View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Spanish and English Oral Language Growth Rates of Bilingual Preschoolers: The Effect of Language of Instruction

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Spanish and English Oral Language Growth Rates of Bilingual Preschoolers: The Effect of Language of Instruction
Language: English
Authors: Durán, Lillian (ORCID 0000-0003-4364-6445), Wackerle-Hollman, Alisha, Miranda, Alejandra, Chávez, Carlos, Pentimonti, Jill, Zyskind, Karen, Rodriguez, Michael C.
Source: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Aug 2022 37(3):175-188.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Spanish, English, Oral Language, Language Acquisition, Bilingual Students, Preschool Children, Language of Instruction, Child Language, Language Dominance
DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12287
ISSN: 0938-8982
1540-5826
Abstract: Studying the oral language growth of Spanish-speaking preschoolers in the United States is increasingly important given the critical role early language development plays in reading outcomes. In this article, we report on the Spanish and English growth trajectories observed in 124 bilingual preschoolers collected over 2 years in 36 classrooms across 5 states and the associations of growth in each language to language of instruction and home language exposure. Patterns indicate the need for Spanish instruction to maintain robust rates of Spanish growth and English growth rates in Spanish, bilingual, and English-only instruction. Significant differences in English and Spanish oral language abilities were also noted at the intercept between children who were Spanish dominant versus balanced bilinguals. Implications for research and practice are provided.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1351506
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGrE2dPJ0do2yzvZq-oAMaWAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMIurMBcwxZzsVR0ygIBEICBm-xgJzA3ZsvxgfH-JiO547HK6Hlhe1-vVH48NdH0ZzK2OfLxZ9WZ9zTCORYf4U85q78KfuBVYDp6z3ad3N5ReoS9nUD_Iu2IWVqUKhxlDFchQF2A6LZyUkcvzgGQTPPJU5IEbCgRMOcA544DHSkHGBU7FnATZrcOACwy5AIw6ntrRZzvsHeEX8oZkMLp1pCtbjVf8t752H1FwMjB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159630100;7mj01aug.22;2022Oct14.06:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159630100-1">Spanish and English Oral Language Growth Rates of Bilingual Preschoolers: The Effect of Language of Instruction </title> <p>Studying the oral language growth of Spanish‐speaking preschoolers in the United States is increasingly important given the critical role early language development plays in reading outcomes. In this article, we report on the Spanish and English growth trajectories observed in 124 bilingual preschoolers collected over 2 years in 36 classrooms across 5 states and the associations of growth in each language to language of instruction and home language exposure. Patterns indicate the need for Spanish instruction to maintain robust rates of Spanish growth and English growth rates in Spanish, bilingual, and English‐only instruction. Significant differences in English and Spanish oral language abilities were also noted at the intercept between children who were Spanish dominant versus balanced bilinguals. Implications for research and practice are provided.</p> <p>Studying the oral language growth of Spanish‐speaking preschoolers in the United States is increasingly important as we continue to realize the critical role early language development plays in improving reading outcomes (Huang et al., 2021; Rojas et al., 2019). Oral language development provides the foundation for later reading success, and for Spanish‐speaking students, English and Spanish oral language development has been found to be correlated with reading achievement in both languages (August & Shanahan, 2006; Halle et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2021; Mancilla‐Martinez et al., 2020). Further although the associations are stronger within languages, there is also evidence of associations between languages (August & Shanahan, 2006; Miller et al., 2006; Proctor et al., 2006; Solari et al., 2014).</p> <p>It is important to recognize the differences in the relationships between English and Spanish oral vocabulary development and other metalinguistic skills. The evidence of cross‐linguistic transfer between English and Spanish is stronger for phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge than for oral language (Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011), but this stands to reason give the similarities in the phonology and alphabet between Spanish and English (Gorman & Gillam, 2003). However, while this similarity facilitates the transfer of skills in phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge, negative associations have been found between Spanish and English in the area of oral vocabulary. Vocabulary development is dependent upon exposure (Tomasello et al., 2005), and we cannot automatically assume that simply because a child knows the word for a concept or item in Spanish they will know the same word in English or vice versa (Kroll et al., 2010). Spanish and English do share a significant number of cognates (words that sound nearly the same and share the same meaning), and there is evidence that children acquire cognates more readily across languages (Goodrich et al., 2016; Kelley & Kohnert, 2012). Therefore, measuring oral language relationships requires attention to the specific words being studied and the nuances of these relationships.</p> <p>It is widely recognized that language development during the preschool years is highly predictive of later reading and academic outcomes (Language and Reading Research Consortium [LARRC] & Chiu, 2018; National Early Literacy Panel, 2010; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). However, even though we acknowledge the critical role of oral language development, there is little evidence about the expected growth rates of Spanish and English language development in bilingual preschoolers. To fill this gap in the literature, in this article, we report on the growth trajectories observed in a diverse sample of bilingual preschoolers collected over two years and the associations of growth in each language to the language of instruction and home language exposure.</p> <p>The population of children who are exposed to Spanish as their primary home language continues to grow and represents a significant population in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Specifically, between 2009 and 2017, 43 states saw a significant rise in the number of multilingual students enrolled in public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Further, the population of Latinos under 18 years of age grew by 22% from 2006 to 2016 (Lopez et al., 2018). Latinos accounted for 25% of the nation's 54 million K–12 students in 2016, up from 16% in 2000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data (2010), in 14 states, Latinos accounted for at least 20% of K–12 students in 2016. Important, Latinos accounted for about half or more of all K–12 students in two large and influential states with regard to the growth of the Latino population, California (52%) and Texas (49%).</p> <p>Given the importance of this growing population, it is incumbent to provide effective educational opportunities that maximize their success. Language is the foundation of literacy and, therefore, it is important to foster the language development of young bilingual children to support improved reading outcomes (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; LRRC, 2019; LRRC et al., 2015). Skilled readers are more likely to graduate high school, pursue higher education, and work in professions that provide financial stability (National Early Literacy Panel, 2010). Unfortunately, Spanish‐speaking children historically have demonstrated lower reading achievement and academic outcomes than their monolingual English‐speaking white peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Spanish‐speaking students also have been disproportionately identified with learning disabilities, specifically in the area of reading (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020; U.S. Department of Education, 2017).</p> <p>A set of complex factors contribute to these inequitable outcomes, including receiving instruction that does not adequately attend to students' language learning needs (Goldenberg, 2008a; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2017), experiencing higher rates of poverty (Chen & Thompson, 2021), living in communities with lower performing schools (NASEM, 2017), and having teachers who have not received sufficient training to effectively educate children who are in the process of acquiring English (Mitchell, 2019). The approaches to ameliorating the effects of these educational and societal disparities vary; however, it is well established that early screening to identify children who may benefit from additional instructional support early on and providing effective early intervention is a critical component of improving reading and academic outcomes in this population (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-2">MODELING GROWTH IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH</hd> <p>A convergence of evidence has shown that studying and modeling growth is an important approach to predicting which children will be at risk for reading failure (Hammer et al., 2008; Hoff, 2013). For example, growth models have been found to be more predictive of reading outcomes than single data points on standardized measures (Rojas et al., 2019; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). There is a growing corpus of research on the Spanish and English growth of bilingual children in the United States. These studies, as reviewed by Durán and Wackerle‐Hollman (2018), included participants beginning as young as 22 months old (Hoff et al., 2014), with most beginning during the preschool years (Hammer et al., 2009; Hammer et al., 2007, 2008; Hoff & Ribot, 2017; Jackson et al., 2014; Páez et al., 2007; Rinaldi & Páez, 2008). Studies were conducted over 1–5 years, with some including an analysis of the effects of home and school language exposure on growth (i.e., Collins, 2014; Jackson et al., 2014).</p> <p>What is evident from the findings of these studies is that the oral language development of bilingual children in both English and Spanish is not meeting expected growth rates in the United States and children, on average, perform well below the mean on standardized measures (Durán & Wackerle‐Hollman, 2018; Hoff, 2013; Páez et al., 2007). Researchers also found that the effects of home and school language exposure explained a meaningful source of variance and are important to include in growth models (Collins, 2014).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-3">HOME LANGUAGE EXPOSURE</hd> <p>Home language exposure affects growth in both Spanish and English (Hammer et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2014; Place & Hoff, 2016), and evidence suggests that children who are exposed to both Spanish and English at home versus those who are only exposed to Spanish at home enter preschool with different ability levels in each language and grow at different rates in each language (Durán & Wackerle‐Hollman, 2018; Hammer et al., 2008; López & Foster, 2021). Specifically, Hammer et al. (2008) found that children who were exposed primarily to Spanish in their homes began preschool with higher receptive language scores in Spanish and maintained significantly higher rates of growth in Spanish than their peers who were exposed to both English and Spanish in their homes. Although the Spanish‐dominant group entered preschool with significantly lower English receptive vocabulary than the children who were exposed to both Spanish and English at home, this gap narrowed over the 2 years of the study with significantly higher growth rates, as evidenced by a larger slope for this group in English. At the end of preschool, differences in English were nonsignificant between the groups. The Spanish‐dominant group essentially caught up to their peers in English who were exposed to both Spanish and English at home. This finding is convergent with similar research indicating that it is critical to consider home language exposure at the intercept and that the effects of home language exposure has implications when evaluating the slope of growth in each language (e.g., Hoff et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2014).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-4">LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOL</hd> <p>With regard to language exposure at school, it is widely accepted that effective education of Spanish‐speaking students requires attention to their language development in both English and Spanish (Francis et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2006; NASEM, 2017; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). A convergence of evidence across studies suggests that providing at least some instruction in Spanish in a bilingual instructional model supports stronger Spanish language development over time than English‐only instruction without cost to English language development or academic achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006; Rojas et al., 2019). In fact, academic outcomes such as higher graduation rates and reading outcomes have been found to be supported by bilingual versus English‐only programs for students who have been identified as English learners (Bialystok, 2018; NASEM, 2017; Rolstad et al., 2005). In addition, there is mounting evidence that Spanish language instruction supports higher rates of Spanish growth and may be a necessary condition for maintaining a positive trajectory in Spanish language development (Bialystok, 2018; Durán et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2021; Oller & Eilers, 2002).</p> <p>There are many different types of bilingual programs, and even variability in how the models are interpreted and implemented, but in the literature two‐way dual immersion models have been found to be the most effective at improving academic achievement (Howard et al., 2003; Lindholm‐Leary, 2012; Rolstad et al., 2005; Tong et al., 2008). Nevertheless, more longitudinal research comparing English and Spanish language development in bilingual vs. English‐only programs is needed to examine these differences in development over time with larger sample sizes and in various models of bilingual programming.</p> <p>In this article, we contribute to this literature by focusing on preschool‐aged children with data collected over 2 years on general outcome measures. Other researchers (Marston et al., 1986; Shapiro, 2011) have used standardized norm‐referenced measures that are less sensitive to smaller increments of change.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-5">THE CURRENT STUDY—GENERAL OUTCOME MEASURES</hd> <p>General outcome measures (GOMS) are a category of direct assessment that are designed to be sensitive to the effects of intervention and can be administered for both seasonal screening and for progress monitoring (Fuchs & Deno, 1991). GOMS have become widely used in multitiered systems of support (MTSS) to identify students who are falling below benchmark levels of performance and would benefit from targeted instructional support (Carta & Miller Young, 2019). The current study was conducted as part of a larger federally funded project to develop the progress monitoring component of the Individual Growth and Development Indicators en Español (IGDIs‐E). The use of GOMS allowed for data collection once a month over 2 years providing robust estimates of growth in a multistate sample of bilingual preschoolers. The study focused on the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the expected Spanish and English oral language growth rates of Spanish‐speaking preschoolers using English and Spanish measures of oral language?</item> <p></p> <item> To what degree do growth rates on English and Spanish measures of oral language differ by language of instruction?</item> <p></p> <item> To what degree do growth rates on English and Spanish measures of oral language differ by students' language profiles?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159630100-6">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-7">Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-8">Children</hd> <p>The sample included in these analyses was a subset from a larger study including 766 Spanish‐English bilingual children (see Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020). Over the 2 years of the study, a total of 379 children in 85 classrooms participated during the 2017–2018 academic year and 387 in 80 classrooms participated in the 2018–2019 academic year. Children were different across years, and the two academic years were merged. Of those children, 124 children who received the oral language Spanish and English IGDI measures were included in the current study. These children were recruited from 36 classrooms located in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and Utah during the 2017–2018 and 2018–2018 academic years. The sample included children whose teachers and caregivers identified as Spanish‐speaking at home. Caregivers completed the Language Exposure Evaluation Report (LEER; Durán & Wackerle‐Hollman, 2016) to ascertain their home language exposure, where balanced bilinguals included children who spoke Spanish and English at home (<emph>n</emph> = 59), and Spanish dominants included children who primarily spoke Spanish at home (<emph>n</emph> = 65). We defined "balanced bilinguals" based on empirical clusters from the LEER, which included children whose parents reported that their children heard and spoke English and Spanish at home, but not necessarily in equal amounts. We similarly defined "Spanish dominance" using empirical clusters from the LEER; this cluster included children who primarily heard and spoke Spanish at home. Based on these definitions, we acknowledged children had variability in language dominance within each profile.</p> <p>In addition, the LEER required caregivers to report on the languages spoken and heard throughout the course of the week, but did not assess language quality, potentially creating greater variability in children's skills and abilities in each language. Language dominance is dynamic, and even with the profiles identified through cluster analysis, children could show stronger skills in one language over another based on variables not addressed here (Silva‐Corvalán & Treffers‐Daller, 2015).</p> <p>We did not limit participation for children with disabilities because the IGDI‐Español and English IGDI sample item structure effectively excluded children who had not yet developed the skills necessary to understand the task. Any child with a disability who could correctly complete the sample items was included in the sample. Children who did not pass the sample items (including children with disabilities) were excluded from study participation.</p> <p>The children in the study were, on average, 4.2 years old during October of the academic year, and 4% had identified disabilities based on parent report. With the exception of one, all families identified as Latino and reported countries of origin as including El Salvador, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the United States. Child and family characteristics, including language dominance profiles, are provided in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLEChild Characteristics by Language Profile</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Spanish Dominant (<italic>N =</italic> 65)</th><th>Balanced Bilingual (<italic>N</italic> = 59)</th><th>Total (<italic>N</italic> = 124)</th></tr><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>%</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th>%</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th>%</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age at first assessment</td><td /><td>4.2 (0.6)</td><td /><td>4.2 (0.8)</td><td /><td>4.2 (0.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Home size</td><td /><td>5.0 (1.3)</td><td /><td>5.0 (1.7)</td><td /><td>5.0 (1.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Males</td><td>61.5</td><td /><td>33.9</td><td /><td>48.4</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Has IEP</td><td>10.8</td><td /><td>10.2</td><td /><td>10.0</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Income > U.S.$700 weekly</td><td>4.6</td><td /><td>3.4</td><td /><td>4.0</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Country of origin</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td>1.7</td><td /><td>0.8</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Dominican Republic</td><td>1.5</td><td /><td>0.0</td><td /><td>0.8</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Ecuador</td><td>6.2</td><td /><td>5.1</td><td /><td>5.6</td><td /></tr><tr><td>El Salvador</td><td>3.1</td><td /><td>0.0</td><td /><td>1.6</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Guatemala</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td>1.7</td><td /><td>0.8</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Honduras</td><td>1.5</td><td /><td>1.7</td><td /><td>1.6</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Mexico</td><td>38.5</td><td /><td>33.9</td><td /><td>36.3</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Puerto Rico</td><td>1.5</td><td /><td>0.0</td><td /><td>0.8</td><td /></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>3.1</td><td /><td>8.5</td><td /><td>5.6</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Did not report</td><td>44.6</td><td /><td>47.5</td><td /><td>56.4</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. Home size is the total number of people in the home. IEP = individualized education program.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-9">Teachers and Classrooms</hd> <p>Children were recruited from 36 classrooms with 36 teachers, in Head Start programs, private, and public preschools in Minnesota (22%), California (22%), Utah (25%), and Oregon (31%). (Classroom and teacher characteristics are provided in Table 2.) Classrooms for each academic year were different, but classroom data were pooled across both years.</p> <p>2 TABLEClassroom Characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th><italic>N</italic></th><th>%</th><th><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher years of experience</td><td>23</td><td /><td>9.5 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of DLLs</td><td>14</td><td /><td>9.0 (4.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher education level</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Associate degree</td><td>9</td><td>25</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree</td><td>21</td><td>58</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Master's degree</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Classroom language of instruction</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>22</td><td>61</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Both</td><td>8</td><td>22</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Language profile of teacher</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Nonnative Spanish speaker</td><td>22</td><td>61</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Native Spanish speaker</td><td>10</td><td>28</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 DLLs, dual‐language learners.</p> <p>All 36 teachers responded to the classroom survey. Twenty‐two reported English as the primary language of instruction, eight reported English and Spanish, and six reported Spanish as the primary language of instruction. Regarding teacher language dominance, 10 teachers identified as native Spanish speakers and 22 identified as nonnative Spanish speakers who learned Spanish as their second language. Across classrooms there was an average of nine Spanish‐speaking children per classroom (<emph>N</emph> = 36 classrooms, <emph>SD</emph> = 4, min = 5, max = 18).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-10">Measures</hd> <p>Given these analyses included a subset of data from a larger data collection effort, some of the measures reported here were the same as reported in complementary studies (see Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-11">Language Environment Evaluation Report (LEER)</hd> <p>The LEER assesses a child's home language exposure and was used to identify home language profiles (Durán & Wackerle‐Hollman, 2016). The LEER includes a time block matrix with 16 questions, where the primary caregiver(s) report what languages the child heard and spoke across a typical week and weekend, with four different time windows: awake to 9A; 9A‐1P; 1P‐4P; and 4P to bedtime. Validity evidence supporting interpretation and use of the LEER profiles was reported in a study of 732 children, and cluster analysis yielded four primary profiles: Spanish dominant, balanced bilingual, English, and other (Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020). Cluster analysis results indicated the language children spoke on the weekends from awake to 9A and from 1P to 4P was the strongest contributor to profile membership. Profiles were derived using cluster analysis results where "Spanish dominant" represented children whose parents selected only Spanish for speaking and hearing on the primary cluster indicators; "balanced bilingual" represented children whose parents selected English and Spanish in an option we created entitled "both" for speaking and hearing on the primary cluster indicators; "English" represented children whose parents selected English for speaking and hearing on the primary cluster indicators; and "other" represented children whose parents selected other language(s) on the primary cluster indicators. LEER analysis indicated the "other" and English clusters were insignificant and not useful, because of the small sample sizes. LEER analysis indicated profile membership can be reliably identified, with LEER internal reliability yielding α =.95 (Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-12">Individual Growth and Development Indicators</hd> <p>Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) are English and Spanish screening and progress monitoring measures designed for 4‐ to 5‐year‐old preschool children. IGDIs measure phonological awareness, oral language, alphabet knowledge, and early comprehension (in English; McConnell et al., 2014; in Spanish; Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2016, 2018). The larger study for these analyses used five IGDIs‐E (Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2018) progress monitoring measures: Primeros Sonidos, Identificación de los Dibujos, Verbos Expresivos, Identificación de las Letras, Identificación de los Sonidos; and four English IGDI progress monitoring measures: Sound Identification, First Sounds, Picture Naming, and Rhyming. We utilized data from two of the complementary oral language measures, Identificación de los Dibujos and Picture Naming.</p> <p>Assessment procedures for English IGDIs and IGDIs Español followed the same administration procedures, with content differing based on each language. For each measure, the assessor provided four sample items. Samples 1 and 2 were for demonstration purposes only to teach the child the task procedure. Samples 3 and 4 were designed to scaffold the child's response with a corrective feedback loop. Once the child had successfully passed the sample items, they moved on to the 25 operational items. If a child was unable to pass the sample items, they were discontinued from the testing protocol.</p> <p>For each measure, children were presented with a single image of a common object or item and asked to name the item using the prompt "What's that?" in English and "Que es?" in Spanish. Although the format was identical, the actual item stimuli differed to some degree (with some overlap in items that were frequently observed in both languages, such as banana/banana and cow/vaca) with different and culturally relevant images presented in each language. During administration, the child responded by stating the label for the image, and the assessor scored the items dichotomously as either no credit or credit based on the potential correct responses listed on the assessor's screen or item card. After the assessment was started, there were no discontinue criteria, so children continued until all items had been administered, which typically took about 1–2 minutes per measure. IGDI administration was standardized with scripted prompts and scoring criteria to limit errors (see Durán et al., 2019).</p> <p>English IGDIs and IGDIs‐E were developed and scaled using Rasch modeling; however, the Spanish and English scales represent different underlying construct definitions and, as a result, the scales were not equated (Durán et al., 2019; Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2018). All IGDI items were calibrated to produce item difficulties, and items within the progress monitoring paper‐pencil sets (IGDIs‐E fixed forms) were selected based on these item difficulties. Measures administered using tablet devices (English IGDIs) leveraged computer adaptive testing where items were selected to tailor each test experience to the child's ability level. Items in all measures were scored dichotomously. The variability in the selection of items across children because of computer adaptive testing on the English version does not allow our team to document the overlap in items between the English and Spanish versions.</p> <p>Through a series of studies, researchers provided evidence to support claims of technical adequacy and validity for the English and IGDIs‐E measures. Researchers have provided construct, content, and criterion‐related validity evidence. Specific to the oral language domain, criterion‐related validity evidence was gathered for the English IGDI measures (McConnell et al., 2012) through correlations with (a) the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI; Kaminski et al., 2014), yielding coefficients ranging from.36 to.67; (b) the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan et al., 2007), yielding coefficients ranging from.36 to.77; and (c) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test‐4, (PPVT‐4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007), yielding coefficients ranging from.53 to.82. Criterion‐related validity evidence for oral language on the IGDIs‐E was gathered from correlations with the Preschool Language Scale‐5 Spanish (Zimmerman et al., 2011) yielding coefficients ranging from.24 to.31 (Durán et al., 2019). IGDI internal reliability estimates ranged from.74 to.90 (McConnell et al., 2014), and the standard error of measurement ranged from 0.35 to 0.52 logits for the majority of children's ability estimates; however, as with any measure, when children's performance was in the tails of item difficulty ranges, standard error of measurement was higher. Finally, using a principal component analysis, we evaluated the underlying structure of IGDIs‐E. This analysis evaluated the contrast between eigenvalues observed by the Rasch model and the next factor. Observed contrasts ranged from 4 to 19 times the secondary dimension, which supported the unidimensional scoring and interpretation of these measures (Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-13">Teacher Survey</hd> <p>Participating teachers responded to a brief researcher‐created survey about their teaching experience, language proficiency, and language of instruction used in the classroom. Specific questions regarding teacher and classroom characteristics included: "How many years has the lead teacher been teaching?"; "What is the lead teacher's highest level of education?"; "Is the lead teacher a native Spanish‐speaker?"; and a question about the number of children in their classroom that spoke Spanish. All questions were categorical, and none were on a continuous scale.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-14">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-15">Recruitment</hd> <p>Teachers and child participants were recruited from programs that served Spanish‐speaking children. Project staff identified and contacted preschool site directors and teachers through email and provided details regarding study participation. Once teachers agreed to participate, they were asked to identify the Spanish‐speaking children in their classroom and send home consent forms and surveys in children's backpacks. To participate in the study, children had to be 4 or 5 years old, be eligible for kindergarten the following year, and be Spanish‐speaking (as identified by teacher and parent report).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-16">Assessor Training</hd> <p>IGDI assessors included graduate research assistants and temporary community employees. All assessors received at least 3 hours of training on the IGDI measures with specific training on the iPad application for the English IGDIs. For IGDIs‐E, assessors were trained on the paper‐pencil assessments and tracking materials. To qualify for administration, assessors needed to achieve 90% fidelity as observed by project staff. All assessors achieved 90% fidelity within two trials following training. During testing in the field, 10% of the data collection sessions were observed for reliability and ongoing fidelity purposes. All assessors worked with children in spaces identified by the sites, typically in hallways or at separate tables or in corners of classrooms to limit distractions and engage children in one‐on‐one interaction. Each child was assigned a different assessor for English and Spanish to avoid interlocutor sensitivity issues.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-17">IGDI Administration</hd> <p>Each child received both the English (Picture Naming) and Spanish (Identificación de los Dibujos) IGDIs. Administration occurred monthly. Identificación de los Dibujos included 25 fixed items provided in six parallel forms that were rotated during each academic year. In 2017–2018, Picture Naming included 25 items and was administered in a parallel form rotation pattern (3 forms) using paper‐pencil format; however, in 2018–2019, Picture Naming was administered using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) via iPads. All items from paper‐pencil and CAT forms were selected from the item bank based on concurrently estimated Rasch item difficulties to produce comparable Rasch child ability scores. In 2017–2018, data collection began in November, whereas in 2018–2019, it began in October (descriptive statistics for both measures are provided in supplemental tables s1, s2).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-18">Analysis</hd> <p>We included children who had scores on both IGDI Picture Naming and Identificación de los Dibujos. A classroom indicator was created using the teacher survey to indicate language of instruction (i.e., "In what language or languages do you provide instruction?"). Classrooms where teachers reported using "Only Spanish or More Spanish than English" were defined as Spanish instruction classrooms. Those where teachers reported "Both, equally" were classified as bilingual instruction classrooms. Finally, if teachers reported using "Only English" or "More English than Spanish" to provide instruction, they were defined as English instruction classrooms.</p> <p>For language profile, we defined "Spanish dominant" as children who spoke only Spanish during weekends from awake to 9 am and from 1 to 4 pm; namely, during those two windows they were exposed primarily to Spanish. In contrast, "balanced bilingual" children were those who spoke in English and Spanish during the same two time windows. Children who reported speaking a different combination of languages (i.e., only English, or other languages) were not included in the study. Since we collected data from two school years, we also included an indicator for the school year 2018–2019; the reference year was 2017–2018.</p> <p>In order to answer the research questions of the study, we used hierarchical linear modeling to estimate growth (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM takes into account the nested structure of the data (time points nested in children and classrooms). In addition, it is flexible when having different time periods between assessments and different number of assessments per child.</p> <p>To answer the first research question, we estimated the unconditional three‐level model (no covariates) for Picture Naming and Identificación de los Dibujos and reported the mean growth rates as two separate models. To answer the other research questions, we included in the model language of instruction, language profile, and year.</p> <p>The Level‐1 model indicated the between‐time‐points or within‐child model. The outcome variable was the Rasch IGDI score (i.e., Picture Naming or Identificación de los Dibujos) in time point <emph>t</emph> of child <emph>i</emph> in classroom <emph>j</emph>, which was denoted by <emph>Measure<subs>tij</subs></emph>. The time variable in the model was <emph>Month</emph>, which was centered on October 1 to indicate the beginning of the school year and defined as a 30‐day period. The Level‐1 equation included the intercept <emph>π</emph><subs>0</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> (scores at October 1), the slope <emph>π</emph><subs>1</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> (growth per month), and the Level‐1 residual <emph>e<subs>tij</subs></emph> with a variance of σ<sups>2</sups>.</p> <p>The Level‐2 model indicated the between‐child or within‐classroom model. The indicator of language profile was included in the intercept (<emph>π</emph><subs>0</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>) and slope (<emph>π</emph><subs>1</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>) equations, where balanced bilingual (BB) took the value of one and Spanish dominant took zero. The mean intercept for classroom <emph>j</emph> was represented by <emph>β</emph><subs>00</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> and the language profile effect on the intercept by <emph>β</emph><subs>01</subs><emph><subs>j.</subs></emph> The growth rate for each classroom <emph>j</emph> was represented by <emph>β</emph><subs>10</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> and the language profile effect on growth by <emph>β</emph><subs>11</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph>. The Level‐2 residuals (random effects) <emph>r</emph><subs>0</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>π</subs></emph><subs>00</subs>) and <emph>r</emph><subs>1</subs><emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>π</subs></emph><subs>11</subs>) were added in the intercept and slope equations, respectively.</p> <p>The Level‐3 model indicated the between‐classrooms model. The variable <emph>Year</emph> was included only in the <emph>β</emph><subs>00</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> and <emph>β</emph><subs>10</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> equations (school means) to control for possible differences between school years. Language of instruction was included as two dummy variables with English instruction as the reference group. The effect of language of instruction on the slope was indicated by <emph>γ</emph><subs>102</subs> (bilingual relative to English instruction) and <emph>γ</emph><subs>103</subs> (Spanish relative to English instruction). We tested the interaction effect of language of instruction and language profile on growth, represented by the coefficients <emph>γ</emph><subs>111</subs> (bilingual instruction × balanced bilingual profile) and <emph>γ</emph><subs>112</subs> (Spanish instruction × balanced bilingual profile). We did not include language of instruction in the intercept as classroom variables should not affect performance at the beginning of the school year (October 1). The grand means were represented by <emph>γ</emph><subs>000</subs> for the intercept and by <emph>γ</emph><subs>100</subs> for the slope (growth). The effect of a balanced bilingual profile on the intercept was represented by <emph>γ</emph><subs>010</subs> and by <emph>γ</emph><subs>110</subs> on the slope. Lastly, the random effects <emph>u</emph><subs>00</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>β</subs></emph><subs>00</subs>), <emph>u</emph><subs>01</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>β</subs></emph><subs>01</subs>), <emph>u</emph><subs>10</subs><emph><subs>j j</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>β</subs></emph><subs>10</subs>), and <emph>u</emph><subs>11</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> ∼ <emph>N</emph>(0, τ<emph><subs>β</subs></emph><subs>11</subs>) were included in the model, which denoted the Level‐3 residuals. The full model as estimated in HLM8 was:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:09388982:media:ldrp12287:ldrp12287-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics>Level−1modeltime:Measuretij=π0ij+π1ijMonthtij+etij.<annotation encoding="application/x-tex">\begin{eqnarray*}{\rm{Level - 1}}\,{\rm{model}}\,\left({time} \right):\,Measur{e}_{tij} \\= {\pi }_{0ij} + {\pi }_{1ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} + {e}_{tij}.\end{eqnarray*}</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:09388982:media:ldrp12287:ldrp12287-math-0002" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics>Level−2modelchild:π0ij=β00j+β01jBBij+r0ij,π1ij=β10j+β11jBBij+r1ij.<annotation encoding="application/x-tex">\begin{equation*} \def\eqcellsep{&}\begin{array}{l} {\rm{Level - 2}}\,{\rm{model}}\,\left({child} \right):\,{\pi }_{0ij} = {\beta }_{00j} + {\beta }_{01j}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij} + {r}_{0ij},\\ {\pi }_{1ij} = {\beta }_{10j} + {\beta }_{11j}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij} + {r}_{1ij}. \end{array} \end{equation*}</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:09388982:media:ldrp12287:ldrp12287-math-0003" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics>Level−3modelclassroom:β00j=γ000+γ001(Year)j+u00j,β01j=γ010+u01j,β10j=γ100+γ101Yearj+γ102Bilingualinstructionj+γ103Spanishinstructionj+u10j,β11j=γ110+γ111Bilingualinstructionj+γ112Spanishinstructionj+u11j.<annotation encoding="application/x-tex">\begin{equation*} \def\eqcellsep{&}\begin{array}{l} {\rm{Level - 3}}\,{\rm{model}}\,\left({classroom} \right):\,{\beta }_{00j} = {\gamma }_{000} \\ +\, {\gamma }_{001}{(Year)}_j + {u}_{00j},\\ {\beta }_{01j} = {\gamma }_{010} + {u}_{01j},\\ {\beta }_{10j} = {\gamma }_{100} + {\gamma }_{101}{\left({Year} \right)}_j + {\gamma }_{102}{\left({Bilingual\,instruction} \right)}_j \\ +\, {\gamma }_{103}{\left({Spanish\,instruction} \right)}_j + {u}_{10j},\\ {\beta }_{11j} = {\gamma }_{110} + {\gamma }_{111}{\left({Bilingual\,instruction} \right)}_j\\ +\, {\gamma }_{112}{\left({Spanish\,instruction} \right)}_j + {u}_{11j}. \end{array} \end{equation*}</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Mixed model:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:09388982:media:ldrp12287:ldrp12287-math-0004" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics>Measuretij=γ000+γ001Yearj+γ010BBij+γ100Monthtij+γ101YearjMonthtij+γ102BilingualinstructionjMonthtij+γ103SpanishinstructionjMonthtij+γ110BBijMonthtij+γ111BilingualinstructionjBBijMonthtij+γ112SpanishinstructionjBBijMonthti+u00j+u01jBBij+r0ij+u10jMonthtij+u11jBBijMonthtij+r1ijMonthtij+etij.<annotation encoding="application/x-tex">\begin{eqnarray*} \def\eqcellsep{&}\begin{array}{l} Measur{e}_{tij} = {\gamma }_{000} + {\gamma }_{001}{\left({Year} \right)}_j + {\gamma }_{010}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij} \\ +\, {\gamma }_{100}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} \\ +\, {\gamma }_{101}{\left({Year} \right)}_j{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} \\ +\, {\gamma }_{102}{\left({Bilingual\,instruction} \right)}_j{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij}\\ +\, {\gamma }_{103}{\left({Spanish\,instruction} \right)}_j{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} \\ +\, {\gamma }_{110}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij}\\ + {\gamma }_{111} {\left({Bilingual\,instruction} \right)}_j{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij}\\ +\, {\gamma }_{112}{\left({Spanish\,instruction} \right)}_j{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{ti} + {u}_{00j} \\ +\, {u}_{01j}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij}\\ +\, {r}_{0ij} \\ +\, {u}_{10j}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} + {u}_{11j}{\left({BB} \right)}_{ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} + {r}_{1ij}{\left({Month} \right)}_{tij} \\ +\, {e}_{tij}. \end{array} \end{eqnarray*}</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>To promote ease of understanding the combined effects of language of instruction and language profile, we estimated overall growth rates by summing the relevant regression coefficients for each group by instructional setting. Since the English and Spanish measures are naturally on different scales, although both Rasch scales, we standardized the disaggregated growth rates by dividing the rates by the score <emph>SD</emph> for the given measure (reported in Table 5). Thus, growth rates were reported in terms of <emph>SD</emph>s of growth per month rather than score scale points per month. Although the English and Spanish measures do not measure the same exact domain (as language itself is an important component of the construct domain), the standardized growth rates provide an estimate of relative growth across language groups and instruction settings.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-19">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-20">Overall Growth by Measure</hd> <p>To respond to the first research question: What are the expected Spanish and English oral language growth rates of Spanish‐speaking preschoolers using English and Spanish measures of oral language?, we examined the overall growth for English oral language skills as measured by Picture Naming and for Spanish oral language skills as measured by Identificación de los Dibujos, using an unconditional model in HLM. Results indicated that fixed effects for both languages were statistically significant, where English oral language grew at a rate of 0.12 logits per month and Spanish oral language grew at a rate of 0.06 logits per month (see Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLEUnconditional Growth Model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Oral Language</th></tr><tr><th /><th>Picture naming</th><th>Identificación de los Dibujos</th></tr><tr><th>Fixed effect</th><th><italic>b</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>b</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept (October 1), γ<sub>000</sub></td><td>–1.640002</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Slope (growth rate), γ<sub>100</sub></td><td>0.120002</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.060002</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.05</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note. SD</emph>s are at the child level; the <emph>SD</emph> of child ability on October 1.</item> <item>4 * <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0159630100-21">Association of Language of Instruction and Child Language Profile on Growth</hd> <p>To evaluate our second and third research questions: To what degree do growth rates differ on English and Spanish measures of oral language by language of instruction? and to what degree do growth rates differ on English and Spanish measures of oral language based on language profile?, we examined children's growth using language profile and language of instruction in the same HLM model (see Table 4). We anchored English instruction and Spanish dominant language profile as the reference groups. In both the English and Spanish language models, we found significant and insignificant coefficients given the restricted sample size (the model was vulnerable to small sample sizes, reducing the likelihood of achieving statistical significance).</p> <p>4 TABLEFixed Effects for Oral Language</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Oral Language</th></tr><tr><th /><th>Picture naming</th><th>Identificación de los Dibujos</th></tr><tr><th>Fixed effect</th><th><italic>b</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th><th><italic>b</italic></th><th><italic>SE</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept effects (October), π<sub>0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Grand mean for 2017–2018 school year and Spanish dominant, γ<sub>000</sub></td><td>–1.96</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Difference across both years at the intercept, γ<sub>001</sub></td><td>–0.19</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Difference between language profiles at the intercept, γ<sub>010</sub></td><td>0.760001</td><td>0.26</td><td>–0.63</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Slope effects (growth rate), π<sub>1</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Grand mean growth rate for 2017–2018 school year, in English instruction, and Spanish dominant, γ<sub>100</sub></td><td>0.140001</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth across both years, γ<sub>101</sub></td><td>–0.03</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth between bilingual instruction vs. English instruction, γ<sub>102</sub></td><td>–0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth between Spanish instruction vs. English instruction, γ<sub>103</sub></td><td>–0.07</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.120001</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth between balanced bilingual and Spanish dominant in English instruction, γ<sub>110</sub></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.04</td><td>–0.12</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth between balanced bilingual and Spanish dominant in bilingual instruction, γ<sub>111</sub></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Difference in growth between balanced bilingual and Spanish dominant in Spanish instruction, γ<sub>112</sub></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 * <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-22">Growth for Spanish‐Dominant Children</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-23">Spanish Oral Language</hd> <p>Data for this analysis were centered on October 1, a representation of the beginning of the academic year. Spanish‐dominant children were somewhat at an advantage over balanced bilingual children at the beginning of the year, or at the intercept, on Identificación de los Dibujos (–0.63, <emph>p</emph> <.10; Table 4). Children's Spanish oral language skills were at an initial mean ability of 0.44 logits for Spanish‐dominant children, whereas balanced bilingual children had an initial mean ability of –0.19 logits (0.44−0.63; Table 4).</p> <p>For Identificación de los Dibujos, when Spanish‐dominant children's growth was examined in the context of language of instruction, their Spanish oral language skills grew at a rate of 0.07 <emph>SD</emph>s per month in English instruction and bilingual instruction; however, the differences were not statistically significant (Table 5). For Spanish‐dominant children in Spanish instruction, their oral language skills grew at a significant rate of 0.13 <emph>SD</emph>s per month faster (<emph>p</emph> <.05) than in English or bilingual instruction (Table 5). Figure 1 shows the statistical growth difference between Spanish instruction and English instruction. Considering an academic year is nine months long, the model predicted Spanish‐dominant children's Spanish oral language skills in Spanish instruction to grow 1.8 <emph>SD</emph>s in an academic year, the highest growth rate of all combinations.</p> <p>5 TABLEStandardized Growth Rates by Language of Instruction and Language Profile</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>English Instruction</th><th>Bilingual Instruction</th><th>Spanish Instruction</th></tr><tr><th>Measure</th><th>Spanish dominant</th><th>Balanced bilingual</th><th>Spanish dominant</th><th>Balanced bilingual</th><th>Spanish dominant</th><th>Balanced bilingual</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Picture naming</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Identificación de los Dibujos</td><td>0.07</td><td>–0.07</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>. Growth rates were standardized by dividing group growth rates by the <emph>SD</emph> of each measure (from Table 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/7MJ/01aug22/ldrp12287-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ldrp12287-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Growth between Spanish instruction vs. English instruction for Spanish‐dominant children in Identificación de los Dibujos. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159630100-25">English Oral Language</hd> <p>For Picture Naming, the language profile variable at the intercept indicated that children who were balanced bilinguals had significantly higher initial abilities than Spanish‐dominant children, with a difference of 0.76 logits (<emph>p</emph> <.05; Table 4). Children in the Spanish‐dominant group had an intercept of –1.96 compared to an intercept of –1.20 (–1.96 + 0.76) for balanced bilinguals.</p> <p>For growth, Spanish dominant children's English oral language skills grew at a statistically significant rate of 0.13 <emph>SD</emph>s per month (<emph>p</emph> <.05; Table 5) when in English instruction and were estimated to achieve 1.2 <emph>SD</emph>s by the end of the year. For bilingual instruction, Picture Naming skills grew more slowly at 0.11 <emph>SD</emph>s per month, and in Spanish instruction, growth was slower at.07 <emph>SD</emph>s per month; however, these were not statistically significant differences.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-26">Growth for Balanced Bilingual Children</hd> <p>To evaluate the association of the balanced bilingual profile and language of instruction on children's oral language skills in English and Spanish, we added an interaction term to model balanced bilingual children in English, bilingual, and Spanish instruction. All interaction terms were insignificant, but some were approaching significance (and perhaps of nonignorable magnitudes).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-27">Spanish Oral Language</hd> <p>For Identificación de los Dibujos, oral language growth for children with balanced bilingual profiles was not significantly different by language of instruction. Although these interactions were not significant, children with balanced bilingual profiles tended to grow less, especially in English instruction. Balanced bilingual children's Spanish oral language skills did not grow in English instruction as evidenced by a negative slope at –0.07 <emph>SD</emph>s per month. In English instruction, they grew at 0.07 <emph>SD</emph>s per month in bilingual instruction, and 0.16 <emph>SD</emph>s in Spanish instruction classrooms (Table 5). Although these differences seem nonignorable within balanced bilingual child experiences across languages of instruction, they were not statistically significantly different than those for Spanish‐dominant children. In sum, Spanish instruction supported growth on IGDIs‐E for both language groups.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-28">English Oral Language</hd> <p>For Picture Naming, oral language growth for children with balanced bilingual profiles was not significantly different by language of instruction. Balanced bilinguals' English oral language skills grew 0.14 <emph>SD</emph>s per month in English classrooms, 0.16 <emph>SD</emph>s per month in bilingual classrooms, and 0.08 <emph>SD</emph>s per month in Spanish instruction (Table 5); the growth rates were not statistically significantly different from the growth rate of Spanish‐dominant children.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-29">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study was conducted with Spanish‐speaking preschoolers in four states in the United States over 2 years to examine oral language growth rates in English and Spanish, including interactions between home language exposure and language of instruction. It is widely recognized that children's exposure to English and Spanish in home and school environments impacts their growth (Collins, 2014; Durán & Wackerle‐Hollman, 2018). We investigated the interactions between language of instruction and home language exposure given that children experience the influence of both environments simultaneously. Despite the finding that, with the exception of one, none of the interactions were statistically significant, there were notable differences between the actual coefficients for these relatively small sample groups.</p> <p>For Spanish‐dominant children, there were significant differences in growth in Spanish oral language skills based on whether children were in English or bilingual instruction vs. Spanish instruction. Children's Spanish oral language skills grew about three times as fast in Spanish language instruction than in bilingual or English‐only (0.20 vs. 0.07). Over an academic year, Spanish‐dominant children's Spanish oral language skills in Spanish instruction are likely to grow 1.8 <emph>SD</emph>s, and this change represents substantial growth and a critical finding to consider when designing effective instruction that will support not only Spanish language maintenance but also more robust rates of growth.</p> <p>Strong Spanish language development is related to improved reading outcomes not only in Spanish, but also in English (August & Shanahan, 2006; Miller et al., 2006; NASEM, 2017; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). Therefore, the Spanish‐dominant children in Spanish instruction are likely positioned to have better reading outcomes in both languages than those children in English‐only or bilingual instruction. Therefore, providing Spanish instruction may hold promise to improve long‐term reading outcomes and reduce the risk of the identification of learning disabilities (Francis et al., 2019). The findings from this study also provide evidence that Spanish preschool instruction may be necessary to maintain Spanish language growth.</p> <p>Another notable finding is that balanced bilingual children's Spanish oral language skills also grew more rapidly in Spanish instruction, at a rate of 0.16 <emph>SD</emph>s per month, resulting in growth equivalent to 1.4 <emph>SD</emph>s on the Identificación de los Dibujos score scale. These findings serve as a reminder that language development occurs within a context. Therefore, as we move toward becoming more nuanced in our approach to designing effective early educational experiences for Spanish‐speaking children, we need to be more aware of how choices made about the language of instruction will affect growth trajectories and will interact with the amount of exposure and use of Spanish and English in children's homes.</p> <p>English growth in our total sample outpaced Spanish language growth by 0.06 logits per month on average. Upon further examination, differences in emerging trends between children exposed to primarily Spanish at home versus those exposed to both English and Spanish were observed in addition to differences between children receiving English‐only versus bilingual versus English‐only instruction. The finding that the total sample grew more rapidly in English than in Spanish is consistent with evidence from several studies where English language skills outpaced Spanish. In fact, there is a risk for children to plateau in their Spanish language abilities, and it appears that Spanish development may need more support to remain on par with English language development (Anderson, 2012; Bialystok, 2018; Collins, 2014; Durán et al., 2013; Páez et al., 2007).</p> <p>It is also important to note that when we disaggregated children based on their home language profile, we found significant differences between Spanish‐dominant children's and balanced bilingual children's performance at the beginning of the year, or at the intercept. As would be expected, balanced bilingual children had lower Spanish scores than Spanish‐dominant children (balanced bilingual effect was –0.63 logits, 0.71 <emph>SD</emph> lower) but had significantly higher English scores (balanced bilingual effect was +0.76 logits, 0.70 <emph>SD</emph> higher). This continues to confirm that Spanish‐speaking children in the United States begin preschool with varying skills in each language necessitating that researchers and practitioners recognize the importance of assessing children in each language to gain an accurate measure of their ability levels (López & Foster, 2021).</p> <p>Improved accuracy in assessment could lead to more effective and targeted differentiation of instruction (American Educational Research Association [AERA], APA, & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). Further, explicit attention to differences in language proficiency can lead to programming that intentionally scaffolds language development while teaching grade‐level academic content (Bunce & Watkins, 1995). In school‐age practice, the Sheltered Immersion Observation Protocol (SIOP; Daniel & Conlin, 2015) is one example of lesson planning that incorporates the student's level of English proficiency into instructional design. Head Start, for example, advocates use of the Planned Language Approach, which also emphasizes the need to embed language objectives into content‐area objectives for multilingual learners (Head Start ECLKC, 2020). Assessments in these models are needed that can help educators make data‐based decisions based on children's skills in both languages.</p> <p>Early detection followed by the delivery of effective instruction is an important approach to reducing the number of Spanish‐speaking children who are identified with learning disabilities, particularly in the area of reading (Hoover et al., 2016). When Spanish‐speaking children enter public schools, they are most often in English‐only instructional settings with minimal instructional supports offered outside of the general education classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). The same scenario greets children in preschool, and although large federal programs such as Head Start that serve large populations of Spanish‐speaking children employ many Spanish‐speaking teachers, researchers have found that Spanish is rarely used in the classroom for more than short conversations, directions, or labeling (Sawyer et al., 2016). Therefore, children who are Spanish dominant are likely expending their cognitive resources in classrooms learning English with little access to the academic content being taught throughout the day in English (NASEM, 2017). This reduces their exposure to grade‐level content and creates a cycle in which each year the students fall behind with little support to keep them on grade level (Kangas, 2020). In reading this also leads to poor comprehension given gaps in vocabulary and academic content knowledge (Hoover et al., 2016). In short, these English‐only approaches can lead to educational difficulties that ultimately result in referrals for special education evaluations and overidentification of learning disabilities particularly in the area of reading (Hoover et al., 2016).</p> <p>Continuing children's Spanish language development and teaching them grade‐level content in Spanish while they are in the process of acquiring English is one approach to addressing their educational needs to access content in a language they comprehend while they are acquiring English (Bialystok, 2018; Goldenberg, 2008a; Hoover et al., 2016; NASEM, 2017). Additionally, helping children maintain their Spanish language development supports access to rich conversations in their home and community, while providing a foundation for English language and literacy development (August & Shanahan, 2006; NASEM, 2017). Therefore, supporting Spanish language development emerges as an evidence‐based and meaningful approach to addressing the overidentification of learning disabilities and reducing the risk of poor reading outcomes.</p> <p>The emerging trends for the effects of language of instruction on Spanish language development with balanced bilinguals create a slightly different picture. Balanced bilinguals experienced (nonsignificant) negative rates of growth in Spanish in English‐only classrooms, possibly indicating potential Spanish language loss or a plateau of Spanish language development (Anderson, 2012). This is likely due to the fact that the balanced bilinguals have more exposure to English at home compared to Spanish‐dominant children and that in bilingual or English‐only instruction there is likely insufficient support for Spanish language growth to occur. However, in Spanish instruction, balanced bilinguals maintained Spanish language growth (0.16 <emph>SD</emph>s) that was on par with their Spanish‐dominant peers (0.20 <emph>SD</emph>s). This finding again highlights the need to provide sufficient Spanish language instruction to maintain children's Spanish oral language development for both groups.</p> <p>English oral language growth trajectories follow different patterns. Spanish‐dominant children in English‐only instruction grew significantly in their English oral language abilities and, on average, by the end of the school year are expected to gain 1.1 <emph>SD</emph>s on performance on the English Picture Naming measure. In bilingual and Spanish instruction, growth in English is still noted, but it is not as rapid as in English‐only instruction. Growth in bilingual instruction is projected to be slightly lower at 1.0 <emph>SD</emph> over the year, and in Spanish instruction 0.6 <emph>SD</emph>s. These differences were not statistically significant; however, they may represent potentially meaningful differences in performance that could influence the interpretation of English oral language growth of Spanish‐dominant children based on the language of instruction. It appears that slightly slower rates of growth in English might be observed for preschoolers enrolled in bilingual and Spanish‐dominant instructional models.</p> <p>An important finding in this study is that language of instruction had no significant effects on the English language growth of balanced bilingual children. Balanced bilingual children experienced the largest English oral language growth rates in bilingual instruction, with 1.4 <emph>SD</emph>s growth expected over the academic year followed closely by English‐only instruction with 1.2 <emph>SD</emph>s of growth. In Spanish instruction, English oral language skills did demonstrate growth, but at a slower pace of 0.7 <emph>SD</emph>s over an academic year. For balanced bilinguals, both English‐only and bilingual instructions support English language acquisition. Given these findings, practitioners need to be mindful of how the choices they make regarding the language or languages of instruction will impact growth in each language not only in the short term, but longitudinally.</p> <p>The findings from this study highlight the need to explore differences between Spanish‐dominant and balanced bilinguals in both languages and the relative effects of the language of instruction on their oral language skills. Children's oral language development is directly impacted by their environments, and although this is well established, better tools are needed to capture children's home and school language environments, including the quantity and quality of exposure to their home languages and English.</p> <p>More longitudinal research is needed to fully model changes over time, but evidence suggests that as children progress through school those who receive Spanish or bilingual preschool instruction achieve the same, if not better, English proficiency by second or third grade (Bialystok, 2018; Oller & Eilers, 2002; Rolstad et al., 2005; Tong et al., 2008). They also maintain significantly higher Spanish language development over time (Bialystok, 2018; Durán et al., 2013; NASEM, 2017; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013).</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-30">Limitations</hd> <p>Despite the important insights offered by this study into expected growth rates in English and Spanish oral language skills, some limitations suggest the results should be interpreted with caution. As with any study that investigates interaction effects, there is a need to have robust sample sizes that can adequately inform estimation at all levels of analysis. Given our relatively small sample sizes for the interaction terms, it is possible that some of the interactions would be significant in a larger sample, especially given the size of some of the coefficients. Likewise, we used a linear growth form; however, it might be relevant to test other forms of growth when the sample size allows. In future research, we plan to recruit a larger sample to more adequately support all of the categories of interest to provide a more robust estimate of the interactions between home language exposure and language of instruction.</p> <p>Another significant limitation of this research design was the need to bridge 2 years of data with different samples to establish the growth curves over one academic year. Given the constraints in data collection, we were unable to successfully record data across one academic year from the beginning to the end of the year. Instead, we merged 2 years of data, such that the 2017–2018 year included data from January to June and the 2018–2019 year included data from October to March. We controlled for differences in samples across the year by using year as a variable in the regression model. As noted in our results, <emph>Year</emph> was not significant in either models, suggesting the growth curves (units of growth per month) were not significantly different across the 2 years.</p> <p>Another limitation of this study is that home language exposure was measured only by parent report and as a dichotomous variable. Our analysis of LEER data used a cluster analysis that resulted in two primary groups of language exposure, Spanish dominant and balanced bilingual (Wackerle‐Hollman et al., 2020). In future research, a continuous variable that captures the wide variation of language skills, and a more systematic approach, such as using home language recording devices, would provide a more accurate accounting of the amount of each language and the amount of child‐directed talk, which is known to be predictive of language development (Golinkoff et al., 2000). In future research we can also focus on validating the LEER to support the interpretation of individual child performance based on their scores in each language and their home language background.</p> <hd id="AN0159630100-31">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Modeling the dual language growth of Spanish‐English bilingual preschoolers is an important contribution to understanding expected growth rates and to the early identification of children who may need enhanced language instruction. This study explored the interaction of home and school exposure to English and Spanish and the effects on oral language growth. Although we found only one significant interaction, the differences were approaching significance, and larger sample sizes may allow for these differences to emerge in future research.</p> <p>Key educational decisions are made regarding children's development based on expected rates of growth in each language, and although we generally did not find significance, it is important to understand emerging trends in these newly explored areas of analysis. The findings of this study along with a growing body of research indicate that contextual variables that influence growth are important to consider to more accurately interpret children's performance on Spanish and English assessments at preschool entry and over the academic year. Bilingual development involves exposure to both languages, and both the quantity and quality of input are likely to vary between languages across both home and school environments; therefore, these variations should be considered when estimating growth in both languages.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1 Descriptive Statistics for Picture Naming by Time Block</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S2 Descriptive Statistics for Identificación de los Dibujos by Time Block</p> <ref id="AN0159630100-32"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association (AERA), APA, & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA. <ulink href="http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards.aspx">http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. T. (2012). Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish‐English speakers. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish‐English speakers (2nd ed., pp. 193 – 212). P. H. Brookes Pub. https://books.google.com/books?id=3sMbAQAAIAAJ</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second‐language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (6), 666 – 679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bunce, B. H., & Watkins, R. V. (1995). Language intervention in a preschool classroom: Implementing a language‐focused curriculum. In M. L. Rice & K. A. Wilcox (Eds.), Building a language‐focused curriculum for the preschool classroom (Vol. I, pp. 39 – 71). P. H. Brookes Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carta, J. J., & Miller Young, R. (2019). Multi‐tiered systems of support for young children. Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Y., & Thompson, D. (2021). Child poverty increased nationally during COVID, especially among Latino and Black children. Child Trends. https://<ulink href="http://www.childtrends.org/publications/child‐poverty‐increased‐nationally‐during‐covid‐especially‐among‐latino‐and‐black‐children">www.childtrends.org/publications/child‐poverty‐increased‐nationally‐during‐covid‐especially‐among‐latino‐and‐black‐children</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Collins, B. A. (2014). Dual language development of Latino children: Effect of instructional program type and the home and school language environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (3), 389 – 397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Daniel, S. M., & Conlin, L. (2015). Shifting attention back to students within the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (1), 169 – 187. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43893741">http://www.jstor.org/stable/43893741</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test‐IV (4 ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durán, L., & Wackerle‐Hollman, A. (2016). Language Exposure Evaluation Report (LEER). [Unpublished survey]. University of Minnesota.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durán, L. K., Roseth, C., Hoffman, P., & Robertshaw, M. B. (2013). Spanish‐speaking preschoolers' early literacy development: A longitudinal experimental comparison of predominantly English and transitional bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 36 (1), 6 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2012.735213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durán, L. K., & Wackerle‐Hollman, A. K. (2018). A review of dual language and literacy growth. In D. L. Baker, D. L. Basaraba, & C. Richards‐Tutor (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Methods, perspectives and challenges (pp. 39 – 62). Nova Science Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durán, L. K., Wackerle‐Hollman, A. K., Kohlmeier, T. L., Brunner, S. K., Palma, J., & Callard, C. H. (2019). Individual Growth and Development Indicators‐Español: Innovation in the development of Spanish oral language general outcome measures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 155 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, D. J., Rojas, R., Gusewski, S., Santi, K. L., Khalaf, S., Hiebert, L., & Bunta, F. (2019). Speaking and reading in two languages: On the identification of reading and language disabilities in Spanish‐speaking English learners. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019 (166), 15 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 488 – 500. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldenberg, C. (2008a). Improving achievement for English language learners. In S. B. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America (pp. 139 – 162). Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Bloom, L., Smith, L. B., Woodward, A. L., Akhtar, N., Tomasello, M., & Hollich, G. (2000). Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195130324.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodrich, J. M., Lonigan, C. J., Kleuver, C. G., & Farver, J. M. (2016). Development and transfer of vocabulary knowledge in Spanish‐speaking language minority preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 43 (5), 969 – 992. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091500032X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorman, B. K., & Gillam, R. B. (2003). Phonological awareness in Spanish: A tutorial for speech‐language pathologists. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25 (1), 13 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401030250010301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27 (1), 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer, C. S., Davison, M. D., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2009). The effect of maternal language on bilingual children's vocabulary and emergent literacy development during Head Start and kindergarten. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (2), 99 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902769541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer, C. S., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2007). Bilingual children's language abilities and early reading outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38 (3), 237 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2007/025)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer, C. S., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2008). Exposure to English before and after entry into Head Start: Bilingual children's receptive language growth in Spanish and English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11 (1), 30 – 56. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb376.0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Head Start ECLKC. (2020). Planned language approach. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/culture‐language/article/planned‐language‐approach</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49 (1), 4 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoff, E., & Ribot, K. M. (2017). Language growth in English monolingual and Spanish‐English bilingual children from 2.5 to 5 years. The Journal of Pediatrics, 190, 241 – 245.e241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., Burridge, A., Ribot, K. M., & Welsh, S. N. (2014). Expressive vocabulary development in children from bilingual and monolingual homes: A longitudinal study from two to four years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 433 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2016). Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, E., Olague, N., & Rogers, D. (2003). The dual language program planner: A guide for designing and implementing dual language programs. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, B. H., Bedore, L. M., Niu, L., Wang, Y., & Wicha, N.Y.Y. (2021). The contributions of oral language to English reading outcomes among young bilingual students in the United States. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25 (1), 40 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006920938136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, C. W., Schatschneider, C., & Leacox, L. (2014). Longitudinal analysis of receptive vocabulary growth in young Spanish English‐speaking children from migrant families. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45 (1), 40 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_LSHSS‐12‐0104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaminski, R. A., Abbott, M., Bravo Aguayo, K., Latimer, R., & Good, R. H. (2014). The preschool early literacy indicators: Validity and benchmark goals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34 (2), 71 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121414527003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kangas, S.E.N. (2020). Counternarratives of English learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 43 (3), 267 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2020.1807424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, A., & Kohnert, K. (2012). Is there a cognate advantage for typically developing Spanish‐speaking English‐language learners? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43 (2), 191 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2011/10‐0022)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroll, J. F., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 13 (3), 373 – 381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000009X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Chiu, Y. D. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of Grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39 (5), 289 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindholm‐Leary, K. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory into Practice, 51 (4), 256 – 262. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23362831">http://www.jstor.org/stable/23362831</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). TOPEL: Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX : Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, L. M., & Foster, M. E. (2021). Examining heterogeneity among Latino dual language learners' school readiness profiles of English and Spanish at the end of Head Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez, M. H., Krogstad, J. M., & Flores, A. (2018). Key facts about young Latinos. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2018/09/13/key‐facts‐about‐young‐latinos">www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2018/09/13/key‐facts‐about‐young‐latinos</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConnell, S. R., Bradfield, T. A., Wackerle‐Hollman, A. K., and Rodriguez, M. (2012). Individual growth and development indicators of early literacy (IGDIs‐EL). Renaissance Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mancilla‐Martinez, J., Hwang, J. K., Oh, M. H., & McClain, J. B. (2020). Early elementary grade dual language learners from Spanish‐speaking homes struggling with English reading comprehension: The dormant role of language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (5), 880 – 894. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1986). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum‐related measures. Diagnostique, 11 (2), 77 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724778601100203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConnell, S. R., Wackerle‐Hollman, A. K., Roloff, T. A., & Rodriguez, M. (2014). Designing a measurement framework for response to intervention in early childhood programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 36 (4), 263 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115578559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melby‐Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross‐linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34 (1), 114 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2010.01477.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2006.00205.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, C. (2019). Overlooked: How teacher training falls short for English‐learners and students with IEPs. Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/overlooked‐how‐teacher‐training‐falls‐short‐for‐english‐learners‐and‐students‐with‐ieps/2019/05">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/overlooked‐how‐teacher‐training‐falls‐short‐for‐english‐learners‐and‐students‐with‐ieps/2019/05</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24677.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Condition of education 2021: English language learners in public schools. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). Why early screening—NCLD. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncld.org/the‐importance‐of‐early‐screening">www.ncld.org/the‐importance‐of‐early‐screening</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Early Literacy Panel. (2010). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. NICHD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://<ulink href="http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/product/346">www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/product/346</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. NetLibrary, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Páez, M. M., Tabors, P. O., & López, L. M. (2007). Dual language and literacy development of Spanish‐speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 85 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2016). Effects and noneffects of input in bilingual environments on dual language skills in 2 ½‐year‐olds. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (5), 1023 – 1041. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.98.1.159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rinaldi, C., & Páez, M. (2008). Preschool matters: Predicting reading difficulties for Spanish‐speaking bilingual students in first grade. Learning Disabilities (Weston, Mass.), 6 (1), 71 – 84. <ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124283/">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124283/</ulink> or https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124283/pdf/nihms‐189012.pdf">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124283/pdf/nihms‐189012.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojas, R., Hiebert, L., Gusewski, S., & Francis, D. J. (2019). Moving forward by looking back: Understanding why some Spanish‐speaking English learners fall behind. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019 (166), 43 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2013). The language growth of Spanish‐speaking English language learners. Child Development, 84 (2), 630 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2012.01871.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta‐analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572 – 594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805278067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, B. E., Hammer, C. S., Cycyk, L. M., López, L., Blair, C., Sandilos, L., & Komaroff, E. (2016). Preschool teachers' language and literacy practices with dual language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 39 (1), 35 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1138904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva‐Corvalán, C., & Treffers‐Daller, J. (2015). Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107375345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., & Van Hemel, S. B. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. The National Academies Press. <ulink href="http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record%5fidx12446">http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record%5fidx12446</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solari, E. J., Aceves, T. C., Higareda, I., Richards‐Tutor, C., Filippini, A. L., Gerber, M. M., & Leafstedt, J. (2014). Longitudinal prediction of 1st and 2nd grade English oral reading fluency in English language learners: Which early reading and language skills are better predictors? Psychology in the Schools, 51 (2), 126 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28 (5), 675 – 691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525x05000129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara‐Alecio, R., & Mathes, P. G. (2008). English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: A 3‐year longitudinal randomized study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30 (4), 500 – 529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986308324980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. census 2010. <ulink href="http://www.census.gov/2010census/">http://www.census.gov/2010census/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2017 (Report No. NCES 2017051). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wackerle‐Hollman, A., Durán, L., & Rodriguez, M. (2016). Spanish individual growth and development indicators. Renaissance Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wackerle‐Hollman, A., Durán, L., & Rodriguez, M. (2018). Institute of Education Sciences Grant R305A160077 PM‐S‐IGDIs: Examining early language and literacy Spanish individual growth and development indicators to monitor progress. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Research</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wackerle‐Hollman, A., Durán, L. K., Raikes, A., Brunner, S., Palma, J., & Rodriguez, M. (2020). Examining the role of language exposure and use on preschool Spanish early literacy skills [Manuscript under review]. University of Minnesota.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool Language Scale 5 – PLS‐5. English. Psychological Corp.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lillian Durán; Alisha Wackerle‐Hollman; Alejandra Miranda; Carlos Chávez; Jill Pentimonti; Karen Zyskind and Michael C. Rodriguez</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Dr. Lillian Durán is a Professor in Special Education at the University of Oregon. Her research is focused on developing Spanish language and literacy assessments for bilingual children ranging from preschool to eighth grade. She regularly consults with programs natiohnally to promote equity in the delivery of educational services to multilingual children.</p> <p>Dr. Alisha Wackerle‐Hollman is an educational psychologist and assistant research professor in the school psychology program at the University of Minnesota's College of Education and Human Development. Her research focuses on early childhood multi‐tiered systems of support and bilingual assessment. Dr. Wackerle‐Hollman is the director of IGDILab, where she has co‐authored five different IGDI assessments.</p> <p>Alejandra Miranda is a graduate research assistant in the IGDILab and a PhD student in the Quantitative Methods in Education program in the Educational Psychology department at the University of Minnesota. Ms. Miranda's research focuses on inequalities in education, assessment of Spanish‐English bilingual children, and social and emotional learning.</p> <p>Carlos Chávez is a PhD student in the Quantitative Methods in Education program in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota ‐ Twin Cities. His research and scholarly interests revolve around test development, culturally responsive assessment, and methodology for supporting the interpretation and use of test scores. He applies his research interests in work with youth development, such as theories of social emotional learning and Spanish‐English dual language learners.</p> <p>Jill Pentimonti is the Director of Research Advancement and Institute for Educational Initiatives Affiliate at the University of Notre Dame. She also serves as the co‐coordinator for knowledge development for the National Center on Intensive Intervention.</p> <p>Karen Zyskind is an ASHA certified bilingual speech language pathologist. As a second‐year doctoral student at the University of Oregon and a recipient of an Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) leadership training grant, her scholarly focus lies in equitable assessment of multilingual children with disabilities.</p> <p>Michael Rodriguez is the Dean of College of Education at the University of Minnesota. His research is focused on understanding the psychometric properties of tests and the accessibility of tests for students with disabilities and those that are English learners. He has worked nationally and internationally on the development of large‐scale assessments for educational decision making.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1351506
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Spanish and English Oral Language Growth Rates of Bilingual Preschoolers: The Effect of Language of Instruction
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Durán%2C+Lillian%22">Durán, Lillian</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-6445">0000-0003-4364-6445</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wackerle-Hollman%2C+Alisha%22">Wackerle-Hollman, Alisha</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Miranda%2C+Alejandra%22">Miranda, Alejandra</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chávez%2C+Carlos%22">Chávez, Carlos</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pentimonti%2C+Jill%22">Pentimonti, Jill</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zyskind%2C+Karen%22">Zyskind, Karen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rodriguez%2C+Michael+C%2E%22">Rodriguez, Michael C.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disabilities+Research+%26+Practice%22"><i>Learning Disabilities Research & Practice</i></searchLink>. Aug 2022 37(3):175-188.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish%22">Spanish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oral+Language%22">Oral Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Acquisition%22">Language Acquisition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+of+Instruction%22">Language of Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Language%22">Child Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Dominance%22">Language Dominance</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ldrp.12287
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0938-8982<br />1540-5826
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Studying the oral language growth of Spanish-speaking preschoolers in the United States is increasingly important given the critical role early language development plays in reading outcomes. In this article, we report on the Spanish and English growth trajectories observed in 124 bilingual preschoolers collected over 2 years in 36 classrooms across 5 states and the associations of growth in each language to language of instruction and home language exposure. Patterns indicate the need for Spanish instruction to maintain robust rates of Spanish growth and English growth rates in Spanish, bilingual, and English-only instruction. Significant differences in English and Spanish oral language abilities were also noted at the intercept between children who were Spanish dominant versus balanced bilinguals. Implications for research and practice are provided.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1351506
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1351506
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ldrp.12287
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 175
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Spanish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oral Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Acquisition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language of Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Dominance
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Spanish and English Oral Language Growth Rates of Bilingual Preschoolers: The Effect of Language of Instruction
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Durán, Lillian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wackerle-Hollman, Alisha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Miranda, Alejandra
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chávez, Carlos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pentimonti, Jill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zyskind, Karen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rodriguez, Michael C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0938-8982
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1540-5826
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1