LaTrenda Terrell California State University, San Bernardino Dr. Donna Schnoor EDU C 700

1. Improving Vocabulary and Language Skills for Head Start Children through Teacher Professional Development LaTrenda Terrell California State University, San Bernardino Dr. Donna Schnoor EDU C 700

2. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of the study is to examine the effect poverty plays on young children language development at Head Start and how professional development of Head Start Teachers can play a role in achieving optimum outcomes for children’s Language Development.

3. Research Questions/Hypothesis • What are the effects of poverty on language development for low-income children? What role does parent’s education play in developing language skills? What effects does teacher professional development have on language development, with regards to school readiness? I hypothesize that poor language development contributes to children at Head Start school readiness outcomes. Does Head Start work for low-income children? Does Head Start provides those much needed foundational skills that children need to enter Kindergarten and to continue through adulthood?

4. Significance of the Proposed Study • This study is unique in that it addresses the need for professional development for Head Start teachers that will increase language development for children. This study has the potential to transform practice by helping Head Start Programs provide professional development for Teachers to increase the likely hood of children hearing rich language, which will increase their vocabulary and ultimately prepare them for Kindergarten and for life. It will raise awareness of the importance of Language Modeling for children from low-income families in a school setting, and help understand that good education is often the only means of breaking the cycle of poverty for poor children.

5. Delimitations • This study is not going to address whether Head Start is good for all children, because Head Start is a low-income program and it services children who are at or below the Federal poverty guidelines and children with disabilities. It is not going to address, the idea that by the third grade children that went to Head Start do not continue to do better than those children that didn’t go to Head Start. In order to maintain the focus, this study limited the scope to include: Head Start children and Teachers.

6. Definitions of Key Terms • Socioeconomic Status is defined as an individuals or families economic social position in relation to others, based on their income, education, and occupation. • Poverty is defined as the state of not having enough money to take care of your basic needs such as food, housing, clothing etc. • Language Development is defined as the acquiring the ability to communicate effectively through spoken and written words. • Head Start is defined as a low-income program for children 0-5 years of age that helps to prepare children for Kindergarten. • Professional Development is defined as improving teacher’s effectiveness to improve children achievements.

7. Assumptions The following assumptions were made by the study: • Teacher surveys reflect accurate representations of ‘the truth’ through the eyes of the participant • Students enrolled at Head Start are at or below the Federal Poverty Line are at-risk.

8. Literature Review • Historical Context of the Problem- • Theme 1 • Poverty has an effect on children’s language development. • Children of lower-income, less educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts (Carey, 2013). • Theme 2 • The critical need to improve the language and pre-literacy experiences that preschool programs provide to children from low-income families (National Early Literacy Panel, 2009). • Book reading is necessary (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Wasik and Hindman, 2011) • Theme 3 • Teacher Professional Development- Through whole-group workshops, coaches provided teachers with explicit instruction in and modeling of conversation strategies, such as asking open-ended questions and using rich language around the classroom (Storch & Whitehurst, 2003). • Ongoing Professional Development positively impacted the quality of language and pre-literacy experiences that teachers created in Head Start classrooms (Storch & Whitehurst, 2003) • Vocabulary rich childcare environments, in which children have opportunities to engage in conversations that nurture explanations, narratives, or pretend talk, are essential for later literacy (Dickinson & Tabors, 2002).

9. Design and Methodology • This study will use a Quantitative Research design usingSurvey Research to explore how professional development of Head Start teachers can play a role in achieving optimum outcomes for Head Start children’s Language Development. In total, this study will interview twelve teachers. In using Survey Research it allows this study to “describe the attitudes of the population from which the sample was drawn, and to be able to generalize the findings” (Wikipedia).

10. Procedures • The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) will be conducted in the beginning of the school year for each Teacher. A short while after the first CLASS scoring, the Teachers at site (1) will be given training on Language Modeling using 5 domains, (Frequent Conversations, Open-Ended question, Repetition and Extension, Self and Parallel Talk, and Advanced Language). The Teachers at Site (2) will not be given the training on Language Modeling. The survey will be distributed to all 12 Teachers right before the second round begins. A second round of scoring will be conducted on the CLASS instrument after the survey has been completed. The survey will look at how well Teachers provide the domains and dimensions of CLASS to children, helping them to get the rich language they need to increase their language skills. This will also increase their vocabulary and ultimately prepare them for Kindergarten and for life.

11. References • Administration for Children, Youth and Families. (2001) Head Start Faces: Longitudinal findings on program performance. Third progress report. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/face /reports/perform_3rd_rpt/meas_99_title.html. • Census Bureau, (2010) Retrieved December 2, 2013 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/index.html • De Temple, J., Snow, C. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, A. S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books tochildren: Teachers and parents (pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Dickinson, D., Caswell, L. (2007) Building support for language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP)  Early Childhood Research Quarter volume22, issue2, pages 243-260.

12. References Cont. • Dickinson, D., Tabors, O. Fostering language and literacy in classrooms and homes (2002), Retrieved December 3, 2013 fromhttp://faculty.tamucommerce.edu/jthompson/Resources/DickinsonTabor FosteringlanguageLiteracy.pdf • Loope, T. (2011), Closing the 30 million word gap: A cochlear implant surgeon steps out of the operating room and into the community to better children’s language environment. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from http://itm.uchicago.edu/2011/07/29/closing-the-30-million-word-gap/ • National Early Literacy Panel, (2009). Retrieved December 8, 2013 http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf • Storch, S.A. & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934- 947. • Wasik, B., Hindman, A., (2011) Improving vocabulary and pre-literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers through teacher professional development, Journal of Educational Psychology 2011 American Psychological Association, 2011, Vol. 103, No. 2, 455– 469 • Wikipedia, Retrieved December 5, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_research