PREKINDERGARTEN TEACHERS’ PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
WITH DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Jennifer Strachan-Fontaine
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Education in the School of
Education
Chapel Hill 2019
Approved by,
Harriet Able
Elizabeth Crais
Jennifer Diliberto
Sandra Duval
ABSTRACT
Jennifer Fontaine: Prekindergarten Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy and Instructional Practices With Dual Language Learners
(Under the direction of Harriet Able)
In recent years, the United States has transformed into a more linguistically diverse country.
This change is particularly reflected in early childhood populations that serve dual language
learners (DLLs). Many Dual Language Learners (DLLs) are faced with the difficult task of
transitioning from their home language to learning English. DLLs are children under 5 years of
age who are exposed to and learn two distinct languages during a critical period of development
are described as dual language learners. Prekindergarten teachers play a critical role in providing
language and literacy instruction for DLLs, therefore their level of self-efficacy must become a
focus of research.
This research study includes twelve interviews with preschool teachers who worked in
classrooms with DLLs full time/throughout the school year. The qualitative data was descriptive
and thematic. Findings from this study indicated that participants perceived self-efficacy related
to their instructional practice with DLLs was influenced by instructional successes. Contextual
factors such as consideration of the whole child, home environment, home and school
connections, and positive learning environment were found to contribute to DLLs’ learning and
prekindergarten teachers’ perceived self-efficacy. Future research should include the areas of
embedded professional development opportunities, varied approaches to assessing DLLs, and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without God’s faithfulness, I would not be here today. I am grateful for my strong and loving
mother, Agnita, and my sister, Winifred, with whom He has blessed me. I am at this place in life
because you both have loved and supported me through every phase of my life. Thank you.
I am grateful for my niece, Ashley, nephews, Chris and Nick, and my brother in law, Gaston.
You guys have jumped in and supported me in the process with your technical expertise and
willingness to listen. I love each of you to the moon and back. Thank you.
Special appreciation to my husband Solomon, whose easy-going perspective on life has been
a steady force as I finished the last leg of this dissertation. You always help me keep things
balanced. Thank you.
To my church family, thank you for walking through this phase of life and keeping in touch
with me even when I lived in North Carolina. Special thanks to Christine, Diane, Jackie,
LaToya, Mitzi, and Pastor Sutherland. Your steady prayers and support have been invaluable.
Thank you.
To all my colleagues and prekindergarten teachers who made this study possible. Thank you
for your time and willingness. Special recognition of thanks goes to Jodi Leleck, my former
principal and sorority sister who encouraged me to take the step of pursuing my PhD. I will
make sure your legacy of always propelling educators forward continues. To my principal,
David Chia, and assistant principal, Dr. Daman Harris, I could not have asked for better
administrators to work with as I completed this program. Thank you for your insights and
Finally, to my advisor and chair, Dr. Harriet Able, who has worked with me through these
years. Thank you for your consistency to see me through this process. To each of my committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 1
Statement of the Problem ... 2
Prekindergarten Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy in Instructional Practices for DLLs ... 5
Statement of Purpose ... 7
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ... 8
Academic Vulnerability of DLLs ... 8
DLLs’ Learning Characteristics ... 11
Assets DLLs Bring to the Learning Environment ... 14
Promising Instructional Practices for DLLs ... 16
Teacher Strategies for DLLs’ Language Enhancement ... 17
Home Language ... 18
Instructional Strategies for Enhancing Language ... 20
Language and Literacy Enhancements ... 24
Quality Learning Environments for DLLs ... 27
Prekindergarten Teacher Competencies Regarding DLL Instruction ... 29
Teacher Self-Efficacy ... 30
Prekindergarten Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy in Teaching DLLs ... 33
Conclusion ... 36
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ... 38
Research Design ... 38
Role of the Researcher ... 39
Instrumentation ... 40
Recruitment ... 41
Participant Descriptions ... 43
Benefits and Risks to Participants ... 48
Data Collection ... 49
Interview Procedure ... 52
Reflective Journal ... 55
Data Analysis ... 55
Developing the Codebook ... 56
The Consensus Process ... 57
From Codes to Categories ... 60
Thematic Analysis ... 61
Summary ... 63
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ... 64
Instructional Successes Through Positive Student Feedback ... 66
Instructional Strategies Used ... 69
Enhanced Language Practices ... 70
Positive Classroom Learning Environments ... 78
Contextual Factors Influencing Self-Efficacy ... 81
Consideration of the Whole Child ... 81
Collaborative Experiences With Other Professionals ... 84
Perceived Barriers ... 88
Summary ... 91
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ... 93
Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy Through Instructional Successes ... 94
Student Feedback ... 94
Using Knowledge and Skills to Develop and Implement Successful Lessons ... 95
Confidence in Instructional Practices With DLLs ... 96
Enhanced Language Practices ... 97
Home School Connections ... 98
Contextual Factors Influencing Self-Efficacy ... 99
Teaching Experiences ... 101
Perceived Contextual Barriers ... 102
Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy ... 102
Policy and Practice Implications ... 104
Policy Implications ... 104
Practice Implications ... 105
Research Limitations ... 106
Future Research Directions ... 107
Conclusion ... 108
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ... 111
APPENDIX B: RECRUITMENT FLYER ... 112
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIR ... 113
APPENDIX D: EMAILED INVITATION LETTER... 114
APPENDIX E: FREE RESOURCES SUPPORTING DLLs ... 115
APPENDIX F: CONSENT FOR AUDIOTAPING ... 116
APPENDIX G: LESSON PLAN CRITERIA ... 117
APPENDIX H: INITIAL CODEBOOK ... 118
APPENDIX I: REVISED CODEBOOK ... 120
APPENDIX J: THEMATIC CHART ... 121
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Participant Demographics………44
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The face of our nation is changing, and nowhere is that change more evident than in public
school classrooms (Center for Public Education, 2016). In recent years, the United States has
experienced a demographic transformation reflected by increased linguistic, ethnic, and cultural
diversity of children 3–5 years of age and families served in early care and education programs
(Castro, 2011; Hammer, Jia, & Uchikoshi, 2011). According to the National Center for
Education Statistics (2016), the percentage of non-English speaking children has increased by
40% in the last decade (Garcia & Jensen, 2009). There are now approximately 4.4 million
children in the United States who speak English as a second language.
Among all the children living in non-English language households, Spanish is their most
prevalent household language, accounting for approximately two-thirds of all children who speak
more than one language in U.S. public schools (Batalova & McHugh, 2010; Child Trends, 2016;
Han, Vukelich, Buell, & Meacham, 2014). The National Early Literacy Panel National Early
Literacy Panel (2008) noted that a disproportionate number of Latino and Hispanic students are not achieving academically when compared to their counterparts, and that by fifth grade, Latino
and Hispanic students have lower reading achievement outcomes compared to their white
counterparts (Najafi, 2011). aThese reading outcomes place Latino and Hispanic students at a
significant disadvantage because the impact of language on school success is significant
(Goldsmith, 2003).
Children under 5 years of age who are exposed to and learn two distinct languages during a
The number of DLLs in early childhood programs in the United States has continued to rise
during the past 20 years. According to Espinosa (2013a), some states have experienced a rate of
growth over 200%. Currently, “nearly 1 out of 3 children enrolled in Head Start come from
homes in which a language other than English is the primary language (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services 2012). The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (1967) was the first
official federal recognition of the educational needs of students with limited English-speaking
ability. Effectively educating children who are learning English as their second language is a
national challenge (National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, 2017).
Statement of the Problem
Many DLLs face the difficult task of transitioning from their home language to learning
English (Castro, Espinosa, & Paez, 2011). Although some researchers suggest there are benefits
to exposure to both English and another language (Castro, 2011; Espinosa, 2013), other
researchers suggest that a lack of English proficiency, which is the ability to speak or perform in
English by kindergarten, could hinder the academic success of DLLs (Ballantyne, Sanderman, &
McLaughlin, 2008; Figueras-Daniel, Barnett, 2013). Thus, prekindergarten teachers are charged
with the task of developing language proficiency in DLLs so they are ready for a successful
school experience when they enter kindergarten Copple & Bredekamp (2009). 9
National initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Jorgensen & Hoffmann
(2003) and, more recently, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Darling-Hammond, Bae,
Cook-Harvey, Lam, Mercer, Podolsky & Stosich (2016) have begun to address this challenge. Under
these acts, schools must meet established annual progress objectives for all students, including
those students learning a second language. Legislators built ESSA (2016) upon NCLB (2000)
expanded support to early learning. To meet the goals of ESSA (2016) and NCLB (2000),
prekindergarten teachers must use evidence-based practices to ensure positive child outcomes.
A key component of school readiness is literacy and language. As Schmitt and Carter (2000)
noted, language and literacy form the basis for reading, and in order for DLLs to be successful in
the mainstream English language classroom, learning to read is imperative.
DLLs’ literacy and language from birth to 5 years of age encompass emergent skills and
abilities that are the forerunners of conventional reading and writing. Emergent literacy skills
refer to early unconventional attempts of a young child at reading, writing, and listening (e.g.,
scribbling writing, pretending to read). Early language development of a young child consists of
their emerging abilities in receptive and expressive language and is among one of the most
important tasks of the first 5 years of a child's life (Benzies et al., 2011; Office of Head Start,
2010).
DLLs have a unique set of literacy experiences based on the culture, traditions, and routines of
the families and communities in which they live. For example, families of DLLs may come from
homes where expressions and rhymes are different than what they encounter in school because of
differing languages and cultural values. The prekindergarten teachers’ knowledge of the literacy
practices of their students’ families is important for accessing and building on children’s
experiences with oral language (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, 2009).
Supporting literacy and language development for DLLs is a critical issue in early childhood
today. Researchers have shown that DLLs’ trajectory of language and literacy development in
their first language is similar to that of monolingual peers (August & Escamilla, 2009; Hammer
et al., 2011). Hence, teachers must address the child’s learning characteristics of developing two
languages by adapting instruction (National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and
The National Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (2009) noted that a particular
area of literacy and language deficit for DLLs is oral language. Like all young children, DLLs
require a strong foundation in oral language development. Proficiency in oral language is central
for academic achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006). Researchers have shown that speaking
and listening skills acquired in the early years of a child’s life are crucial for future reading
achievement and school success (Shanahan & Lonigan 2010; Rinaldi & Páez, 2008). For a child
to become literate in a second language, the child must achieve an adequate level of oral
proficiency in that language (Bialystock, 2007), which includes not only the level of vocabulary
mastered, but also the range of flexibility in sentence patterns achieved (Kieffer, 2012).
Prekindergarten teachers play a critical role in providing DLL students with opportunities that
facilitate their oral language and literacy development (Castro, 2011; Espinosa, 2013b). To
fulfill their role, these teachers need a good understanding of how DLLs develop oral language
as well as how to facilitate oral language development of DLLs with evidence-based
instructional practices aimed toward achieving positive academic outcomes (Buysse,
Peisner-Feinberg, Páez, Scheffner-Hammer, & Knowles, 2014). Yet, prekindergarten teachers, who are
most often monolingual, have reported that they do not feel prepared to teach DLLs and receive
limited training in this area (Buysse, Castro, West, & Skinner, 2005; Karabenick & Noda, 2004;
Walker, Shafer, & Liams, 2004).
The prekindergarten teacher’s feeling of unpreparedness to meet the oral language and literacy
needs of DLLs represents a pressing issue for DLLs’ positive outcomes. There is an urgent need
for teachers to employ evidence-based practices designed to increase academic oral language
development of DLLs (Soto-Hinman, 2011; Zepeda, Castro, & Cronin, 2011). The National
Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth reported that, like monolingual
is even more critical for DLLs because oral language development appears to be overlooked in
DLL instruction (August & Shanahan, 2006). This is an area of concern because oral language
instruction is one of the key components of reading success (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Despite the demonstrated need, relatively few researchers have examined the instructional
practices supporting DLLs’ oral language proficiency (Hammer, Hoff, Uchikoshi, Gillanders,
Castro, & Sandilos, 2014). Moreover, even fewer have explored the prekindergarten teachers’
sense of self-efficacy as they employ evidence-based instructional practices with DLLs (Hammer
et al., 2011; Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, & Kwok, 2008).
Prekindergarten Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy in Instructional Practices for DLLs
Although some researchers have examined prekindergarten teachers’ instructional practices,
they have primarily studied practices in the teaching of monolingual children and have not
considered the unique learning needs of DLLs as they develop their literacy and language skills
(Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; Castro, 2014). Because the preschool teacher must provide instruction
that meets the needs of DLLs, they must have the skills and knowledge to address the unique
learning characteristics of these students. Research indicates that teachers do not feel equipped
to meet the instructional demands required to meet the literacy and language needs of DLLs
(Zepeda, Lopez & Medina, 2012; Zepeda et al., 2011). Yet, few researchers have examined
prekindergarten teachers’ perception of their self-efficacy regarding the instructional practices
that they use to develop the oral language skills of DLLs (Castro, 2011; Kieffer, 2012).
Albert Bandura (1997) coined the term self-efficacy to refer to the “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”
(p. 3). In other words, people who think they can perform well on a task do better than those
who think they will fail (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). This characteristic has been associated with
Connor, Yang, Roehrig, & Morrison, 2012; Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2010).
Researchers have documented that a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is associated with higher
quality instruction and increased literacy and language development among students (Early et al.,
2005; Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2010; Justice, Mashburn, & Hamme, 2008;
LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). For example, a teacher’s individual belief in his or her ability to perform
specific teaching tasks, such as facilitating a prekindergarten student’s oral language and literacy
during a read aloud, influences the quality of instruction during the lesson (Dellinger, Bobbett,
Olivier, & Ellett, 2008). Thus, it is important to understand a prekindergarten teacher’s sense of
self-efficacy regarding DLL oral language and literacy instruction. For the purposes of this
study, self-efficacy is defined as "how well one can execute courses of action required to deal
with prospective situations" (Bandura, 1982, p.122). This study examined prekindergarten
teacher's perceived self-efficacy related to their instructional practice with DLLs (Appendix A).
Self-efficacy can be influenced by a number of contextual variables in school settings
(Bandura, 1986). Such contextual variables may include both teacher characteristics, such as
teaching experience and sense of community (Guo et al., 2010; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Moore
& Esselman, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989) and classroom characteristics, such as children’s
engagement (Raudenbush, Bhumirat, Kamali, 1992; Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996). Given
that teacher self-efficacy positively relates to high-quality teaching practices and children’s
literacy and language achievement, it is important to understand not just self-efficacy, but also
contextual factors that may influence self-efficacy beliefs and guide instructional practices of
prekindergarten teachers as they instruct DLLs (e.g., the teaching experience and classroom
characteristics of prekindergarten teachers). To date, no study has examined prekindergarten
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore prekindergarten teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy
(i.e., their attitudes, beliefs, and confidence) aboutthe instructional practices they used to
facilitate the oral language and literacy development of DLLs, as well as the contextual factors
that influenced their self-efficacy beliefs and guided their instructional practices with DLLs. The
research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. How do early childhood teachers describe their self-efficacy (i.e., knowledge and skills)
relative to implementing oral language and literacy instruction with DLLs?
2. What strategies do early childhood teachers report using to support DLLs’ oral language
and early literacy development?
3. What contextual factors (e.g., child and setting characteristics) do early childhood
teachers report as influencing their practices for promoting DLLs’ oral language and
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to explore prekindergarten teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy
(i.e., their attitudes, beliefs, and confidence) aboutthe instructional practices they use to facilitate
the oral language and literacy development of DLLs, as well as the contextual factors that may
influence self-efficacy beliefs and guide instructional practices of prekindergarten teachers as
they instruct DLLs. In this chapter, a review of the literature regarding the academic
vulnerability of DLLs, characteristics of young children who are DLLs, the unique learning
needs of these students in the areas of oral language and literacy, and the evidence-based
practices for developing their oral language and literacy skills will be provided. Finally, research
regarding prekindergarten teachers’ perceived self-efficacy related to their instructional practices
for meeting the learning needs of DLLs will be discussed.
Academic Vulnerability of DLLs
Like all young children, DLLs require a strong foundation in the areas of oral language
development and literacy skills for later academic success. Moreover, DLLs may have greater
school readiness needs due to the key role proficiency in English oral language plays in the
development of emerging literacy skills in English and overall academic achievement
(Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; Dickinson et al., 2010; Kieffer, 2012; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Researchers have found that lower levels of English proficiency at kindergarten entry relate to
later school difficulties, specifically reading difficulties (Galindo, 2010; Halle, Hair, Wandner,
proficiency and have implications that are critical for DLLs’ capacity to benefit from classroom
instruction and interact successfully in the classroom community. Data from the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study show gaps in early reading and other academic skills for DLLs in
preschool (Flanagan & McPhee, 2009). DLLs’ low English proficiency places them at a deficit
as they enter school (Han, Lee, & Waldfogel, 2012), and the gap widens as they grow older
(Reardon & Galindo, 2009). There is an increasing need to address this academic vulnerability
of DLLs.
Recent legislation has influenced efforts to addressed the academic needs of children who
speak more than one language. The first of this legislation is with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA; ESEA, 1965), which is a major education law governing how state
educational agencies and local educational agencies spend federal dollars. Reauthorizations of
ESEA have guided instruction for DLLs. For example, the 1967 Bilingual Education
Amendment Act and the 1974 Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision affirmed that all children,
including those who are English learners, must receive an equal education opportunity.
Additionally, the Equal Education Opportunity Act (1972) mandates all schools nationwide
provide equal education opportunities for students, including language-minority students. A
more recent reauthorization of ESEA occurred in 2002 and was renamed the No Child Left
Behind Act, and in 2015, NCLB was reauthorized as the ESSA. These reauthorizations of ESEA
have supported the mandate to provide students who speak languages other than English the right
to an equal educational opportunity, which translates into providing instructional practices
appropriately matched to their learning characteristics.
Policy attempts to address the readiness needs of students, such as NCLB in 2001 and Race to
the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT—ELC) in 2010, have been too general to support
NCLB emphasized English language proficiency as the primary goal for students with limited
English, individual states only have to meet two general requirements: to teach English and to
teach academic content as outlined in state English language proficiency and academic
standards. The language in NCLB does not provide guidance on what evidence-based practices
are necessary for children learning a second language, nor does it define what teachers should
know to address DLLs’ language needs (Wright, 2010).
With RTT—ELC, policy makers also attempted to address the learning needs of DLLs. This
grant provided ways in which states can influence teacher practices with DLLs, as there are
considerations in the 2010 RTT—ELC for early learners who are DLLs. Policy makers created
RTT—ELC with the aim of meeting the specific needs of early childhood learners who are
working on acquiring a second language. One goal of implementing RTT—ELC was to improve
preschoolers’ access to high-quality early learning and development programs to enhance school
readiness (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; McGuinn, 2012). The guidelines, however, are general and
do not address the urgency of addressing DLLs’ vulnerability in the areas of literacy and
language (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015). For example, the DLL population faces instructional
vulnerability related to their language and literacy, which contributes to their academic
achievement gap (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; Castro, 2014). DLLs need a more targeted approach
to their literacy and language instruction needs (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; Gutiérrez, Zepeda, &
Castro 2010; Espinosa, 2013b).
Researchers have suggested that the academic vulnerability of DLLs could be addressed by
examining prekindergarten teachers’ self-efficacy on the instructional practices they employ
when instructing DLLs in the areas of oral language and literacy skills (August & Shanahan,
2006; Castro, 2011). Unfortunately, many prekindergarten teachers do not feel equipped to
indicates that few teachers implement strategies that support DLLs’ literacy and language
(Buysse, Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010; Education Commission of the States, 2013) and that
preschool teachers may not feel efficacious and motivated when teaching DLLs (Sawyer et al.,
2016). The following section describes DLLs’ learning characteristics and the evidence-based
practices for facilitating their language and literacy development in the preschool environment. DLLs’ Learning Characteristics
DLLs are extremely heterogeneous in language and early literacy abilities because of factors
such as motivation, access to language, age, first language development, quality of instruction,
personality, and cognitive ability. All these factors influence the second language acquisition of
DLLs (Castro, 2014; Espinosa, 2013a; Hammer et al., 2014). One factor that especially
influences DLLs is the timing of their exposure to English (Hammer, 2006;
Scheffner-Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2007). Researchers have noted that when DLLs have a strong
foundation in their first language, their first language positively affects the development of their
second language (Buysee et al., 2014; Espinosa, 2013a).
McLaughlin (1984) identified two specific ways DLLs develop a second language. First,
there is the simultaneous process by which DLLs learn their home language and English together
(Espinosa, 2007; McLaughlin, 1984). Dual language learners who are simultaneously learning
one or more languages follow a similar trajectory as a monolingual child (Castro, 2014;
Espinosa, 2007). They reach the same milestones at around the same ages (Castro, 2014;
Espinosa, 2007). Notable though, growth for the DLL who is simultaneously learning both
languages depends on the child’s exposure and experience in each language (Castro, 2014).
Second, researchers identify a sequential process in which DLLs learn a new language after
their first language is established. For the sequential learner, learning the second language
Tabors, 1997). DLLs following the sequential process go through four stages (Tabors 2008). In
Stage 1, the home language period, DLLs continue to use the language they use at home in the
second-language situation, such as the preschool setting. In Stage 2, the silent period, DLLs
discover that their home language does not work. During this stage, DLLs enter a nonverbal
period as they collect information about the new language and perhaps spend some time in sound
experimentation. In Stage 3, the telegraphic and formulaic speech stage, DLLs publicly start to
use individual words and phrases in the new language. Finally, in Stage 4, the productive
language period, DLLs begin to develop productive use of the second language (Tabors, 2008).
The sequential process is not necessarily linear and can vary considerably among DLLs,
depending upon the amounts of exposure and environmental support DLLs receive for each of
their languages as well as their proficiency in both their home language and English (Espinosa,
2013a; Schaffer-Hammer et al., 2006). Many DLLs may appear to be fluent in both languages in
the classroom, but they really know very little English. Often, DLLs use conversational English
but have few academic language skills in English (August & Shanahan, 2006; Páez & Rinaldi,
2006). Academic language refers to the types of language proficiencies necessary for learners to
perform successfully in academic contexts (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment
[WIDA], 2009).
Prekindergarten teachers have the opportunity to develop the academic language necessary for
DLLs to succeed in school by providing opportunities for them to use and apply language
patterns or discourse associated with each content area appropriate for their language
development. As prekindergarten teachers integrate literacy instruction with content-area
instruction, they can teach students to generalize literacy skills necessary for reading and writing
across content areas (National Boards for Professional Teachers, 2012; WIDA, 2007). Helping
DLLs language development because the acquisition of academic language depends upon the
integration of language and content (WIDA, 2009). When supporting DLLs’ academic
language, prekindergarten teachers should be mindful that DLLs may present different language
abilities based on their experience with language (Castro, 2014; WIDA, 2009).
Researchers have found that sequential learners have greater needs than simultaneous
learners when attempting to master academic language. For example, Hammer, Miccio &
Wagstaff, (2003) investigated the relationship between home literacy experiences and early
reading abilities of DLLs who were simultaneous and sequential learners in a Head Start
program. The researchers gave questionnaires regarding the home environment to all mothers
and administered the Test of Early Reading Abilities (Hresko, Hammill, & Reid, 1991). They
determined that learners who were simultaneously learning English had slightly better English
skills than those in the sequential group. Both groups, however, fell below the mean when
compared to their monolingual peers.
Later researchers supported the findings of Scheffner-Hammer et al. (2003). For example,
Rinaldi and Paez (2008) found that, after examining the literacy and oral language of DLLs at
the end of their prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade years, DLLs showed similar results
as their monolingual peers on letter identification and word reading tests. In the area of oral
language, DLLs performed below average on the standardized tests in both English and Spanish
when compared to monolingual norms. In other words, the DLLs struggled with oral language
in both their home language and English. Kieffer (2012) also examined the oral language of
DLLs in kindergarten using representative data from 295 DLL students participating in the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten to investigate a cohort of DLLs to determine to
what extent early oral language proficiency in Spanish and English predicted later levels and
oral language, which would affect their later reading vocabulary and reading comprehension
difficulties. Páez, Tabors, and López (2007) also identified oral language as an area of
vulnerability for DLLs when examining the early literacy skills and language development of
DLLs with monolingual Spanish speaking children. Paez et al. (2007) also found that the DLLs’
oral language fell below the norm of their monolingual peers. Furthermore, these researchers
suggested that the oral language development of DLLs could be facilitated with the use of DLLs’
home language and recommended that DLLs be provided with more opportunities to practice
early literacy skills in their home language.
In the early phases of learning two languages, DLLs have two distinct language systems
(Castro, 2014; Castro & Espinosa, 2014). For DLLs who are developing two languages, the rate
of development in each language will lag when compared to the rate for a monolingual child
(Bialystok, Luk, Peets, & Yang, 2010). This suggests that DLLs may face linguistic challenges
not experienced by their monolingual peers when developing oral language and literacy skills
(Espinosa, 2013a).
Because DLLs receive input in two or more language systems, they may have slower word
retrieval in each language and draw from both languages when communicating (Bialystok,
2009). A common way that DLLs maximize their two language systems is to switch from one
language to the other, drawing on vocabulary from both language systems to communicate with
others. This method of communicating is called code switching. Code switching is a
communication strategy that enables DLLs to say more than they would if they restricted
themselves to only one of their languages (Office of Head Start, 2010).
Assets DLLs Bring to the Learning Environment
Although DLLs do experience risk factors, they also experience protective factors, which
classroom, which affect their literacy and language development (Espinosa, 2013b). For
example, DLLs bring a high level of social and emotional skills to the learning environment and
often have strong family supports (Gillanders, 2007). These qualities serve as a foundation for
academic growth (Castro, Paez, Dickinson, & Frede, 2011). Furthermore, in a summary of
studies, Bialystok (2011) argued bilingualism is a strength for DLLs and indicated that learning
two languages promotes greater cognitive flexibility and academic achievement over time.
DLLs’ language experiences influence their cognitive and linguistic learning abilities, which
benefit their learning. In a recent synthesis of DLLs’ cognitive development, Barac, Bialystok,
Castro, and Sanchez (2014) found that nonverbal, theory of the mind, and most executive control
(e.g., cognitive flexibility, working memory) abilities were changed by exposure to two
languages. These DLL strengths have classroom implications for instruction. For example,
although theory of the mind is a system with biological roots that is not taught, but developed,
research has suggested that environmental factors, such as teachers facilitating rich play or
providing opportunities for DLLs to listen and talk about stories with different points of views,
can build on this strength (Ashington & Edward, 2010). Additionally, researchers point to the
working memory of DLLs as a strength. Although the evidence is limited, the evidence that
exists shows that DLLs’ learning of two languages influences their working memory early in
development, and that language effects differ for short-term memory and working memory
(Barac et al., 2014). Working memory plays an important role in concentration and in following
instructions (Morin, 2017).
Another strength of DLLs is their metalinguistic skills (Bialystok, 1997; García, 2000), which
allow them to move between languages. Metalinguistic skills are defined as “the ability to
objectify language and dissect it as an arbitrary linguistic code independent of meaning” (Roth,
adept at paying attention to sounds and patterns in language, an early literacy and language skill
important for later reading (Barac et al., 2014).
Many factors influence DLLs’ language development and literacy skills. DLLs learn at least
two or more distinct linguistic systems during a period of rapid cognitive, conceptual, and
language development (Castro & Espinosa, 2014). They have two distinct language systems,
which influences their rate of processing (Castro & Espinosa, 2014). Some researchers have
contended, however, that these characteristics are not deficits and that, when instructing DLLs,
teachers should acknowledge their cognitive and linguistic assets (Castro & Espinosa 2014;
Espinosa, 2013b). Prekindergarten teachers who teach DLLs must determine the classroom
support children need and differentiate their practices (Garcia, 2011). These challenges have
implications for the knowledge and skills classroom teachers need to teach DLLs (Ackerman &
Tazi, 2015; Espinosa, 2013b).
Promising Instructional Practices for DLLs
Prekindergarten teachers’ can use knowledge of the assets of DLLs, such as theory of the
mind, memory, and metalinguistic skills, as well as DLLs’ distinct two language systems, as
assets to develop their literacy and language skills and build the vocabulary they need to
understand academic concepts. Prekindergarten teachers’ knowledge of the assets DLLs bring to
the learning environment can guide their instructional decisions when determining explicit
instructional practices for DLLs (Espinosa, 2014).
Given the unique learning characteristics of DLLs and the significant role that oral language
and literacy play in their academic achievement, prekindergarten teachers’ use of evidence-based
instructional practices is critical for DLLs’ success (August & Shanahan, 2006). Instructional
practices are specific teaching methods that guide interaction and instruction in the classroom.
Primary Sources Northern Virginia Partnership, n.d.), and include: (a) teacher strategies for
language enhancement of DLLs, (b) language rich classroom environments ensuring the
language and literacy success of young DLLs, and (c) culturally sensitive environments.
Teacher Strategies for DLLs’ Language Enhancement
DLLs require a rich language environment where teachers intentionally use language
enhancements (Castro, 2014; Espinosa, 2018; Espinosa & Magruder, 2014). The language
enhancements are primarily English; however, researchers recommend first language support to
attain the language of the classroom (Castro, 2014; Espinosa & Magruder, 2014; Kelly, 2015).
Language enhancements include language experiences that are developmentally appropriate and
are based on responsive teacher–child relationships and support children’s language acquisition
(Burchinal, et al. 2008; Kelly, 2015). DLLs who have rich language experiences in their home
language and strong competencies in their first language tend to develop strong second language
competencies (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach, & Javorsky, 2008). Mendez, Crais, Castro,
and Kainz (2015) illustrated this in a study where they examined two different instructional
practices when teaching vocabulary to DLLs. The researchers considered how the role of two
different vocabulary instructional strategies enhanced the English and Spanish vocabulary in
DLLs. The researchers compared the effectiveness of implementing a single evidence-informed
vocabulary approach using English as the language of vocabulary instruction with a bilingual
method, which used both Spanish and English. They found that children receiving instruction
with the bilingual method had significantly higher posttest scores in their vocabulary assessment
than the DLLs receiving English only (Mendez et., al 2015).
Collins (2014), examining how Spanish and English proficiency of DLLs changed from
kindergarten to second grade, also documented that using the first language played a significant
classrooms where English only, mostly English, or English and Spanish together were used. The
DLLs in the classroom in which both languages were used reached age-appropriate proficiency
levels in English and Spanish similar to their monolingual peers. Collins (2014) demonstrated
significant dual language gains for children in classrooms and schools where teachers, students,
and staff used both Spanish and English. Furthermore, Collins found that dual learners in
classrooms where teachers used both Spanish and English reached age-appropriate levels of
academic proficiency in both languages.
Together, these studies provide evidence of the benefits of combining the home and second
language to promote English and Spanish oral language and literacy for DLLs. Garcia, Castro,
and Markos (2015) recommended that, even if teachers cannot use the DLL students’ home
language as the language of instruction, knowing a few words in the DLL students’ language can
help to facilitate their oral language development. Other researchers agreed that incorporating
DLLs’ home language into instructional practices was beneficial, but there is still a need to
understand how much of each language the prekindergarten teacher should use (Ackerman &
Tazi, 2015).
Home Language
DLLs need additional supports to comprehend the meaning of lessons because they are
learning a new language and learning cognitive and conceptual content at the same time. One
area of support that researchers have studied is the use of DLLs’ home language in the classroom
(Castro et al., 2014; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001). A growing consensus exists among researchers that teachers’ use of the students’ home language while enriching the students’
English skills supports DLLs in oral language and literacy development due to transferability
(i.e., cross-linguistic transfer) of vocabulary and phonological skills (August & Shanahan, 2006;
language in instruction can lead to higher levels of social cognitive and academic achievement
among students (Buysee et al., 2014; Garcia, Kleifigan, & Falchi, 2008).
In their investigation of the role of semantic and syntactic abilities of DLLs in preschool and
kindergarten, Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Medez-Perez, and Gillam, (2010) added to the
understanding of the importance of using DLLs’ home language in instruction. Bohman et al.
(2010) found that DLLs’ language usage, along with their language exposure, played a larger
role in both English and Spanish language development than just language exposure alone. This
finding suggests the importance of prekindergarten teachers’ intentionality during oral language
and literacy instruction. As Epstein (2009) noted:
Intentional teaching means teachers act with specific outcomes or goals in mind for children’s development and learning needs. Teachers must know when to use a given strategy to accommodate the different ways individual children learn and the specific content they are learning. (p. 1)
Many researchers have recommended that, when promoting oral language and literacy with
DLLs, instruction should be explicit (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015; Castro et al., 2011; Espinosa,
2013b). Explicit intentional learning refers to a process where learners understand they have
learned something and can verbalize what they have learned (Ellis, 2009). Explicit language and
literacy learning is a conscious process (Castro, 2011; Espinosa, 2010). Teachers’ use of the
home language of DLLs is a key factor in helping DLLs acquire a second language. Goldberg
(2006) asserted that teachers should ideally use the home language as a foundation from which to
begin building English skills. Although there are different perspectives on how much of the
home language teachers can and should use, research clearly shows that the home language of
DLLs supports the learning of a second language in the classroom (Buysee et al., 2014). Teachers can utilize the DLLs’ home language as a key instructional tool in the classroom
Some researchers have found that the focus on the home language with DLLs has
overshadowed other evidence-based classroom strategies for DLLs (Buysee et al., 2014; Irby,
Quiros, Laea-Alecio, Rodriguez, & Mathes, 2008; Tong et al., 2008). Given that most of the
teachers who teach DLLs are monolingual (Zepeda et al., 2011), the need to provide attainable
strategies for prekindergarten teachers who do not speak another language is essential (Tong et
al., 2008).
Instructional Strategies for Enhancing Language
As August and Shanahan (2006) concluded from a review of studies on school-age DLLs, “the differences in the DLLs second-language proficiency make it important to adjust instruction
to meet the needs of DLLs” (p. 16). According to California Department of Education (2013),
preschool learning environments should be rich language learning environments where skilled,
responsive teachers facilitate children’s learning across the curriculum by providing children
with language models, intentional exposure to and support for language and concept
development, and extensive opportunities to build their language. Preschool teachers must
enhance opportunities for oral language development and literacy for DLLs during classroom
instruction, including both conversational language and the academic language necessary for
classroom instruction and participation.
Castro & Espinosa (2014) recommended that early childhood teachers implement explicit
practices that are language and literacy rich. A language- and literacy-rich classroom is one
where young children engage in interest-based everyday literacy activities with responsive adults
(Ford, 2010). Several researchers have suggested that language support practices are
developmentally appropriate, are based on responsive teacher and child interactions, and support
DLLs language acquisition (Kelly, 2015). In particular, researchers have identified three
children’s language: (a) child-oriented support, (b) interaction promoting, and (c) language
modeling (Girolametto & Weitzman 2002; Girolametto et al., 2003; O’Toole & Kirkpatrick,
2007; Tannock & Girolametto, 1992).
Child-oriented support. In this interaction, the teacher maintains a nondominant role and actively listens to the child until the child completes his or her thoughts (Kelly, 2015). Teachers
implement child-oriented support when they engage with the child in conversation based on the
child’s interests (Bouchard, Bigras, & Cantin, 2010). For example, for the DLL child, the
teacher would provide sufficient wait time to allow the child to demonstrate what they know or
would like to communicate (Genishi & Dyson, 2009).
Interaction promoting. This intervention includes asking questions, encouraging children to take turns speaking, and visually scanning the group to ensure participation of all children. It
may also include pairing students for projects or planning activities that enhance opportunities
for children to interact (Kelly 2015). Teachers could use this approach to facilitate the DLLs’
language and literacy development as they transition from the silent period to the telegraphic &
formulaic speech stage.
Language modeling. Language modeling is when the prekindergarten teacher provides examples of speaking correctly and models the correct way to talk (Bouchard et al., 2010).
Language modeling is a way for teachers to provide examples of correct linguistic content,
forms, and usage. Justice & Kaderavek (2004) suggested prekindergarten teachers can do this by
expanding on a child’s vocabulary, adding new words to the child’s sentences, or providing new
vocabulary to the child’s sentences. Espinosa (2013) suggested utilizing family interviews to
build on the DLLs’ vocabulary in their first language to support the development of their second
facilitates vocabulary support of the home language and developing vocabulary in the second
language.
Another example of modeling language for DLLs is teacher talk. According to Tabors
(2008), teacher talk is when the prekindergarten teacher intentionally supports the oral language
of DLLs by talking about what is happening in the present, as opposed to what happened
yesterday or what is going to happen. This strategy has proven to be a successful tool for
children’s receptive language development because it provides children with the opportunity to
hear and focus on what is happening around them at the moment. Teacher talk is concrete and
provides context.
Cheatham, Jimeniz-Silva, and Park (2015) suggested a strategy similar to teacher talk, called
teacher feedback, which includes modeling and expanding the child’s language. Teachers use
feedback to provide opportunities for meaningful interaction and learning, as the teacher
purposefully provides DLLs with positive evidence about their language. Cheatham et al. (2015)
recommended the following feedback strategies, originally outlined by Ellis, Bond & Denton for
facilitating oral language of DLLs. The strategies are divided into two areas. The first area is
implicit feedback. Implicit feedback includes recasting, repeating, and clarifying. Recasting is
when the teacher restates or expands on the words the DLL student has spoken. For example,
the teacher will restate a single word response given by a child during a read aloud or the teacher
will expand the response. The second input-providing strategy a teacher may use with DLLs is
repeating. Repeating is when the teacher repeats a phrase or word in isolation to bring attention
to the DLL’s mistake. The teacher for example, will repeat the phrase or sentence with an
intonation to highlight the incorrect language. An example of the repeating strategy would be if
the DLL student says, “I went down” as he or she sits. The teacher would say the phrase with
reformulate the phrase or sentence spoken. The teacher’s clarification requests indicate to
language learners that the teacher has misunderstood what was said or that the child’s words
were in some way incorrect (Ellis, 2012) For example, the teacher may say, “I don’t know what
you mean.”
The second area of providing feedback discussed by (Cheatham et al., 2015) is explicit
feedback. Explicit feedback includes providing direct feedback, eliciting, and translation.
Providing direct feedback occurs when the teacher explicitly states the correct language form and
makes a clear indication to the DLL that a mistake was made. An example of this would be if a
DLL student says, “is money” to another student while playing in dramatic play. The teacher
would directly state to the child, you mean, “Is this your money?” Elicitingiswhen the teacher
elicits correction from the DLL student by asking questions to prompt the correct response. For
example, the student may say, “I put the book on the soda.” The teacher may ask, “You put the
book on the soda or the sofa?” Teachers can use these strategies individually or in combination.
Translatingis when the teacher translates using the DLLs home language. For example, if a
DLL looks puzzled about a direction or naming an object, the teacher would say the sentence or
word in the child’s language. Although implicit and explicit feedback strategies can be used in
isolation from each other, teachers may also use them in combination, thus providing both to
children and may also prompt their language output (Cheatham et al., 2015).
Cheatham et al. (2015) posited that teacher feedback is a promising instructional practice for
DLLs that teachers can use when developing their oral proficiency. Prekindergarten teachers can
use these strategies based on the language level of DLLs, as this is a continuum from explicit
(i.e., overt) correction to implicit (i.e., covert) correction.
Finally, DLLs need instruction supporting the stage of their individual English acquisition
teachers can promote the development of oral language and provide a language rich
environment. Thereby, they will facilitate oral language and literacy development, laying the
foundation for later academic success.
Language and Literacy Enhancements
DLLs who will attend schools in the United States need to acquire oral language in a second
language, and they need to do so with enhancements and efficiency to catch up with their
monolingual English peers (August & Shanahan, 2006; Lesaux & Geva, 2006). Thus, the
prekindergarten teacher’s task is to provide quality language and literacy teaching practices that
go beyond the typical curriculum to enhance DLLs’ oral language and literacy in the classroom
environment. Many practices and strategies that teachers already use with monolingual
preschoolers can be adapted for use with DLLs. These include storybook reading, dialogic
reading, and vocabulary expanding.
Storybook reading. By adapting preschool strategies such as storybook reading, teachers can promote positive oral language and literacy outcomes for DLLs (Collins, 2010; Gillanders &
Castro, 2011; Mendez et al., 2015). Gillanders and Castro (2011) asserted that the experience of
listening to a story in English differs for DLLs from that of children whose first language is
English. Notably, prekindergarten teachers must be intentional and strategic when they read
because DLLs do not typically actively participate in story book readings without support of a
prekindergarten teacher who asks questions and provides modeling language as the story is read.
Prekindergarten teachers need to provide opportunities for DLLs to learn words in a story, both
incidentally and directly (Gillanders & Castro, 2011). Gillanders and Castro (2011)
recommended the following strategies: (a) choose limited core words (three to five); (b) target
instruction for learning the core words; (d) point to the illustrations; and (e) use objects,
manipulatives, and facial expressions to help children understand vocabulary.
Dialogic reading. Dialogic reading (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998) is another strategy that teachers can use during storybook reading. Through this strategy, teachers engage the student as
an active listener and responder using a systematic approach. Dialogic reading involves a
sequence of prompts where children respond to the text through the teacher’s use of a question or
comment. As the child responds, the teacher models expanding and extending the child’s
response by adding new vocabulary and asking the child to repeat the response. The teacher
concludes the prompts by repeating what the child last said in the response (Flynn, 2011;
Whitehurst, Angel, Payne, Crone, & Fischel, 1994). For example, while reading a book, the teacher would first ask the question, “What do you see next to the house?” The child may give a
one-word response, such as, “dog.” The teacher would then evaluate the child’s response and
rephrase what the student said by repeating the word and adding some more words to what the
child said. For example, “The dog is next to the house.” The teacher then asks the child to repeat
the expanded phrase. By using this sequence, the teacher helps build oral fluency as well as
receptive and expressive language development.
Research has shown that dialogic reading is an effective strategy with DLLs. For example,
Valdez-Manchaca and Whitehurst (1992) conducted a study using dialogic reading techniques
with Spanish-speaking DLLs in a child-care setting. They noted that the specific shared book
reading strategies of dialogic reading improved the expressive and receptive vocabulary of
DLLs.
Vocabulary expanding. Vocabulary expanding is another useful teacher strategy.
Vocabulary is a key component of oral language that is critical for comprehension and is an area
importance of intentional vocabulary instruction. Collins (2010) investigated the effects of rich
explanation and home reading practices with 80 Portuguese DLLs who had varying vocabulary
abilities and were described as nonreaders before the intervention. Collins divided the children
into two groups who heard the same stories 3 times per week in their respective classrooms. For
the experimental group, the teachers focused on targeted vocabulary (i.e., sophisticated words
that were not central to the plot), and rich explanation with selected words from the book.
Collins documented significant gains in vocabulary acquisition for DLLs when teachers provided
multiple exposures, helpful explanatory talk, and small group formats during storybook reading.
In other words, teachers provided access to vocabulary by increasing the breadth and depth of
vocabulary learning from storybook reading. Collins (2010) provided the following vocabulary
protocol from this study: (a) point to the illustration of the target word; (b) provide a general
definition of the word; (c) provide a synonym; (d) make a gesture of the word, when applicable;
and (e) use the word in a context different from that in the book.
Another example of an explicit, systematic strategy to promote acquisition of academic
language is vocabulary bridging. Vocabulary bridging occurs when the teacher or the DLL uses
an associated meaning of a word in the DLL’s primary language along with the word in English
to facilitate learning the English word (Ulanoff & Pucci, 1999). Lugo-Neris, Jackson, and
Goldstein (2010) confirmed the practice of bridging as a good strategy for DLLs in their
intervention study of 22 children, ages 4 to 6 years old. The researchers randomly assigned
children to receive 2 weeks each of either word expansions in English or English readings with
word expansions in Spanish. They found the Spanish bridging instruction produced the greatest
gains in the DLLs’ use of expressive definitions.
Based on the research reviewed above, the prekindergarten teacher promotes the vocabulary
environment. The prekindergarten teacher has the unique role of facilitating oral language and
literacy development for DLL students. Through explicit systematic instruction such as
language modeling and language enhancements, the prekindergarten teacher can create positive
language and literacy outcomes for DLLs.
Quality Learning Environments for DLLs
In addition to the facilitation of their language, DLLs should have opportunities to share and
maintain their home culture and language in the classroom (Castro, 2011; Espinosa, 2013b). An
environment that supports all children’s culture and languages is an environment in which
educators carefully maintain the cultural continuity between home and the early childhood
school setting. According to Espinosa and Magruder (2015, culture, language, and learning are
intertwined. Therefore, DLLs need to feel closely connected to the language and culture of their
home. Classrooms with DLLs should reflect and be responsive to their students’ cultures and
languages. Culturally responsive classrooms have teachers who specifically acknowledge the
presence of culturally and linguistically diverse students and the need for these students to feel
comfortable, accepted, safe, and intellectually engaged (Espinosa, 2013; Espinosa & Magruder,
2014).
Preschool teachers can also support DLLs other in the preschool classroom environment by
designing physical and social environments that facilitate interaction with DLLs and their
monolingual peers (Espinosa & Magruder, 2015). This will allow DLLs to become familiar with
routines and cues associated with the routines so they understand what to do (Espinosa, 2013b).
For DLLs, prekindergarten teachers should consider the physical arrangement of the classroom
and how it affects the social climate in the room (Magruder, Hayslip, Espinosa, & Matera, 2013;
intimate settings, which facilitate small-group learning activities conducive to facilitating DLLs’
language development (Castro, 2011).
Researchers have suggested specific linguistically responsive strategies that all early
childhood teachers can use to integrate the child’s culture and language into the classroom. For
example, teachers can provide books in Spanish, use key vocabulary words in Spanish (such as
saying libros along with books), display common Spanish words on word walls and, encourage
children to continue to use Spanish in the classroom to facilitate connections to English (Castro
et al., 2011; Facella, Rampino, & Shea, 2005). Researchers also recommended using visual
supports, body language, props, materials, music, photographs, and other non-stereotypical
visual aids in the classroom that reflect the contemporary cultures of the children. Researchers
also recommended labeling the classroom in the DLLs’ home languages as well as in English to
support language acquisition (Espinosa & Magruder, 2014; Tabors, 2008).
In sum, research results and successful use of evidence-based instructional practices have
suggested that creating a safe, culturally rich environment, and implementing language
enhancement strategies are promising practices for prekindergarten teachers to utilize in order to
improve the oral language and literacy outcomes of DLLs. Moreover, implementing these
practices requires teachers to possess the requisite knowledge and skills, along with a strong
sense of self-efficacy, in their instruction with DLLs.
Competency and Self-Efficacy in Teachers’ Instructional Practices with DLLs Teacher self-efficacy is a teacher’s belief in his or her own ability to organize and execute the
courses of action required to accomplish a specific teaching task (Bandura, 1993;
Tschannen-Moran, Wofolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Guo et al., 2010). A critical component of self-efficacy is
having obtained certain key competencies (Gavora, 2010). All of the practices discussed in the
facilitating the DLLs’ language and literacy development, including: ( a) understanding a
pedagogy that incorporates knowledge of second language acquisition, (b) incorporating culture
into instruction, and (c) optimizing and building on the literacy and language assets of DLLs
(Lopez & Zepeda, Medina 2012).
Prekindergarten Teacher Competencies Regarding DLL Instruction
Teachers with or without knowledge of DLLs’ oral language and literacy skills face questions
about how to utilize the instructional practices for DLLs effectively in the learning environment
(Lopez, Zepeda & Medina, 2012). When instructing DLLs, prekindergarten teachers must have
the necessary competencies for promoting their students’ language and literacy development.
Those competencies include knowledge of DLLs’ language acquisition and the practices that
appropriately address their learning characteristics. Additionally, teachers must provide an
optimum learning environment incorporating the culture of DLLs (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015;
Lopez, Zepeda & Medina 2012).
Jacoby and Lesaux (2014) illustrated the need for teacher competency in a recent study where
they collected literacy-based lessons and surveys from 139 Head Start teachers who taught
DLLs. The purpose of the study was to investigate the teachers’ use of extended discourse
during literacy-based lessons and to learn when and how teachers used Spanish or English to
communicate. The researchers found that teachers used Spanish 30% of the time in
nonacademic instructional purposes, and teachers believed that DLLs would naturally learn
English by hearing and absorbing the language. Additionally, only 22% of the 147 lessons
observed fostered extended discourse. The literacy-based lessons were characterized by teacher
talking and student listening. The researchers noted that teachers lacked a specific competency; they were not knowledgeable of the importance of explicit instruction to support DLLs’ English
facilitate the language and literacy of the DLLs. From this study, one can conclude that
prekindergarten teachers should be confident about the instructional practices they use and
should critically employ their knowledge of DLLs’ learning characteristics to enhance language
and literacy opportunities for DLLs. It is important that prekindergarten teachers confidently use their knowledge of DLLs’ level of English language proficiency as well as the children’s cultural
backgrounds. Possessing these competencies can ensure optimal learning for the DLL
population. Thus, prekindergarten teachers need the above essential competencies in order to
feel like they can deliver effective instruction to DLLs.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
In addition to teachers’ competencies, teacher self-efficacy is critical for effective teaching
(Gavora, 2010; Guo et al., 2010). Teacher self-efficacy differs from teacher competence in that
teacher self-efficacy is a broader concept that encompasses teacher competencies. For example,
high self-efficacy underlies and enables the successful use of teacher competencies (e.g.,
knowledge, skills; Gavora, 2010). In the next section, Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory,
which informs the concept of self-efficacy, will be discussed. Then, a review of recent studies
on the relationship of preschool teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and instructional practices with
young children will be reviewed.
Theoretical framework. Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997) informs the
exploration of prekindergarten teachers’ self-efficacy related to the instructional practices they
utilize when promoting DLLs’ oral language and literacy. In the field of education, self-efficacy
refers to teachers’ beliefs pertaining to their ability to bring about a desired change in children’s
achievements (Bandura, 1995; Guo, Dynia, Yeager, Pelatti, & Justice, 2013).
Bandura (1997) proposed that people are motivated to perform an action if they believe the
perform that action successfully (i.e., self-efficacy expectancy). Outcome expectancy is a
judgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce. Self-efficacy expectancy is
the confidence that the performance can be accomplished. For example, prekindergarten
teachers will be more likely to implement evidence-based practices to promote the oral language
proficiency of DLLs if they believe they can implement them successfully and if they believe
their practice will result in improved oral language and literacy skills for DLLs. According to
social cognitive theory, four factors enhance the development of high teacher self-efficacy: (a)
mastery teaching experiences, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasion, and (d)
physiological and affective states (Gavora, 2010).
Mastery teaching experiences. This type of teaching experience provides teachers with the opportunity to demonstrate their own teaching success, thus providing them with the desired
affirmation about their competencies and skill level. Teachers develop efficacy based on their
personal success. The teacher’s authentic performance provides feedback accomplishments. In
a mastery experience, teachers build a robust sense of personal efficacy through success
(Bandura, 1997). Teachers interpret their teaching and use those interpretations to develop
beliefs about their ability to succeed or not (Gavora, 2010). An example of a mastery teaching
experience for a prekindergarten teacher who is instructing DLLs would be implementing
evidence-based practices, such as modeling language expansion during a dialogic reading of a
story and then observing a DLL student increase his or her vocabulary and length of words when
responding to questions asked.
Vicarious experiences. Teachers’ experiences observing and modeling other successful
teachers and learning from those observations can result in the teacher’s own possible perceived
self-efficacy. When teachers observe successful peers, this increases their potential to succeed at
