Creative Education 2013. Vol.4, No.7A1, 60-68 Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A1009 Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 60 Instructional Conversations in Early Childhood Classrooms: Policy Suggestions for Curriculum Standards and Professional Development* Stephanie M. Curenton1, Tricia Zucker2 1Bloustein School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, USA 2Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Sciences at Houston, Houston, USA Email: curenton@r utgers.edu Received May 7th, 2013; revised June 6th, 2013; accepted June 14th, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Stephanie M. Curenton, Tricia Zucker. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the orig inal work is properly cited. The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions for two early education policy levers proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that can be specifically applied to oral language instructional in the classroom: Policy Lever 2—Designing and implementing curriculum and standards; and Policy Lever 3—Improving qualifications, training and working conditions. First, I de- scribe the efforts the United States has made in terms of oral language instruction, and second I describe a professional development model (the Conversation Compass©) that trains teachers to use instructional conversations with children age 2 - 6. Keywords: Teacher Professional Development; Preschool; Oral Language; Early Education Policy Introduction Language is the “currency” of education because the higher- order cognitive and social skills needed to succeed in school are gained via language interactions. Cocking & Mestre, 1998. In Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolkit for Early Childhood Education, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and De- velopment (OECD) highlights five policy levers countries can use to enhance the quality of early childhood education. These levers include: 1) Setting out quality goals and regulations; 2) Designing and implementing curriculum and standards; 3) Im- proving qualifications, training and working conditions; 4) En- gaging families and communities; and 5) Advancing data col- lection, research and monitoring. During a presentation to the OECD in October 2012, I focused on Policy Lever 2 and 3, specifically as it relates to oral language instruction (i.e., in- structional conversations) within early childhood classrooms with children age 2 - 6. Within Policy Lever 2 there was a list of critical learning domains for curricula or standards that expanded beyond tradi- tional academic skills of literacy and numeracy, and included other important learning domains, such as art and play, both of which researchers agree are key to young children’s wholistic development. Interestingly, however, oral language was not listed as a critical learning domain within its own right. On the one hand, it is logical to not have a separate domain for oral language because language is the basis for human thought; therefore, success across all of the learning domains would be dependent on children’s language skills. In fact, in Thought and Language (1986) Vygotsky writes, “··· Thought does not ex- press itself in words, but rather realizes itself in them” (p. 251), which can be interpreted as linking oral language to our higher- order reasoning. Although most scholars, and even classroom practitioners, would acknowledge that oral language forms the basis for higher-order reasoning, as researchers, teachers, and policy makers in the early childhood education field, we must also acknowledge that the intentional teaching of oral language skills to children, particularly conversation skills, and the spe- cific training early childhood professionals receive in terms of how to teach conversation skills is an area that is lacking in many countries’ curriculum development and professional de- velopment (PD) trainings for teachers. Therefore, the three purposes for this paper are to: 1) de- scribe the need for curriculum standards and PD around oral language conversation skills; 2) describe recent efforts within the United States to build these oral language and conversation skills into the education goals for K-12 students; and 3) intro- duce a PD strategy designed to train early childhood teachers in the art of facilitating instructional conversations. Need for Curriculum Standards Related to Oral Language Skills The development of children’s oral language skills is a key concern for many policy makers and practitioners because oral language provides the foundation for learning (see NICHD Early Child Care Research Network [NICHD], 2005). Cocking and Mestre (1998) argue that language skills are the “currency” of education, and this is because the higher-order cognitive and social skills needed to succeed in school are mediated by *Author Note: Portions of this work were presented to the Organization fo Economic Cooperation and Development. The authors would like to thank the children, families, and teachers who participated in this research.
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER children’s oral language abilities, particularly those abilities needed for engaging in collaborative reasoning during aca- demic discussions, which can be referred to as instructional conversations. Based on a reading of the education literature related to classroom discussions (see Aukerman, 2007; Burman, 2009; Goldberg, 1992; Peterson & Taylor, 2012; Zhang & Stahl, 2011), I have come to define instructional conversations as planned discussions with small groups of children in which teachers facilitate students’ collaborative reasoning using chal- lenging questions that require students use complex language to talk about their experiences, knowledge, and opinions. Such conversations should not just be limited to discussions around shared-reading, especially given that shared-reading accounts for such little time throughout the school day (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001), but should also extend to other classroom activi- ties, such as play and/or hands-on science or math activities (see Curenton, Justice, Zucker, & McGinty, 2013). Unfortunately, studies show that classrooms within the United States vary dramatically in the quality of their language- learning environments, especially in classrooms where the majority of children are living in poverty (Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006; Farran et al., 2006; Pianta et al., 2005). Re- peated research has found that teachers’ classroom talk relies too much on directives, closed-ended questions, and talk that is not cognitively challenging (Dickinson, 2001; Durden & Dan- gel, 2008; Gest, Holland-Coviello, Welsh, Eicher-Catt, & Gill, 2006; Massey, Pence, Justice, & Bowles, 2008), which limits opportunities to engage children in higher order talk/thinking. Within early childhood education, some researchers have de- signed specific interventions that focus training teachers to use conversation (see Bond & Wasik, 2009; Cabell et al., 2011; Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2003; Piasta, et al., 2012). Taken together, these early childhood interventions suggest higher-level classroom conversations during the early school years provide the foundation for later school success because they build young students’ ability to talk about and understand vocabulary, academic language, features of written text, and the internal states of story characters. Such conversations also teach young children to make evaluative judgments and inferences by providing opportunities for them to use scientific prediction and problem-solving, which are essential skills for future math and science courses. Thus, across the educational spectrum re- searchers, teachers, and policy makers agree that high-level conversations are a key component of high-quality instruction, and that there is a need for intentional policy efforts to build these skills into the curriculum and to train teachers have to more effectively use these skills in the classroom. United States Curriculum Efforts to Focus on Oral Language Skills The United States does not have a national curriculum be- cause individual states are given the autonomy to decide which curriculum is best suited for their particular populations, how- ever, recent federal policy efforts have encouraged, and pro- vided incentives for education policy makers across states to adopt the Common Core Standards for K-12. Common Core Standards are not a curriculum per se; instead, they are educa- tion goals for what students should be able to achieve across the grade-level spectrum. The Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (http://www.corestandards.org/assets/ CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf) identify anchor standards criti- cal to classroom discussions: Anchor of Speaking and Listening and Anchor of Language. Table 1 provides details about the skills teachers need to instill for each anchor. Although the Common Core Standards are targeted towards the education goals for children in elementary and secondary school, the early childhood field demonstrates that it is also committed to fos- tering such instructional conversation skills. For example, all state Early Learning Guidelines emphasize knowledge-building higher-order dialogue around texts and activities. The inclusion of these Anchors for Speaking and Listening and Language, will force teachers to intentionally focus on teaching these skills throughout classroom activities. Given that prior research has demonstrated teachers are not very effective in facilitating classroom discusssions (see Aukderman, 2007; Goldenberg, 1992; Peterson & Taylor, 2012; Zhang & Stahl, 2011), such Common Core Standards beg for the field to more create PD opportunities for teachers to become skilled at teaching oral language skills. A Professional Development Model for Instructional Conversations: The Conversation Compass (CC)© Early Educators’ Need for Training on Conversations with Special Populations Across all divisions of education, both early childhood and K-12, there is a need for professional development (PD) and training on how teachers can engage students in higher-order conversations, and this is especially true for those teaching low-income ethnically and linguistically diverse students (see Aukderman, 2007; Goldenberg, 1992; Peterson & Taylor, 2012; Zhang & Stahl, 2011). Ethnic and language minority children have unique needs as it relates to classroom conversation be- cause children enter early childhood programs with less devel- oped oral language skills (Curenton & Justice, 2008; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; National Center for Education Statis- tics, 2012). In general, researchers report there is a lack of ade- quate professional development for administrators and teachers who educate language minority children (Buysse, Castro, West, & Skinner, 2005; Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Ryan, Ackerman, & Song, 2005). It is important to consider individual differences in language skills, particularly for children raised in poverty, children with language impairment, or English Language Learners (ELL). These populations are at greater risk for later reading and aca- demic difficulties than their typically developing peers and are likely to need additional practice and scaffolding to use aca- demic language (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). For instance, low-income children’s vocabulary lags behind their middle- income peers’ (Farkas & Beron, 2004), and preschoolers with specific language impairment have problems using decontextu- alized language to recount personal narratives (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 2000). The good news is that intervention research demonstrates the effectiveness of training teachers in conversa- tions with low-income children and/or language impaired chil- dren (Wasik et al., 2001, 2006; van Kleeck et al., 2006). In terms of ELL students, many ELL students attend schools were instruction is predominately in English (Tabors & Snow, 2001). ELL in mainstream classrooms thrive when instructional con- versations encourage complex verbal expression through open- nded questions and follow-up probes (Williams, 2001). Our e Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 61
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 62 Table 1. Common core standards in English literature. Speaking and Listening Anchor Comprehension and Collaboration Present Knowledge and Id eas Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and per suasively. Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the o rganization, development, and style are appropriate to task, p urpose, and audience . Integrate and evaluate informa t io n p r esented in diverse medi a and formats, including visu ally, quantita t iv ely, and orally. Make stra t egic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance un derstanding of presentations. Evaluate a speaker’s poi nt of view, re asoning, and use of evide nce and rhetoric. Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks, demonstra ti ng command of formal Eng l is h when indic ated or appropriate. Language Anchor Conventions of Standar d English Know l edge of Language (Begins @ 2nd grade)Vocabulary Demonstrate command of Standard E ngl ish grammar and usage when writing or sp eaking Apply know ledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts, to make effective choices for meaning or s t yle, and to comprehend more fully when reading or listenin g. Determine or clarify the meaning of u nknown and multiple-meaning wo rds and phrases by using context clues, analyzing meaningful word parts, and consultin g g eneral and specialize d reference materials, as appropriate. Demonstrate command of the conventions of Standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing. Demonstrate understanding of figurative lan gu age, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings Acquire and use accurate l y a range of general academic and domain-specific words and phrases sufficient for reading, writing, sp eaking, an d l is t ening. Demonstrate independe nce in the gathering of vocabulary knowledge when encountering an unknown te rm important to comprehension expression. tool is helpful to teachers working with ELL students who are proficient in basic interpersonal conversation but have yet to master cognitively demanding, academic conversations. Teach- ers can use the Conversation Compass to build Linguistic Rea- soning (define words) or Analytic Reasoning (explain/analyze), both of which are examples of recommended instructional strategies for ELL (Gersten et al., 2007). Because the compass focuses on other language skills, like problem-solving and hy- pothesizing, it can also help ELL students in mainstream class- rooms learn other academic skills, such as science via hands-on inquiry activities (Stoddart et al., 2002). Early Educators’ Need for Training on Using Facilitated Conversations Justice and colleagues (2008) explain that training teachers to engage in high-quality oral language instruction may be more complex than training them in literacy instruction. Oral lan- guage training requires teachers learn how to engage in dy- namic conversation exchanges in which they are following the child’s lead, and such exchanges cannot be scripted or manual- ized. In fact, teachers even believe language instruction (par- ticularly vocabulary instruction) is best when it is non-scripted and spontaneous (Diamond & Powell, 2011). On the contrary, Justice and colleagues (2008) explain that high-quality literacy instruction is relatively teacher-initiated, systematic, and ex- plicit; it is “systematic” in that teachers can organize and se- quence lessons in a logical manner, and it is “explicit” in that there is clear terminology for the concepts children are to learn. In terms of literacy instruction, teachers thought that literacy instruction (teaching letter names) should be done via explicit instruction (Diamond & Powell, 2011). One way in which lan- guage instruction can become more systematic and explicit is by maximizing the frequency and quality of facilitated class- room conversations (see Burman, 2009). There are two types of conversations that happen in early childhood classrooms, spon- taneous conversations versus facilitated conversations. Spon- taneous conversations are the most frequent conversations and they occur without any particular planning on the part of the teacher; the topics for such conversations are typically initiated by children. On the other hand, a facilitated conversation hap- pens during planned lessons/activities and the topics are initi- ated by the teacher. The Conversation Compass instructional support strategy attempts to train teachers to make use of rou- tine, planned facilitated conversations. Brief Description of the Conversation Compass The CC is a conversation-based instructional support strategy that can be used to promote young children’s thinking, reason- ing, and language skills in preschool classrooms, and there are three lesson planning tools that accompany the strategy: the Conversation Compass© (see Figure 1) the Conversation Map© (see Figure 2), and the Talking Terminal Peer Conversation Planner© (see Figure 3). Images of these planning tools are il- lustrated below, and more information about how to use the tools and receive professional development training can be ob- tained by contacting the author at curenton@rutgers.edu.
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Figure 1. Conversational compass. Figure 2. Conversation map. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 63
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Figure 3. Talking termin a l s peer conversation planner. Figure 1 provides a graphical depiction of the primary ele- ments of the CC. At the heart of the compass is the need for teachers to intentionally plan for the facilitation of peer-to-peer conversations that build higher-order reasoning. In order to facilitate such conversations effectively, teachers much be trained on how to effectively engage in a conversation (i.e. have Knowledge of Conversation Principles which will be dis- cussed later in the example) with students and evaluate stu- dents’ conversational skills using On-going Formative As- sessment that can be done by routinely observing children in small group discussions using the Talking Terminal Peer Con- versation Planner). As shown in Table 2, The CC has four quadrants called Conceptual Paths: Literate Reasoning, Lin- guistic Reasoning, Analytic Reasoning, and Social Reasoning. Embedded within these conceptual paths are Conversation Starters that are used as the topic of questions a teacher might use to begin a conversation. So the Conceptual Path is the con- cept (also known as the type of “reasoning”) teachers want to teach, and the Conversation Starters are the topic of the ques- tions teachers will use to start the conversation. These conver- sation starters are based on inter-disciplinary research demon- strating the effectiveness of engaging children in high-level, decontextualized discourse or inferential reasoning (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Nagy & Townsend, 2012; van Kleeck et al., 2006). Table 2 provides detailed definitions and examples of the Conceptual Paths and Conversation Starters. In order to fully understand the Conceptual Paths and Conversation Start- ers, it is first important to realize that teachers’ comments and questions do not always require the same level of verbal ex- pression or the same experiential knowledge-base and/or rea- soning from children (Sigel, Stinson, & Kim, 1993). For exam- ple, questions about a character’s motivation for engaging in a behavior (social reasoning) is asking children to pull from a different knowledge base than questions that ask them about letters and numbers (literate reasoning). Examples of Instructional Conversations Ms. Sims’ Example of How to Use Conversation Map In this example, we describe the use of the Conversation Map and share a sample planned interactive book reading con- versational created by a preschool teacher (see Figure 4), Ms. Sims1 (a pseudonym) who selected a book to share with her mixed-raced, bilingual (Spanish) Head Start students. Shared book reading is a common activity teachers use for instructional conversations. Shared-reading interactions is an activity that na- turally lends itself to higher-level conversation because discus- sions during shared reading involve making inferences, build- ing vocabulary, giving factual information, providing clarifica- tions, and anticipating future events (e.g., Sorsby & Martlew, Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 64
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Table 2. Definitions of conceptual reasoning paths and conversation starters (and examples from real preschool teacher). Literate Reasoning The ability to un derstand alphabetic and numeric print and societal symbols and the ability to interpret writte n texts and oral n arratives. Analyze Li teratu re: Dis cuss t he stru ctur e of the s tory or infer the aut hor’s messag e or st ory th eme/pl ot (Why did Duck decide to go back to the farm at the end?). Analyze Print: Explain features and/or meanings of the alphabetic or numeric system or phonetic sound system (What does the “F.” stand for when you see “F. Brown” on this page?). Linguistic Reasoning The ability t o u nderstand and use features of language, like v o cabulary, g r ammar, and social conventions of speaking. Define Vocabulary: De f in e or explain the meaning of a word, symbol, or picture b y explaining the meaning (What does it mean to vote?). Academic Vocabulary: Define or explain discipline specific language or concept or the language for the mainstream school setting (What is the governor’s job?). ANALYTIC Reasoning The ability to make observations, brainstorm, compare/c o nt rast, and gather information. Problem Solve: Describe alternative solutions or methods for doing things or detail the steps in a plan (So first duck ran for the ______ then the _______, then the _________?). Predict/Hy pothes ize: Predict the future or make “If-then” guesses about cause-effec t (Do you th ink Farmer Brown will ever run for president?). Integrat e/Connect : Con nect present lear ning to real li fe or prior learn ing or make compari sons/contras ts (What’s the name o f our Presiden t in the United States?). Social Reasoning The ability to interpret and expl ain their own and other peoples’ p sychological states (such as thoughts, feelings, and motivations). Imagine/Infer: Encourage pretending or imagining, talk about fantasy versus reality, use a make-believe voice for character, or make inferences (Can a duck really become president?). Build memori es: Ask children to remember prior information, activities, or procedures or share personal stories about the past (What kind s of animals di d we see on the farm?). Explain Feelings/Thoughts: Describe or infer story characters’, personal, or other children’s thoughts, desires, feelings (Why was Farmer Brown angry when he foun d out duck was g oi ng to run in t he farm election?). 1991; van Kleeck et al., 1997, 2006). Educators are more likely to ask questions and use a rich vocabulary during shared read- ing than in other classroom activities (Gest et al., 2006; Massey et al., 2008). Based on the Conversation Compass professional develop- ment workshop she attended in the fall of 2011 (given by the author), she crafted a lesson plan to achieve higher-level con- versations using the principles and planning tools embodied by the instructional strategy. Ms. Sims incorporated the conceptual paths and conversation starters into the Conversation Map plan- ing tool; this tool supports thoughtful preparation of higher- level conversational within the context of shared book reading; it provides a “map” (i.e., a guide) for the conversation. Step 1. To use the Conversation Map, a teacher would select a fiction or non-fiction text she is planning to read and generate conversation topics. The book for Ms. Sims’ lesson is Duck for President (Cronin, 2004) which is about a duck who decides to run for public office because he is unhappy with the working conditions on his farm. Duck first begins by organizing the other animals and starting a campaign to take Farmer Brown’s role as head of the farm. Duck wins the election, but soon finds he is unhappy because it is hard work managing the farm. He decides to run for governor because he thinks that job will be easy, but when he finds being governor is hard work he runs for president. Eventually, Duck decides he is even unhappy as president and returns to the farm to work on his autobiography. This fanciful book provides the opportunity for a rich discus- sion about civics, job satisfaction, and ambition. There is both alphabetic and numeric text embedded within the illustrations that provide possibilities for talking about the meaning of printed letters and numbers. Step 2. The next planning steps with the Conversation Map are to determine the learning objectives and then choose the Conceptual Path(s) and Conversation Starters one will use to achieve higher-level dialogue. In Ms. Sims’ example, she chose Literate Reasoning, Analytic Reasoning, and Social Reasoning as conceptual paths, and she used conversation starters within those paths. Her lesson plan illustrates how Conversation Maps should not solely be limited to the Literate Reasoning path. For one part of the story, Ms. Sims focused children’s attention on the pages showing the election results. The pages with the elec- tion results always showed the tally of votes for Duck and his opponent (e.g., F. Brown 6, Duck 20). Therefore, on these pages she planned to engage children in back-and-forth dia- logue about print, both letter (alphabetic) conventions, such as understanding the initial in Farmer Brown’s name (“F. Brown”) and numerical conventions (e.g., “20” signifies a greater quan- tity than “6”). The book allows for repeated discussion of these concepts, and Ms. Sims takes advantage of every opportunity by asking a similar open-ended known question on each elec- Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 65
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Figure 4. Example conversation compass: Conversation Map©. tion page. Ms. Sims also asked children to predict who they thought would win each election and why. Both before and after the reading of the text, she asked children to use their Analytic Reasoning to make a connection between the book and their home chores (integrate/connect), and (b) use Social Reasoning to remember places they have gone or to imagine which of Duck’s jobs they might like to have (build memories). Using Ms. Sims’ Example to Explain the Conversation Principles Scaffolding Based on Children’s Responses. Because CC lessons are subject to the three responsive conversation prince- ples—active listening, responding, and continuing—it simply sets the path of the conversation. Responses from individual children determine the actual journey! Teachers can use the Conversation Map to set the course of learning objectives, but she needs to take detours based on children’s responses, which could result in scaffolding between asking harder and easier questions. For example, in order to answer the prediction/hy- pothesis question about who will win the elections, children must recognize the word duck. If children are unable to read this word, she might scaffold with, “Which word says ‘duck’?” which could further be scaffolded down, if needed, to “What letter does the word ‘duck’ begin with?” or even “Show me the word that begins with the letter D?” Scaffolding between harder and easier questions is necessary in order to help children grasp concepts. Practicing Back-and-Forth Exchanges. When teachers first begin using the compass, they should pick one path and focus on using multiple back- and-forth exchanges within that particular path to ensure chil- dren’s conceptual development is driven via elaboration during these exchanges. It is better to have a longer back-and-forth exchange around one concept, rather than brief exchanges across a variety of concepts. The goal is to get children to think Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 66
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER deeper along each Conceptual Path. Children will have ample exposure to all of the paths if teachers are repeatedly read books and plan activities to support higher-level conversations. Each book (or activity) can—and should—be read (or done) again and again, each time with the focus being on another path. Later, after teachers have become accustomed to fostering long back-and-forth exchanges, (s)he can begin creating lesson plans that cross Conceptual Paths they way Ms. Sims did. Conclusion The CC is intended to move conversations in early childhood classrooms to higher levels by fostering deep, thoughtful dis- cussion. The lesson planning tools, along with the philosophical strat egy , of the CC str ategy fits nicely within any existing coun- try’s curriculum planning, especially with those found Common Core Standards within the United States. The key knowledge of conversation principles can be applied to any routine classroom activity, such as literacy, science, or math activities. The re- search basis underlying the CC indicates this type of classroom talk benefits children from all ethnic groups, socio-economic statuses, and developmental abilities. Educators across coun- tries can use the CC to help all children navigate the present world in which mastery of sophisticated, academic language is the educational currency of the 21st century. REFERENCES Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversa- tional/academic language proficiency distinction in early literacy in- struction. The Reading Teacher, 60, 626-636. doi:10.1598/RT.60.7.3 Bond, M. A., & Wasik, B. A. (2009). Conversation stations: Promoting language development in young children. Early Childhood Educa- tion Journal, 36, 467-473. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0310-7 Burman, L. (2009). Are you listening? Fostering conversations that help young children learn. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., West, T., & Skinner, M. (2005). Addressing the needs of Latino children: A national survey of the state adminis- trators of early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quar- terly, 20, 146-163. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.005 Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Pence, K., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The impact of teacher responsivity education on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills. American Jour- nal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 315-330. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0104) Cocking, R., & Mestre, J. (1988). Introduction: Considerations of lan- guage mediators of mathematics learning. In R. Cocking, & J. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool in- struction and children’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 98, 665-689. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.665 Cronin, D. (2006). Duck for president. Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub- lishing. Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of maternal education and mothers’ beliefs about shared- reading interactions. Early Education and Development, 19, 261-283. doi:10.1080/10409280801963939 Curenton, S. M., Justice, L. M., Zucker, T., & McGinty, A. (2013). Language and Literacy Curriculum and Instruction. In V. Buysse, & E. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (RTI) for early childhood (pp. 237-249). Ba ltimore: Brookes. Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early Interventio n , 33, 75-93. doi:10.1177/1053815111400416 Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Large-group and free-play times: Conversa- tional settings supporting language and literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp. 223-255). Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with lan- guage: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Durden, T., & Dangel, J. R. (2008). Teacher-involved conversations with young children during small group activity. Early Years, 28, 251-266. Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33, 464-497. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.08.001 Farran, D. C., Aydogan, C., Kang, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2006). Pre- school classroom environments and the quantity and quality of chil- dren’s literacy and language behaviors. In D. K. Dickinson, & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 257-268). New York: T he Guilford Press. Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2006). Critical issues in developing the teacher corps for English learners. In K . Tellez , & H . C. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, an d pratices (pp. 99-120). Gest, S. D., Holland-Coviello, R., Welsh, J. A., Eicher-Catt, D. L., & Gill, S. (2006). Language development subcontexts in Head Start classrooms: Distinctive patterns of teacher talk during free play, mealtime, and book reading. Early Education and Development, 17, 293-315. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1702_5 Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. (IES Prac- tice Guide NCEE 2007-4011). http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides Girolametto, L., & Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of child care providers in interactions with toddlers and preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 268-281. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2002/022) Goldenberg, C. (1992). Instructional conversations: Promoting com- prehension through disc uss ion . The Reading Teacher, 46, 316-326. Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51- 68. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.004 Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Lan- guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 3 6, 17. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/003) Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative production by chil- dren with and without specific language impairment: Oral narratives and emergent readings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 34-49. Massey, S. L., Pence, K. L., Justice, L. M., & Bowles, R. P. (2008). Educators’ use of cognitively challenging questions in economically disadvantaged preschool classroom contexts. Early Education and Development, 19, 340-360. doi:10.1080/10409280801964119 Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91-108. doi:10.1002/RRQ.011 National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The Condition of Edu- cation: 2012. Washington DC: US Department of Educat io n. Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryan t, D., Cli fford , R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144-159. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2 Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Wiggins, A. K., Turnbull, K. P., & Curenton, S. M. (in press). Impact of professional development on preschool teachers’ conversational responsivity and children’s linguistic productivity and complexity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Peterson, D. S., & Taylor, B. M. (2012). Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading. The Reading Teacher, 65, Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 67
S. M. CURENTON, T. ZUCKER Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 68 295-304. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01045 Ryan, S., Ackerman, D. J., & Song, H. (2005). Getting qualified and becoming knowledgeable: Preschool teachers perspectives on their professional preparation. Unpublished Manuscript. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. Sigel, I. E., Stinson, E. T., & Kim, M. (1993). Socialization of cogni- tion: The distancing model. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific envi- ronments (pp. 211-224). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academies Press. Sorsby, A. J., & Martlew, M. (1991). Representational demands in mo- thers’ talk to preschool children in two contexts: Picture book read- ing and a modeling task. Journal of Child Language, 18, 373-395. doi:10.1017/S0305000900011119 Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English Language Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664-687. doi:10.1002/tea.10040 Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for early literacy research (pp. 159-178). New York: Guilford. van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., Hamilton, L., & McGrath, C. (1997). The relationship between middle-class parents’ book-sharing discus- sion and their preschoolers’ abstract language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1261-1271. van Kleeck, A., Vander Woude, J., & Hammett, L. (2006). Fostering literal and inferential language skills in Head Start preschoolers with language impairment using scripted book-sharing discussion. Ame- rican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 85-96. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/009) Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. The Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology. Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psy chology, 93, 243-250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.243 Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start children and teach- ers. Journal of Educational Psychol ogy, 98, 63-74. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.63 Williams, J. A. (2001). Classroom conversations: Opportunities to learn for ESL students in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 54, 750-757. Zhang, J., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2011). Collaborative reasoning: Lan- guage-rich discussions for English Learners. The Reading Teacher, 65, 257-260. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01040
|