-class socioeconomic background. The researcher incorporated two types of book reading: the first involved the teacher actively engaging the children in a story by asking questions throughout the reading and the second type was just reading a story aloud to children. The results indicated that children did indeed make improvements in vocabulary acquisition but not until after a third reading. The key in vocabulary acquisition was found to be repeated exposure to novice words; this was predominantly found to improve expressive vocabulary (vs receptive vocabulary) in preschool children. Children’s oral comprehension skills are reinforced by the acquisition of new vocabulary and further strengthened by oral interactions with teachers and parents during storybook reading (Whitehurst, 2001).

A slightly different type of storybook reading in the preschool classroom is called shared storybook reading, which is also believed to be very instrumental in children’s language and cognitive development. According to Beauchat et al. (2009), shared meaning involves a child in selecting a storybook to read so that he or she is more interested and engaged during reading time. In shared storybook reading, the child should be able to pause and engage in a conversation about the story. A productive storybook reading will effectively target the development of oral language, phonological skills, vocabulary, and comprehension (Beauchat et al., 2009).

Shared reading experiences have also been found by Whitehurst et al. (1994) to improve preschool children’s expressive language skills. Whitehurst et al. (1994) conducted a study to explore how a different number of children in a story reading group would affect language development. The fundamental belief about small group reading (i.e. dialogic reading) is that children will benefit from it if they can actively respond during the book reading.

Whitehurst et al. (1994) suggests that an adult should initiate a child’s involvement by learning about the child’s abilities and interests during book reading. These opportunities obviously diminish as the child-to-adult ratio increases; thus, dialogic reading must occur in small groups. The usual reading sessions in preschool classrooms are large group readings (i.e. children sit still around the teacher and are quiet). The results of this study indicated that this small group type of classroom story reading did indeed improve children’s language skills.

Collins (2010) conducted a study to examine whether a rich explanation (i.e. a detailed definition) would help ELL children acquire new vocabulary during storybook reading. The study included preschool children who were native speakers of Portuguese; English was their second language. Small groups of two to three children had prolonged learning periods. The study results indicated that preschool children had successfully acquired a third of the new vocabulary words presented. Children were exposed to the new vocabulary words six times during the study; high exposure to new vocabulary words was found to be a determinant of new vocabulary acquisition (which included repetition of new words). Thus, ELL children were found to acquire sophisticated vocabulary from small group storybook reading.

Research shows that the type of preschool activity (i.e. storybook reading or singing songs) that a child participates in has different effects on cognitive and language development. Children’s oral development is enhanced by language use. Certain preschool activities will allow them to converse and use their oral skills more than others. Children appear to interact and converse with other children more during free-playtime activities. Children’s participation in teacher-structured activities (i.e. the teacher talks and gives instructions to the entire group and not to one child at a time) might expose children to correct grammar usage and correct articulation of English-language sounds; however, chances of conversation are reduced.

The following section will review the advantages and disadvantages of teacher-structured and child-centred approaches on preschool children’s learning. Because of the lack of research on second language learners in this area, the following studies will discuss the differences in these two approaches (child-centred or non-academic and teacher-centred or academic) with both monolingual and bilingual children.

Preschool curriculum

Child-centred approach

A number of empirical studies compared these two approaches and found that child-centred curriculum activities were not only more developmentally appropriate (Burts et al., 1990, 1992) but also that children were more inclined to voluntarily select an academic-oriented (i.e. basic skill) activity over a different kind of activity (vs preschool children in a didactic, teacher-structured classroom; Stipek et al. (1995)). Additionally, children in child-centred classrooms scored higher on many of the motivation-related measures, exhibited less dependency on adults’ approval and permission, selected more difficult math problems to solve, had more pride in their achievements, and showed less anxiety about schoolwork (vs children in didactic-oriented classrooms).

Bodrova and Leong (1996, 2007) developed and tested a new play-based curriculum, Tools, which incorporated Vygotsky’s theories in their measurement of play in early childhood curriculum.Many researchers link learning through play to Lev Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural learning and learning from the environment. Vygotsky emphasized that play is a source of children’s development; play creates the zone of proximal development (ZPD) or opportunity to grow. Barnett et al. (2008) empirically tested the Tools curriculum against a control curriculum; the main emphasis was on teacher-controlled activities (vs child-centred activities). Almost all children were of a Latino ethnic background; more than half of the children’s primary home language was not English. The Tools curriculum was created to help teachers and children scaffold learning in the preschool classroom. Results of this study indicated that the Tools classroom environments were better than the control classroom environments in aspects of self-regulation and language development.

Another curriculum, Learning Through Play (Singer et al., 2003), was based on a similar concept; however, its main focus was on properly training teachers and parents how to teach numbers, vocabulary, shapes, colors, and manners through play (and not through a more common didactic approach). This play-based approach to learning is superior to an existing teacher-structured approach. Children did not only do better on school readiness measures (e.g. shapes, vocabulary, and numbers), but they also did better on pre-social skills (e.g. sharing, taking turns, and being positive (vs frustrated)). The researchers did not indicate how many of these children were ELLs; however, this play-based approach appears to be suitable for ELLs’ development of the English language. These results concur with findings by Stipek et al. (1995) that children in didactic classrooms exhibit more anxiety and less pride in accomplishments (vs children in child-centred classrooms).

This stress factor is a key consideration when selecting an appropriate curriculum for preschool children because it might hinder early learning and development. ELLs are considered to be at-risk learners who come from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and are believed to have enough stress in their lives already (Burts et al., 1990). Therefore, it would be efficient to offer them a stress-free classroom environment; based on this study, the stress-free environment would be found in developmentally appropriate classrooms. Gender differences also have an impact; females showed less stress behaviors than males. Boys were found to be more vulnerable to developmentally inappropriate situations. Similar findings were also found in a Burts et al. (1992) study; their findings indicated that 204 kindergarten children exhibited more stress behavior in developmentally inappropriate classrooms (vs developmentally appropriate classrooms). This study also found that boys and African-American children were particularly more stressed in developmentally inappropriate classrooms (vs girls and Caucasian children).

Teacher-structured approach

Experts in early childhood instruction have maintained that teacher-structured instruction will have a positive effect on children’s language development (DeBaryshe and Gorecki, 2007; Fuligni et al., 2012; Justice et al., 2003, 2008). When teachers’ skills provide support to children in the classroom environment, they have a positive effect on the preschooler’s language growth. Howes et al. (2008) examined children’s growth in academic activities specifically designed to prepare preschoolers for kindergarten. The researchers hypothesized that effective teaching and teacher–child interactions would predict advanced pre-academic skills in preschoolers. However, there is still a considerable gap in research on how effective these interventions are on preschoolers who are second language speakers.

Young ELLs are considered to be at risk for low academic achievement, along with children who come from poverty-level households; thus, there has been more focus on the development of intervention programs that are usually teacher-structured. Unlike previous studies, Farver et al. (2009) conducted a study involving children whose parents speak Spanish; the results concur with what other researchers have found with previous interventions for children whose first language is English. Thus, these early emergent literacy interventions are empirically found to be helpful for all preschool children (whether they are monolingual or bilingual); however, these emergent literacy programs require constant and high levels of teacher–child interactions. The teachers must first observe each child’s individual strengths and weaknesses in order to provide appropriate scaffolding instructions.

Constructive individual follow-up conversations are eminent in these types of emergent literacy models, which seem to be extremely time-consuming on the teachers’ end. Other research has found that teachers tend to provide more scaffolding opportunities to children who initiate interactions (vs children who do not); thus, those children benefit from teacher–child interactions more than those who do not initiate interactions (Chien et al., 2010). Since acquiring a second language also requires more than mere memorization, a child-centred approach would be the most suitable approach for acquiring English as a second language.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate whether bilingual preschool children would engage more—and use more of their second language (English)—during free-play (non-academic) versus teacher-structured (academic) activities.

Research questions

What is the effect of free-play activities on L2 development of bilingual preschool children?

What is the level of engagement of bilingual preschool children while interacting with peers?

What is the quality and quantity of L2 produced by bilingual preschool children while interacting with peers?

What is the effect of teacher-structured time activities on L2 development of bilingual preschool children?

What is the level of engagement of bilingual preschool children while interacting with teachers?

What is the quality and quantity of L2 produced by bilingual preschool children while interacting with teachers?

Theoretical framework

Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory was used to examine English-language development in the context of preschool classroom interactions in child-centred and teacher-structured activities. It is essential to incorporate a social development theory as language plays a central role in children’s mental development (Vygotsky, 1978). Language development is part of cognitive development and occurs as a product of social interactions.

Research design

This study utilized a mixed methods design, which included both qualitative and quantitative approaches, to investigate the English-language development of preschool bilingual children. A mixed methods design allowed the researcher to combine the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2008). The data collection period lasted 6 weeks. The researcher observed all academic and non-academic activities at the preschool center. Since there were eight children observed during 16 different preschool activities, there were 285 observations totaling 143 hours of observation preschool classroom time in this study. Along with validity, reliability is a measure of consistency that helps establish the quality of a given research study process. An expert review panel determined the validity of measures used in this study. To ensure reliability, a case study protocol and case study database were utilized to eliminate or reduce biases and errors in a research study (Yin, 2009).

Sample

A purposeful homogeneous sampling research method was used to select the sample for this study. Study participants consisted of eight bilingual preschool children. The families represented diverse ethnicities (Japanese, Portuguese, Latino, and Indonesian); thus, besides speaking English, they also spoke Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish. The primary languages spoken at home were Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese; the native languages of mothers and fathers varied among families. Parents indicated that their children had been acquiring the English language over 2 months to 4 years. It is essential to point out (Castro, 2014) that five of the bilingual children were simultaneous; three were sequential bilinguals. Two of the parents indicated that their children were acquiring English language only at this preschool. Their gender, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic status varied (see Tables 1 and 2 for sample demographics).

Table 1.

Description of participants.

Demographic variables	n	%
Gender
Male	5	65
Female	3	35
Age (years)
3–3.5	3	40
4	1	10
5–5.5	4	50
Language status
Sequential bilingual	3	35
Simultaneous bilingual	5	65
Time spent in preschool
First year	7	85
Second year	1	15
Primary language spoken at home
English	4	50
Spanish	1	13
Portuguese	1	13
Japanese	1	12
English and Spanish	1	12
Secondary language spoken at home
English	1	12
Spanish	3	38
Portuguese	1	12
English and Spanish	1	13
No other language	2	25

Table 2.

Individual student profiles.

Isabella is 5 years old and in her first year of preschool. Isabella is a sequential bilingual, as her native language is Spanish; she is exposed to English only at the preschool and has been learning it for 1 year. Both of her parents speak only Spanish at home. Her mother identified their family’s ethnic background as Latino. Isabella has a special ability of translating from Spanish to English and vice versa.

Pablo is 5 years old and in his first year of preschool. Pablo is a simultaneous bilingual and has been acquiring both Spanish and English since birth. Pablo father’s native language is Spanish; his mother’s is English. Both languages are spoken at home, where the parents have adopted the one-language-one-parent rule. Pablo’s mother identified his ethnic background as being mixed Caucasian and Mexican.

Lola is 3.5 years old and in her first year at preschool. Lola is a simultaneous bilingual. Her mother’s native language is English and her father’s is Spanish. She has been acquiring English since birth. Her mother identified her ethnic background as White. Lola likes music and dancing as both of her parents are musicians.

Toshitaro is 5 years old and in his first year of preschool. He is a sequential bilingual and has been acquiring Japanese since birth and English for only the past 4 months. Toshitaro is exposed to English solely at school; Japanese, his parents’ native language, is spoken at home. Toshitaro likes to watch American sports such as baseball and basketball with his father. He knows all of the rules of the games.

Maria is 3 years old and in her first year at preschool. Maria is a simultaneous bilingual and has been acquiring both English and Portuguese since birth. Maria mother’s native language is Portuguese and her father’s is English. Both languages are spoken at home. Her ethnic background was identified as White and Latin.

Alejandro is 4 years old and in his first year attending preschool. Alejandro is a sequential bilingual and has been acquiring Portuguese since birth and English for over a year. The primary language spoken at home is Portuguese, which is also his mother’s and father’s native language. Alejandro is of Brazilian ethnic background. Alejandro has a silly disposition; he loves to giggle and make his friends laugh.

Mateo is 3.5 years old and in his first year in preschool. Mateo is a simultaneous bilingual and has been acquiring both Spanish and English since birth. Both his mother’s and father’s native language is Spanish, but they speak both Spanish and English at home. Mateo is very social and he is very interested in cars.

Ade is 5.5 years old and in his second year in preschool. Ade is a simultaneous bilingual and has been acquiring English and Indonesian since birth. Ade likes to spend time with his friends.

Classroom activities

Preschool classroom activities were defined as either academically or non-academically oriented classroom activities. Academically based activities emphasized direct teacher instruction and rote memorization of scholastic facts. The academic activities included in this study were alphabet recognition, art-center time, circle time, library-center time, book reading, rhyming, and storyteller time. Non-academically based preschool classroom activities were defined as play-based activities (i.e. children learn through individual exploring and socializing with their peers). The non-academic activities included in this study were dramatic pretend play, free-play, climbing monkey bars and play structures, singing songs, peer-book reading, socio-dramatic play, sandbox, social mealtime, and dance party.

Measures

The independent variable for both research questions was preschool classroom activity. This dichotomous variable has two subcategories: academic (teacher-structured) and non-academic (free-play) preschool classroom activities. Seven academic and nine non-academic preschool classroom activities (under which children were observed) were used to measure two research questions. The dependent variable was English-language development (as determined by the children’s level of engagement in these activities and their language use, including progress in academic and non-academic preschool classroom activities). Due to “the limited availability of valid and reliable measures to assess dual language learners’ development” (Castro, 2014, p. 697), a measure was developed by a panel of experts at the University of San Francisco.

The collaboration of experts validated the operational variables that quantify the engagement level of bilingual children and their language use during preschool classroom activities (see Table 3). Verbatim field notes were obtained in addition to the measures. These field notes have a system of checks and balances and were used against the scales. In addition to these tallies, the periodic field notes included comments about behaviors that did not really fit into these scales. These field notes helped to determine behaviors that are culturally based; thus, student cultural differences were not overlooked (e.g. in some cultures, a lack of eye contact does not necessarily mean that the students are not engaged).

Table 3.

Measures.

Engagement level	Fully engaged. Asking a question, verbally interacting, responding appropriately, prolonged activity-related talk, actively following (eye contact) the peer or teacher, moving closer to the activity, raising hand, and facial expression indicating enthusiasm
	Somewhat engaged. Asking to repeat, verbally interacting with interruptions, some activity-related talk, some eye contact, not leaving the activity, and facial expression indicating interest
	Not engaged. Not responding, inappropriate verbal interaction (talking to neighbor), activity unrelated talk, not watching the activity, leaving the activity, staring off (daydreaming), and facial expression indicating boredom
Language use
Quantity	Minimal is defined as one comment (or less) produced during a given preschool activity
	Moderate is defined as two to three comments produced during an activity
	Largest is defined as four or more comments produced during a given preschool activity
Quality	Verbal. Scoring “yes” indicates a child said something comprehensive. Scoring “no” indicates a child was not understood
	Listening. Scoring “yes” indicates listening behavior. These behaviors are as follows: head nodding, facial expression indicating interest, and answering/commenting on what has been said
	Scoring “no” indicates a child is not listening. These behaviors are as follows: looking the other way, facial expression indicating disinterest, and not answering/commenting on what has been said

Analytic approach

The data collected through observations were analyzed by converting the mean and standard deviation into a standard score, called the z-score. Standard z-scores were calculated for each activity separately, based on the engagement level and quantity and quality of English-language use. In the following analysis of z-scores, preschool classroom activities are organized into three groups according to engagement level, quantity, and quality; they are ranked from highest to lowest scores.

Findings

Engagement level

Standardized z-scores were organized into three groups of non-academic and academic preschool classroom activities. The first group of non-academic activities (e.g. pretend play, monkey bars, and dramatic play) had z-scores of one standard deviation above the mean. The second group of non-academic activities (e.g. free play, peer-book reading, dance party, and singing) had z-scores of around 80 percent (or close to 80%) of a standard deviation above the mean. The third group, which included sandbox and social mealtime, had z-scores of around 20 percent of a standard deviation above the mean. For example, during a pretend play activity, Alejandro was playing and verbally interacting with Mateo by asking him questions and responding appropriately. He said things like: “I am looking at treasures,” “I can’t see it,” “My string is going down,” “Where is it?” and “Hey Mateo! Who put that over here?” When he was not successful in getting the treasure out, he exclaimed: “Jesus Christ!” and “Hey Mateo! What is this?” In this instance, Alejandro and Mateo had a prolonged activity-related talk, which is one of the indicators of full engagement. Overall, out of all non-academic activities, monkey bars was the activity during which bilingual children were most engaged; in one example, Mateo imagined the apparatus was a truck and negotiated play with a friend. He said, “This is my truck,” “No, you are not the truck driver!” and “I am the truck driver!” He also said, “You are not getting into my truck!”

With respect to academic activities, the first group had z-scores around one-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean; these activities included book reading, storytelling, and art activities. The second group consisted of circle time and rhyming activities and had z-scores of one standard deviation below the mean; the third group (consisting of alphabet and counting-numbers activities) had z-scores of around 40 percent of a standard deviation away (in both directions, above and below) from the mean. However, while the alphabet activity was around 40 percent of a standard deviation below the mean, the counting-numbers activity was around 40 percent of a standard deviation above the mean. Out of all of the academic activities, the book reading activity showed the lowest engagement. For example, during one such book reading activity, Mateo exhibited behaviors such as not responding to his teacher’s questions, looking away, and talking to his neighbor—all indicators of a child not being engaged in an activity. These behaviors mostly occurred during teacher-structured (academic) activities (vs free-play (non-academic activities); see Table 4).

Table 4.

Aggregate scores for engagement level by activity.

Activities	Engagement level
	First half		Second half
	Mean	z-score	Mean	z-score
Non-academic
Free play	2.66	0.83	2.55	0.85
Pretend play	2.76	1.0	2.61	0.97
Monkey bars	2.79	1.12	2.71	1.19
Peer-book reading	2.67	0.85	2.33	0.39
Dance party	2.64	0.79	1.86	−0.60
Social mealtime	2.38	0.19	2.48	0.69
Dramatic play	2.75	1.04	2.75	1.2
Sandbox	2.38	0.18	2.50	0.74
Singing	2.64	0.79	2.64	1.04
Academic
Circle time	1.83	−1.04	1.50	−1.35
Book reading	1.58	−1.62	1.58	−1.18
Olive storytelling	1.67	−1.42	1.56	−1.23
Art activities	1.67	−1.42	2.00	−0.30
Alphabet	2.13	−0.38	2.00	−0.30
Numbers	2.50	0.47	2.00	−0.30
Rhyming	1.75	−1.2	1.25	−1.88
Mixed
Play game with teacher	2.21	−0.19	2.14	−0.01

Mean of 1 = not engaged, 2 = somewhat engaged, 3 = fully engaged.

Quantity of language use

Standardized z-scores for the quantity of language use measure were also grouped into three groups of academic and non-academic activities. The first group of three non-academic activities (which had a z-score of one standard deviation above the mean) included pretend play, monkey bars, and dramatic play activities. The second group of non-academic activities (e.g. peer-book reading, dance party, singing, and free play) had z-scores of 70 and 80 percent of a standard deviation above the mean. The third group (which included the sandbox and social mealtime activities) had z-scores of 30 and 10 percent of a standard deviation above the mean.

Out of all non-academic activities, children spoke the most during the pretend play activity. For example, during one pretend play activity, Maria produced a quantity of language that fell within the largest category of quantity of language use: four or more comments produced during an activity. In this instance, she was pretending with a friend to have (or to be) dogs. “I am a doggy; I am the strongest,” Maria said. Maria continued by making growling noises and said, “I want to go to the park.” Then she switched roles with her friend; her friend became a dog and Maria the dog owner throwing the dog a bone. Maria said, “Doggy, go faster, faster, faster, really fast!” and “Go bathroom, bathroom, bathroom.”

During the social mealtime activity (a non-academic activity), bilingual children spoke the least because they had to eat their food. In one example, Isabella said to her friend, “Look at your other hand!” She also said, “There is food on your hand.” An analysis of academic activities reveals that in the first group of two academic activities, storytelling had a z-score almost two standard deviations below the mean and reading was close to two standard deviations below the mean. The second group of two academic activities, circle time and art time, had z-scores of one standard deviation below the mean. In the third group, counting numbers, rhyming, and alphabet had z-scores of 40, 40, and 20 percent of a standard deviation below the mean, respectively. Overall, the children spoke the least during storytelling (i.e. the teacher-structured (academic) activity), as Olive (the storyteller) did not verbally engage the children. For example, when she told the “Giant Master Man” story, her only interaction with the children was when she said, “Show me your muscles.”

One activity was observed to be a mixed activity since it included both teacher-structured and play components. This activity was called “play game with teacher” and had a z-score of 0 percent of a standard deviation above the mean, which means that the score was very close to the mean (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Aggregate scores language use/quantity.

Activities	Quantity
	First half		Second half
	Mean	z-score	Mean	z-score
Non-academic
Free play	2.59	.74	2.59	.92
Pretend play	2.76	1.07	2.61	.95
Monkey bars	2.71	.98	2.64	1.01
Peer-book reading	2.67	.89	2.33	.45
Dance party	2.64	.84	1.86	−.40
Social mealtime	2.29	.13	2.48	.71
Dramatic play	2.75	1.06	2.75	1.20
Sandbox	2.38	.31	2.38	.52
Singing	2.64	.84	2.64	1.01
Academic
Circle time	1.67	−1.08	1.39	−1.25
Book reading	1.32	−1.78	1.37	−1.29
Storytelling	1.22	−1.96	1.22	−1.55
Art activities	1.67	−1.08	2.00	−.14
Alphabet	2.13	−.17	2.00	−.14
Numbers	2.00	−.42	2.00	−.14
Rhyming	2.00	−.42	1.00	−1.95
Mixed
Play game with teacher	2.24	.05	2.14	.10

Mean of quantity 1 = minimal, 2 = moderate, and 3 = largest.

Quality of language use

The quality of language use is divided into two categories: speaking and listening. The speaking measure will be analyzed first and the listening measure will be analyzed second.

Speaking

The standardized scores of speaking quality were grouped into three categories for non-academic and academic activities. The first group of three non-academic preschool classroom activities (e.g. peer-book reading, dance party, and dramatic play) had z-scores close to one standard deviation above the mean. The second group of non-academic activities (e.g. free play and monkey bars) had z-scores of 50 and 60 percent of a standard deviation above the mean, respectively. The third group of non-academic activities (e.g. pretend play, singing, and sandbox) had z-scores of 40, 30, and 10 percent of a standard deviation above the mean, respectively.

Overall, bilingual children spoke more frequently than they did not speak; when they spoke, they were understood most frequently during peer-book reading, dance party, and dramatic play. For example, during a peer-book reading activity, Maria asked a friend, “Could I have those books?” After a moment of reading, her friend said, “Boring.” She then started looking at other books. To this, Maria responded, “I cleaned up the books.” She also said, “I am bored too.” Since this was a peer-reading activity, the children were free to converse even if they did not like the books. This is the type of opportunity that bilingual children need. The more opportunities given to children to use their second language, the more proficient they will become in their second language.

When it comes to academic activities, the first group of three activities (e.g. storytelling, book reading, and art time) had z-scores of two-and-a-half, over one-and-a-half, and a little under one-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean, respectively. The second group of two academic activities (e.g. circle time and rhyming) had z-scores of 70 and 10 percent of a standard deviation below the mean, respectively. The third group (e.g. counting numbers and alphabet) had positive z-scores indicating one standard deviation above the mean and 40 percent of a standard deviation above the mean, respectively. The quality of speaking measure identified whether children spoke or not (and whether they were understood or not) during a given activity. The academic activity during which bilingual children did not speak more often than they did speak was the storytelling activity—just as was the case for the quantity measure (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Aggregate scores for first half and second half of activities.

Activities	Quantity
	First half				Second half
	Speaking		Listening		Speaking		Listening
	Mean	z-score	Mean	z-score	Mean	z-score	Mean	z-score
Non-academic
Free play	.90	.54	.87	−.35	.92	.69	.90	27
Pretend play	.88	.43	.95	.27	.90	.63	.98	.74
Monkey bars	.93	.65	.93	.08	.93	.75	.93	.44
Peer-book reading	.0	.96	1.0	.66	1.0	1.07	1.0	.90
Dance party	.0	.96	1.0	.66	.50	−1.15	.50	−227
Social mealtime	.81	.14	.95	.28	.86	.43	.95	.59
Dramatic play	.0	.96	1.0	.66	1.0	1.07	1.0	.90
Sandbox	.75	−.11	1.0	.66	.75	−.04	1.0	.90
Singing	.86	.34	1.0	.66	.86	.43	.86	−.00
Academic
Circle time	.61	−.72	1.0	.66	.50	−1.15	.89	.19
Book reading	.37	−1.77	.79	−1.03	.42	−1.50	.79	−.43
Storytelling	.22	−2.41	.56	−2.93	.33	−1.89	.78	−.50
Art time	.50	−1.20	.83	−.68	.67	−.41	.83	−.15
Alphabet	.88	.42	.75	−1.35	.88	.51	.75	−.68
Numbers	.0	.96	1.0	.66	1.0	1.07	1.0	.90
Rhyming	.75	−.11	1.0	.66	.50	−1.15	.50	−227
Mixed
Play game	.76	−.08	.97	.38	.90	.61	.93	.46

Verbal and speaking 0 = No and l = Yes.

Listening

For the listening measure, three groups of standardized z-scores were also created for non-academic and academic preschool classroom activities. The first group of five non-academic activities (i.e. peer-book reading, dance party, dramatic play, sandbox, and singing) had an identical z-score of 60 percent of a standard deviation above the mean. The second group of two non-academic activities (i.e. pretend play and social mealtime) had standardized z-scores close to 30 percent of a standard deviation above the mean. The third category of two non-academic activities (e.g. free play and monkey bars) had z-scores of 30 percent of a standard deviation below the mean and 0 percent, respectively. Three groups were created again when analyzing the academic activities; however, these groups were more uneven with respect to the number of activities included in each group. The first group included only one academic activity—storytelling—which had a large z-score of three standard deviations below the mean. In the second group of three academic activities, book reading and alphabet had z-scores of one standard deviation below the mean, while art time had a z-score of 60 percent of a standard deviation below the mean. The third group of three academic activities did not have a z-score below the mean (as was the case in the previous two groups of academic activities) but had z-scores of 60 percent of a standard deviation above the mean; these activities were circle time, counting numbers, and rhyming activities. The storytelling activity again had the lowest score of all teacher-structured (i.e. academic) activities for the listening measure. Bilingual children showed behaviors during this activity that did not indicate they were listening (e.g. looking the other way, facial expressions indicating lack of interest, and not answering/commenting on what had been said). For example, when the storyteller read the “Giant Master Man” story, Ade started getting bored and looking around at his friends (see Table 6).

Discussions

The findings indicated that, in general, children were more linguistically engaged and their language use was heavier during non-academic (vs academic) activities. The activities that most engaged bilingual children (and encouraged them to speak) were pretend play, monkey bars, and dramatic play; these were closely followed by peer-book reading, dance party, and singing. All of these activities are considered free-play, non-academic activities. Higher engagement levels during free-play may be due to the fact that children could select what (and with whom) they wanted to play.

Free-play activity would generally start with the children negotiating the choice of activity, although negotiation could reemerge later during the activity itself. This negotiation period was characterized by substantial verbal interaction. For example, here is Pablo negotiating and conversing with a friend during a pretend play activity:

Saneka, you want to play with us? Here! I made a bed for you here.

I see Santa Claus! He is giving me a present. I see him. Hide, he is coming. He is in the fire. Saneka, let’s build a slate! Saneka, I am gonna bring more toys to you. I can’t hear you, Saneka. Merry Christmas to all of you!

Saneka, I want to be Rudolph now. I need more candy! Saneka filling up socks with pretend candy! No candy for you, you are bad!

This type of back-and-forth conversation was missing in the academic activities as the teacher was the one who set the rules.

This study emphasizes that the majority of observed bilingual children showed drastically more engagement and English-language use during free-play (i.e. non-academic) activities than during teacher-structured (i.e. academic) activities. Therefore, this study concludes that non-academic activities better promote bilingual children’s L2 development. These findings corroborate those of Elkind (2001); he argues for a greater role for play in a preschool curriculum and stresses that young children benefit most from directly interacting with their environments. Elkind does not refer specifically to bilingual children; however, this study has shown that bilingual children, in particular, will benefit from engagement in free-play activities because they foster English-language development. Zigler et al. (2004) further claim that going against play in preschool curricula contradicts both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s developmental theories. The next section of this study goes on to discuss Vygotsky’s social learning theory and its application as a lens to interpret this study’s findings.

Social learning theory in preschool activities

Zone of Proximal Development - Socio-cultural theory

The ZPD is defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of the potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In other words, ZPD is a setting in which a child is capable of executing a task or performing at a higher level because of the assistance of a teacher or more skilled peer. Without such assistance, the child would not be able to perform at a higher level and thus would not progress in his or her development. When in the ZPD, children build their knowledge in their private speech or based on interactions they have with their teachers and peers.

For this study, ZPD in SLA provides the opportunity to be linguistically engaged in academic or non-academic preschool classroom activities that will result in English-language development. Within an academic activity, with the teacher’s help, the child would progress in language learning; within a non-academic activity, the child would progress in language learning with the help of more capable peers.

Six out of the eight bilingual children in this study were heavily engaged in social interactions with their peers (both native and non-native English speakers) primarily during free-play (i.e. non-academic) preschool classroom activities. Their learning within the ZPD occurred when they interacted and conversed with their closest friends. For example, Mateo’s closest friend is Hawi and Isabella’s closest friends are Alejandro and Cathrin. If Hawi, Alejandro, and Cathrin did not come to school on a certain day, Mateo and Isabella would not play and converse to the same extent with the other children. Closest friends were chosen freely and interactions between closest friends would last longer than they would with other children; also, conflicts/arguments would not arise as frequently.

Alejandro is comfortable interacting with other ELL peers like Isabella; it makes him feel validated. Alejandro was aware that Isabella also speaks another language (other than English), and this is why he feels comfortable interacting with her. Although both are acquiring English as a second language, Isabella is more social and less shy than Alejandro and speaks more English. As Alejandro interacts with Isabella, he learns more English from her. Thus, when Alejandro is socializing with Isabella during free play, they create a ZPD that enables Alejandro to communicate at a higher level (because of the assistance of his more advanced English-speaking partner). Without Isabella’s assistance, Alejandro would not be able to perform at this higher level and progress in his English-language development would not occur to the same extent (Vygotsky, 1978). A similar situation occurred with the other bilingual children: Mateo, Maria, and Pablo. Isabella, being more social, interacts with many native English speaker peers and acquires English from them.

The two remaining children in the bilingual group benefited from teacher interactions and not from peer interactions; indeed, they would shy away from their peers. Their learning within the ZPD would occur only when they interacted with their teachers. During these interactions, they would hear new vocabulary words used in a correct manner. They would also hear the correct pronunciation of words.

The concept of scaffolded assistance is closely linked to ZPD. Scaffolding is used to describe an adult or more capable peer adjusting the complexity of a task to help a beginner attain a higher level of performance. For example, the one-on-one teacher communication between Toshitaro and his teachers and Lola and her teachers was evolving and well sustained, allowing the teacher to use tools (e.g. the use of songs and pictures to communicate or convey a message) to scaffold the complexities of the English language. For Toshitaro, trust had to be established with the teachers before learning could occur within his learner’s environment. SLA began once Toshitaro was engaged in a teacher-structured activity.

Recommendations

The researcher proposed a number of recommendations for preschool educators and policymakers. The researcher makes four recommendations for preschool educators based on the study’s findings:

Free-play (i.e. non-academic) activities should be implemented in preschool classrooms because these activities are an affordance for making language available, which helps with building academic skills and cultural capital. This study proves that free-play activities are an affordance for language learning because bilingual children have shown dramatically greater engagement in non-academic activities (vs academic activities). Engagement is important for prompting children to interact within their environments. This recommendation is consistent with Vygotsky’s claims that children learn and develop higher mental thinking from socially interacting with others; this is why children should get “maximum opportunity” to engage in activities that provide high engagement and interaction (Scribner and Cole, 1978). Children need to be provided with activities yielding more opportunities for interaction to promote their second language (English) usage; the more opportunities they have, the more proficient they will become in their second language.

Academic activities (e.g. storytelling, book reading, and circle time) did not provide children with opportunities to interact with others; therefore, they did not use their second language. Most academic activities were not developmentally appropriate for bilingual preschool children because there was no room for social interaction; thus, academic activities did not promote second language development.

Since some of the observed children did not benefit as much from free-play, non-academic preschool classroom activities as their peers, this study recommends a slight mixture of preschool classroom activities for some bilingual children.

Educators should avoid the use of “free play” and “non-academic” to describe students’ unstructured time for socializing; these terms make the activity appear non-essential to scholastic development. Unstructured socializing activities are essential for scholastic development and calling them non-academic takes away from the importance of these activities.

Preschool classroom educators should utilize new, non-academic activities in preschool classroom curricula. Two new non-academic activities that were observed in this preschool (and not mentioned in the literature) were social mealtime and dance party. Social mealtime is a time of the day when children are encouraged to verbally express themselves. In most preschools, children quietly sit and eat their meals; however, in this preschool, mealtime is a conversational activity and every child has something to share. The second new activity, the dance party, is also quite effective. Besides promoting the children’s physical movement, it gets children to sing modern songs. Repeating song lyrics provides bilingual children the chance to practice the English-language pronunciation of words, which benefits their English-language development.

Recommendations for policymakers

This researcher makes two recommendations for policymakers based on the findings:

School administrators should not pressure preschools to adopt academically oriented activities. Academic (teacher-structured) activities take away time from free-play activities, which were found to be more beneficial for bilingual children’s second language (English) development.

Policymakers should make it mandatory for bilingual children to attend two whole years of preschool, as more time spent in preschool has been found to be beneficial for young learners’ English-language development. Evidence from observations indicates that bilingual children do better in their English-language development when attending preschool.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ballantyne

Sanderman

McLaughin

(2008) Dual Language Learners in the Early Years: Getting Ready to Succeed in School. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English language learners. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512635 (accessed 29 September 2015).

Barnett

Jung

Yarosz

et al . (2008) Educational effects of the tools of the mind curriculum: a randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23: 299–313.

Beauchat

Blamey

Walpole

(2009) Building preschool children’s language and literacy one storybook at a time. Reading Teacher 63(1): 26–39.

Bodrova

Leong

(1996) The Vygotskian approach to early childhood. Columbus, OH: Imprint of Prentice Hall.

Bodrova

Leong

(2003) Chopsticks and counting chips: do play and foundational skills need to compete for the teacher’s attention in an early childhood classroom? Young Children 58: 10–17.

Bodrova

Leong

(2007) Tools of the mind. Available at: http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/5-Tools-of-the-Mind-Curriculum.pdf (accessed 29 September 2015).

Brown

(2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brown

(2006) Rhymes, stories and songs in the ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal 12(4). Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Brown-Rhymes.html

Burchinal

Vandergrift

Pianta

et al . (2010) Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25(2): 166–176.

10.

Burts

Hart

Charlesworth

et al . (1990) A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5: 407–423.

11.

Burts

Hart

Charlesworth

et al . (1992) Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 7: 297–318.

12.

California Department of Education (2013) Facts about English language learners. Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp (accessed 3 June 2012).

13.

Cardiff

Stringham

(2006) Is universal preschool beneficial? An assessment of Rand corporation’s analysis (Reason Foundation Policy No. 345). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676268

14.

Castro

(2014) The development and early care and education of dual language learners: examining the state of knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29: 693–698.

15.

Chien

Howes

Pianta

et al . (2010) Children’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development 81(5): 1534–1549.

16.

Collins

(2010) ELL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25: 84–97.

17.

Creswell

(2008) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

18.

DeBaryshe

Gorecki

(2007) An experimental validation of a preschool emergent literacy curriculum. Early Education and Development 18(1): 93–110.

19.

Dickinson

Smith

(1994) Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 29(2): 104–122.

20.

Doidge

(2007) The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. New York: Penguin Group.

21.

Elkind

(2001) Young Einsteins: much too early. Education Matters 1(2): 9–15.

22.

Farver

JAM

Lonigan

Eppe

(2009) Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: an experimental study of two methods. Child Development 80(3): 703–719.

23.

Fromberg

(2002) Play and Meaning in Early Childhood Education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

24.

Fuligni

Howes

Huang

et al . (2012) Activity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: diverse experiences in early learning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27: 198–209.

25.

Gormley

Gayer

Philips

et al . (2005) The effects of universal Pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology 41(6): 872–884.

26.

Hamers

(2004) A sociocognitive model of bilingual development. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23(1): 70–98.

27.

Hammer

Hoff

Uchikoshi

et al . (2014) The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: a critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29: 715–733.

28.

Howes

Burchinal

Pianta

et al . (2008) Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23: 27–50.

29.

Justice

Chow

Capellini

et al . (2003) Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable preschoolers: relative effects of two approaches. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 12: 320–332.

30.

Justice

Mashburn

Pence

et al . (2008) Experimental evaluation of a comprehensive language-rich curriculum in at-risk preschools. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51: 1–19.

31.

Kindler

(2002) Survey of the States’ Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and Services, 2000-2001 Summary Report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.

32.

Loeb

Bridges

Bassok

et al . (2007) How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Educational Review 26: 52–66.

33.

Magnuson

Meyers

Ruhm

et al . (2004) Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal 41(1): 115–157.

34.

Ohman-Rodriguez

(2004) Music from inside out: promoting emergent composition with young children. Young Children 59(4): 50–55.

35.

Paquette

Rieg

(2008) Using music to support the literacy development of young English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 227–232.

36.

Raver

Zigler

(2004) Public policy viewpoint. Another step back? Assessing readiness in Head Start. Young Children 59: 58–63.

37.

Reese

Garnier

Gallimore

et al . (2000) Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal 37(3): 633–662.

38.

Saricoban

Metin

(2000) Songs, verse, and games for teaching grammar. The Internet TESL Journal 6(10): 1–7.

39.

Saunders

O’Brien

(2006) Oral language. In: Genesee

Lindholm-Leary

Saunders

et al . (eds) Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–44.

40.

Scarborough

(2005) Developmental relationship between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In: Catts

Kamhi

(eds) The connections between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Scribner

Cole

(1978) Literacy without schooling: testing for intellectual effects. Harvard Educational Review 48(4): 448–464.

42.

Senechal

(1997) The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 24: 123–138.

43.

Shonkoff

Philips

(2000) From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

44.

Singer

Plaskon

(2003) The role of play in the preschool curriculum. In: Olfman

(ed.) All work and no play: How educational reforms are harming our preschoolers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

45.

Stipek

(2004) Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19(4): 548–568.

46.

Stipek

Byler

(1997) Early childhood education teachers: do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12: 305–325.

47.

Stipek

Byler

(2004) The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19: 375–397.

48.

Stipek

Feiler

Daniels

et al . (1995) Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development 66: 209–223.

49.

US Census Bureau (2010) New census bureau report analyzes nation’s linguistic diversity (American community survey: (ACS) of 2010). Available at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs (accessed 5 July 2012).

50.

Vail

(2003) Ready to learn. What the Head Start debate about early academics means for your schools. American School Board Journal 190: 14–18.

51.

Vygotsky

(1978) Interaction between learning and development. In: Cole

John-Steiner

Souberman

(eds) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 79–91.

52.

Whitehurst

(2001) Young Einsteins: much too late. Education Matters 1(2): 9, 16–19.

53.

Whitehurst

Arnold

Epstein

et al . (1994) A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology 30(5): 679–689.

54.

Woodall

Ziembroski

(n.d.) Promoting literacy through music. Available at: http://www.songsforteaching.com/lb/literacymusic.htm (accessed 29 September 2015).

55.

Yamamoto

(2012) What makes a high-quality preschool? Similarities and differences between Chinese immigrant and European American parents’ view. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27: 306–315.

56.

Yin

(2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. London: SAGE.

57.

Zigler

Singer

Bishop-Joseph

(eds) (2004) Children’s Play: The Roots of Reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.