Differences in Language Development of 3 and 4 year old Children in a Constructivist Context

Presented by

Jannah W. Nerren and Hope E. WilsonStephen F. Austin State University

American Educational Research Association Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

April 13-17, 2012

Research TeamCarolyn D. Abel

Jannah W. NerrenHope E. Wilson

Janice Pattillo Early Childhood Research CenterJames I Perkins College of Education

Stephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdoches, Texas 75962

http://www.sfasu.edu/

The Need for our ResearchChildren who do not speak English in the home are one of the fastest growing groups

in the nation (Pew Census 2006).

50% increase in Hispanics in US between 2000 – 2008 (Pew Hispanic Census 2008)

School-age ESL population, (5-17) rose 185% between 1976 – 2006 compared to 20% total population and Texas is 2nd to California in terms of numbers of these students (US Dept Ed, 2008).

Not only do many of these children reside in non-English homes, but many of their families are also low-income, and poverty is a strong predictor of ELL difficulty, especially in the U.S. (Westby & Hwa-Froelich, 2010)

The Need for our Research

In the US, 1 in 6 children live in poverty and the numbers are increasing; these children are far more likely to enter school as linguistically

disadvantaged and this gap increases as they progress through school (Cuthrell, Stapleton, and Ledford, 2010).

Preschoolers with language delays less than 1.25 standard deviations do not have access to high-quality early intervention services (Paul and Roth,

2011).

A majority of these LOW SES and ESL students are entering kindergarten (Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Pew Hispanic Census 2008).

While poverty is not always problematic, the infamous studies conducted by Hart and Risley (1995, 2003) and others (Pikulski & Tobin, 1989) show children in poverty typically hear half as many words per hour (616 words) as the average-working class child (1,251 words).

They also hear more negative words.

I’m busy

The Need for our Research

ESL students and immigrant youth. . .

who are OFTEN POOR can experience equally limited opportunities for language support from the home

even in their first language. (Hadaway, 2004; US Dept Ed 2008)

Language Development

Young English Language Learners face increased risk for school failure due to a

lack of teachers who are knowledgeable about how to support them (Coppola, 2005 and many others).

Question: If we teach English to low SES & ESL

preschoolers using our indirect language stimulation techniques,

will it improve English development for these children?

Answer: Currently we are researching the answer to this question and so far, things look promising.

Our ResearchWe are currently exploring how to

help ALL children develop language

especially those whose home language is not Englishand those who may not receive strong support at home.

Our Research STUDY 1 trained ESL certified teachers of low SES ESL 4-year-olds (PPVT-4)

Results Neared significance p=.054 Effect sizes warranted further study. Pilot study interrupted by hurricane.

ESL-certified teachers may already be doing an effective job. STUDY 2 trained Head Start teachers of low SES & ESL 4-year-olds

Results SIGNIFICANT English improvement for ALL students (EVT-2) n = 31 students p=.012

STUDY 3 trained Head Start teachers of 3-4-year-olds (low SES & ESL) (PPVT-4, EVT-2) Results 3-yr olds receptive English improved (d=0.30) over 4’s (d=0.08)

4-yr olds expressive English improved (d=0.55) over 3’s (d=0.17) n = 76 4-year-olds n = 63 3-yr-olds

STUDY 4 trained Head Start teachers of low SES and ESL 3 and 4-year-olds (PPVT-4, EVT-2) Larger study; urban area Head Start; increased contact w teachers during yr

Results available Sum 2012

Background

. . . supports reading which increases learning.

(National Reading Panel, 2000National Literacy Panel, 2006)

LANGUAGE

provides the foundation for thinkingand leads to the development of other communication skills. (Lyle,1993)

ORAL LANGUAGE

Language is the glue that holds a country together.

It allows people to talk with each other and exchange ideas.

Language facilitates participation in society.

Language Development

There is evidence suggesting language transfers both ways:

– teach English to ESL children– transfer into first language– could improve both languages (L1 and L2)

(August & Shanahan, National Literacy Panel 2006, p.214).

What Works?

Preschoolers acquire English more easily where there are knowledgeable sensitive teachers to facilitate its development (Morrow, 2008; Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2000; National Reading Panel 2000; Ramirez, 1991).

The training in our studies demonstrates how to support children’s earliest attempts to use language by:

saying what the child says that mirrors the child’s attention and

responding to all attempts to communicate

Describe what the child is DO-ing.

AND repeat key words.

“Washing the dog……we are washing the dog.”

What Works?

Language is facilitated best when teachers continue topics introduced by the child (Snow, l998).

The training in our studies includes the Extension-Plus technique where adults use and extend the words children use.

What Works?

As children advance in their language development, caregivers should model the langauge they want children to use. (Good Talking With You, 2007)

Child: I wike it.Teacher: You like it? I like it, too.

Child: He goed with me.Teacher: He went with you? I’m glad he went with you.

What Works?Language develops best in a rich environment with

opportunities to use language (Dickinson, 2001)

The training in our studies emphasizes the importance of developmentally appropriate play centers to maximize language engagement.

…a place where children have a PURPOSE for acquiring and an opportunity to USE English.

. . . a risk-free supportive environment that breeds success.

Supporting Ells

ELLs are beyond the typical age when learning L-1. They have developed Object Permanence and their memory bank can hold ideas and thoughts in their

heads just like you can.

They have already formed concepts and ideas in L-1.  Yet, they are learning a new language--English.

globo

Supporting English Language Learners (ELLs)

Question Can we use the same indirect language stimulation techniques to support ELLs

when they begin to learn English?

Supporting ELLs

Life in the classroom can be a quick-paced blur for the beginning English Language Learner.

 Have you ever tried to keep up when

watching the TV language channel? This is a problem for ELLs, too. People speak too quickly and they talk too much. 

The CLASSROOM can provide a MODEL for HOW English sounds, BUT….

The training in our studies teachesWell-meaning teachers to remember NOT to go overboard and say too much during those early stages of language development.

Speak slowly, Enunciate distinctly,Use non-verbal, pictures, and objectsAnd repeat, repeat, and repeat.

They still need that same support tomake connections with-the object in hand, -the image in mind, and-the word that goes with it.

As for anyone learning a new language . . .

Supporting all ELLs

ALL English language learners need supportive caregivers who will take time to label and provide safe and purposeful opportunities for using & understanding English.

We came up with the acronym SPEAK to summarize important aspects of the training.

Seek opportunities to engage in conversation with children.

The first step in incorporating SPEAK is to create an active learning environment that allows children to construct knowledge as they learn through play. As children move about the classroom, teachers sit alongside and converse with them at an appropriate level, providing children with opportunities to hear and use descriptive language.

SPEAK

Personalize communication with children by talking about what THEY are doing or seeing.

As teachers of ELLs move through the day with their students, it is important to be descriptive about children’s activities, and the materials they use. An example of this is a teacher sitting with a child as he constructs a block tower. The teacher simply says “You are building a tower!” When the child processes this information, the teacher might add “You are building a very tall tower!”

SPEAK

Engage children in conversation by asking open-ended questions.

When ELLs begin to make attempts at using the English language, it is helpful to increase their use of language by asking questions that have no correct answer. This provides a risk-free environment in which children can practice newly acquired words. Often, well-intentioned teachers squelch fledging attempts at language in an enthusiastic attempt to keep the child talking. Rather than asking “What color is it?” “How many are there?” and other questions that might intimidate the child, ask open-ended questions where any answer is correct. An example of this might be “You made a tower! Who lives there?” If the child chooses not to answer, the teacher, without pressuring the child might eventually comment something such as “Such a big tower! A giant could live there.”

SPEAK

Assist children’s language by expanding what they say.

When children attempt language, saying for instance “Tower,” the teacher simply follows the child’s lead with “Yes, it is a tower.” This expansion, where the teacher adds information to the words the child says, reinforces the child’s speech, while providing new words. This can also be used to help children hear the correct syntax and grammar of language. An example might be a child at the lunch table holding up his food and telling you “I eat sandwich.” The teacher can indirectly correct the grammatical error and add additional information by saying “You are eating a sandwich! It’s a peanut butter sandwich.”

SPEAK

Keep it simple; refrain from bombarding language learners with too much information at once.

If you have had the experience of traveling to a country where you did not speak the language, perhaps you remember feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly constant chatter of the unfamiliar words. Now imagine that experience with a patient teacher alongside you, describing in short conversational sentences all that you see and do. What a difference!

SPEAK

Used daily, these simple SPEAK techniques can become second nature to the teacher, and will go a long way in assisting the youngest learners with their language skills.

Methodology Phase 1 all studies

MethodologyWe began by locating interested teachers to receive

the training.

ALL teachers expressed interest in receiving the training which indicates a need for this type of professional development.

Methodology

We gave all of them a survey:

ESL certified / NOT Previous teaching experience in the district Total experience working with preschoolers Spanish-speaking ability

We randomly divided our teachers into 2 groups.

The other half became our control group—they would not.

Half became the treatment group to receive the training.

We promised to give them the training after the study.

The TREATMENT teachers received

2 days of training Using Ed. Productions’ Good Talking With You Video

series.

Treatment teachers were pre and post tested on their knowledge of the training techniques.

This test had been constructed with input from experts.

Training was a success in all studies, but pretest scores indicated a greater need for language training for the NON-ESL certified Head Start teachers.

Example: STUDY 2Head Start Teachers increased knowledge of the

techniques 33%Mean = 78% knowledge of the techniquesAll gave strong praise for what they felt they had learned.Later supported through random observations in

classrooms, averaging 3-4 (average to good use of strategies).

STUDY 1 – ESL certified teachers higher scores all around 26% increase / post test = 96% knowledge classroom obs = averaged 4 (range 2 – 5)

STUDY 3 – Pre-test findings were similar to STUDY 2 43% increase / post test = 88% knowledge

Phase 2all studies

In the FALL, students were pretested using PPVT-4 and EVT-2 by an experienced tester.

Treatment Teachers integrated the newly learned strategies into their regular classroom teaching.

Control classroom teachers taught as usual.

This rubric used to assess level of fidelity had been developed and field tested by the researchers. Scores ranged from zero (no use of strategies) to 5 (excellent use of language techniques).

To ensure fidelity to the treatment, random brief visits were made monthly to treatment classrooms.

In the SPRING (early April) all students in control & treatment classrooms were post tested by the same experienced tester using the same assessments— PPVT-4 and EVT-2.

Example: Study 2 PPVT Results

(receptive English language)

PPVT n Mean S.D.

Pretest = END Sept 200976

77.716.1

Intervention 37 79.8 18.8

Spanish Speaking 11 63.7 16.8

English Speaking 25 86.4 17.0

Control 39 75.7 15.5

Spanish Speaking 14 62.9 16.4

English Speaking 24 82.9 10.6

Posttest = BEG. April 201067 13.3

Intervention 32 91.1 13.4

Spanish Speaking 10 82.9 10.3

English Speaking 22 94.9 13.2

Control 35 89.7 13.3

Spanish Speaking 15 80.5 10.3

English Speaking 20 96.7 11.0

90.4

Study 2EVT Scores

expressive vocabulary

Similar results were seen for the tests of expressive language on the EVT-2,

with a low mean standard score in the pretest results (M=78.8), and a large increase over 6 months for both treatment and control groups (M=85.6).

EVT n Mean S.D.

Pretest = END Sept. 2009 74 78.8 19.5

Intervention 36 77.9 20.8

Spanish Speaking 11 63.6 16.7

English Speaking 24 83.8 20.0

Control 38 79.6 18.9

Spanish Speaking 14 62.9 16.4

English Speaking 24 89.4 12.3

Posttest = BEG. Apr. 2010 65 15.0

Intervention 31 88.6 15.0

Spanish Speaking 10 77.4 15.8

English Speaking 21 93.9 11.5

Control 34 82.8 14.6

Spanish Speaking 14 69.6 9.4

English Speaking 20 92.1 9.6

85.6

Study 2 Results

PPVT Results

•2x2 ANCOVA•Independent Variable: Intervention Status•Dependent Variable: Receptive Language•Covariates: Pre-test Scores, Language Background

After adjusting for PPVT pretest scores, and finding no significant interaction noted between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 62)=1.99, p=.163]. . . .

Results suggest that the intervention did NOT have an effect on the receptive language of either students from English speaking or Spanish speaking homes.

ANCOVA - PPVT

Source Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Squares

F p Partial Eta

Squared

PPVT Pretest Scores 4872.23 1 4872.23 85.10 <.001 .579

Intervention 1.08 1 1.08 .02.891

<.001

Language 5.19 1 5.19 .09 .764 .001

Intervention*Lang 114.19 1 114.19 1.99 .163 .031

Error 3549.55 62 57.25

Total 559235.00 67

Note. R2=.696

No significant impact on RECEPTIVE language for ESL or low SES.

EVT Results

•2x2 ANCOVA•Independent Variable: Intervention Status•Dependent Variable: Receptive Language•Covariates: Pre-test Scores, Language Background

EVT ResultsAfter adjusting for EVT pretest scores, and finding no significant interaction between receiving the intervention and home language [F (1, 60)=.09, p=.772],

Results indicate both of the main effects were statistically significant [intervention: F (1, 60)=6.64, p=.012; language: F (1, 60)=9.86, p=.003].

• Treatment was effective for BOTH low SES English & ESL (p=.012) .100

• Low SES English speakers gained the most (p=.003) .141

However, they both represent a very small effect size (language partial eta squared=.141; intervention partial eta squared=.100).

Expressive Language Increased

These results suggest that the intervention is equally effective for students from diverse language backgrounds and supports expressive English language development.

Students in treatment classrooms (n=31) had significantly higher expressive language scores (p=.012) than controls (n=34).

ANCOVA - EVTSource Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Squares

F p Partial Eta

Squared

EVT Pretest

Scores

3642.06 1 3642.06 53.01 <.001 .469

Intervention 456.41 1 456.41 6.64 .012.100

Language 677.41 1 677.41 9.86 .003 .141

Intervention*Lang 5.82 1 5.82 .09.772 .001

Error 4122.14 60 68.70

Total 490075.00 65

Note. R2=.71

Significant IMPACT on EXPRESSIVE language for TREATMENT STUDENTS !

Results Expressive English Vocabulary Improved

It appears 2 days of training for Preschool Head Start teacherscan have a positive impacton the English language developmentof low SES and ESL learnersin only six months.

In Sum

IF 2 days of training for Head Start teacherscan have a positive impact for BOTH groupsin 6 months . . .

Then what would the impact be if we intensified the training , began a year earlier with 3-year-olds, and continued the intervention for 2 years? What would we see if we were able to study larger groups?

Studies 3 + 4

New Directions

YOUNGER students (3 yr olds 4 yr olds)

ADDITIONAL training (midyear contact w teachers)

PVVT vs EVT for 3 or 4 year olds

LARGER GROUP SAMPLES

Special populations (teacher candidates, parents, etc)

Limitations for all of our studies

With a larger sample, it would be possible to analyze the results for specific subpopulations of students more carefully.

In addition, our samples of students are specific to their geographic locations; future research should investigate the effectiveness of the language stimulation techniques for ESL and low socioeconomic status students from more geographically diverse population areas.

A major limitation has been our small sample sizes.

FINAL RESULTS – Study 4 larger sample/ urban setting . . . will be analyzed SUMMER 2012.

Your Feedback is Appreciated

YOUR FEEDBACK and QUESTIONS can help.

Please SHARE your expertise and ideas today.

Implications

As our population becomes more linguistically diverse, it is critical to develop oral language skills of preschool children to prepare them for later academic success in school.

ImplicationsThese studies suggest language training can be effective for all teachers, especially those in Head Start programs in Texas.

When these simple techniques are used with their diverse preschool children, expressive language skills appear to increase.

Thank You

References August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the

national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bohannon, J. N. and Bonvillian, J. D. (2000). Theoretical approaches to language acquisition. In J. B. Gleason (Ed.). The development of language (pp. 254-314). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. In Tsybina I., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., and Greenberg, J. (2006 October). Recasts Used with Preschoolers Learning English as their Second Language. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 178-179.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (l999). Relationship of metalinguistic capatilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(4), 459-478. In August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.298. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Coppola, J. (2005). English language learners: Language and literacy development during the preschool years. Journal of the New England Reading Association, 41 (2), 18-23. In National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2005). P.4. A resource guide. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/ecell/intro

Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., & Ledford, C. (2010). Examining the Culture of Poverty: Promising Practices. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), p.104-105. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Large group and free-play times: Conversational settings supporting language and literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson and P. O. Tabors (Eds.). Beginning literacy with language (pp. 223-255). Baltimore: Brookes. In slide 3 of Kindergarten Oral Language and Vocabulary Development: Overview. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Kinder/slides/k1030001/k1030010.gif

Fry, Richard and Gonzales, Felisa (August 2008). One-in-Five and Growing Fast: A Profile of Hispanic Public School Students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/92.pdf

References Gersten, R., Carmine, D., & Williams, P. (l982). Measuring implementation of a structured educational model in

an urban setting: An observational approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(1), 67-79. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf

Good Talking With You Series (2007). Oh say what they see—an introduction to indirect language stimulation techniques. Portland, OR: Educational Productions. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from http://www.tr.wou.edu/perc/documents/INDIRECTLANGUAGESTIMULATION.pdf This program was recently acquired by Teaching Strategies.

Hadaway, Vardell, Young (2004). What every teacher should know about English language learners. P.3. Allyn & Bacon Publisher.

Hart, Betty and Risley, Todd (2003). The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3. American Educator, Spring 2003. P. 8.

Hiebert, J. (l999). Relationships between research and the NCTM Standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf

References• Lesaux, N., and Geva, E. Synthesis: Development of Literacy in Language-

Minority Students. In August, D., and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. P.53. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

• Morrow, L. M. (2008). Language and vocabulary development. P. 98-116. In Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write. (6th ed). Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon Publisher.

• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Pp.4-1, 4-3., 8, 16, 20. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

• Paul, R., & Roth, F. P. (2011). Characterizing and Predicting Outcomes of Communication Delays in Infants and Toddlers: Implications for Clinical Practice. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42(3), 331-340. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0067)

• Pikulski, J.J. and Tobin, A.W. (1989). Factors associated with long-term reading achievement of early readers. In S. McCormick, J. Zutell, P. Scharer and P. O'Keefe (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction. Chicago, National Reading Conference.

• Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Executive Summary and Vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

References Resnick, B., Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., DeFranesco, C., Breger, R., Hecht, J., Sharp, D. L.,

Leavesque, C., Orwig, D., Ernst, D., Ogedegbe, G., & Czajkowski, S. (2005). Examples of implementation and evaluation of treatment fidelity in the BCC Studies: Where we are and where we need to go. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 46-54. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf

Richardson, V. (l990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, l9, 10-18. In O’Donnell, Carol; Lynch, Sharon; Watson, William and Rethinam, Vasuki. Teacher and Student Fidelity of Implementation to Process: Quality of Delivery and Student Responsiveness and Relationships to Classroom Achievement. George Washington University. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; New Orleans, LA; April 15-18, 2007. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from http://www.gwu.edu/~scale-up/documents/Fidelity%20to%20Process_NARST_2007.pdf

References Simpson, A. (2004, February 26). Early education experts highlight concerns about new

nationwide test of four-year-olds in head start, [Press Release]. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved on December 1, 2008 from http://www.naeyc.org/about/releases/20040226.asp

Snow, Catherine (l983). In Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. P. 210. In Manami, M. & Kennedy, B. P. (l998). Language issues in literacy and bilingual/multicultural education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Tinajero, J. V., Hurley, S. R., & Lozano, E. V. (l998). Developing language and literacy in bilingual classrooms. In M. L. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J. V. Tinajero (Eds.), Educating Latino students: A guide to successful practice (pp. 143-160). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing company. Inthird Grade Video Script #3 Texas Demographics. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from http://searchlight.utexas.org/content/Third/video_chunk/ThirdPDF/3TexasDemo.pdf

Tysbina, I., Girolametto, L., Weitzmann, E., & Greenberg, J. (2006, October). Recasts used with preschoolers learning English as their second language. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 178. Retrieved May 14, 2008. Doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0110-2.

Westby, Carol and Hwa-Froelich, Deborah (2010). Difficulty, Delay, or Disorder: What Makes English Hard for English Language Learners? In Shatz, Marilyn and Wilkinson, Louise (Eds) (2010). The Education of English Langauge Learners: Research to Practice.

Clip Art

Clip Art Gallery on Discovery School.com Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/copyright.html

Annenberg’s picture from “Thalia Learns the Details” http://www.learner.org/libraries/readingk2/thalia/index.html

Globe clip art with permission from PROJECT ENLACE Fall 2008 http://www2.sfasu.edu/enlace/About_ENLACE.htm

Microsoft office ClipArt Most Intelligent Systems, Inc. Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from

http://www.freegraphicsonline.com/ Normal Rockwell clip art with permission. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from

http://www.normanrockwell.com/community/downloads.htm Photos with permission / taken at the researchers’ university campus school during Fall

2008 www.sfasu.edu/education/departments/elementary/centers/index.asp Royalty Free Clip-Art Retrieved on November 29, 2008 from http://www.free-graphics.com/