The increasing number of Hispanic children learning English as second language (EL2) raises great concern regarding their care and preparation for academic success. A recent report by the Associated Press (2008) states the U.S. birth rate is at a 45-year high since the end of the baby boom in 1961. In 2006, the average fertility rate was 2.1 children per woman in the U.S., and three children per woman among Hispanics, with Mexican-born women having a fertility rate of 3.2 children. In 2003, 21% of children under the age of five were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). For fiscal year 2006, 34% of children served by Head Start were Hispanic (Head Start Bureau 2007), with an estimated quarter of children having Spanish as their primary language.

Language development is the foundation for building literacy skills and academic success (Dickinson and Tabors 2001), yet the empirical literature regarding second language development for preschoolers is minimal at best compared to older children (Saunders and O’Brien 2006). Some researchers have found that children learning English as a second language (EL2) in a school setting develop English language competencies over time regardless of program types and instruction (Barnett et al. 2007; Winsler et al. 1999; Saunders and O’Brien 2006).

Nevertheless, teachers impact the amount of English language production through their language use and teacher qualifications. Chang et al. (2007) found that the amount of Spanish spoken by the teachers in their cross-national sample affected Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ English proficiency, and that classrooms with teachers who spoke more Spanish with the EL2 learners scored higher on English proficiency, even though Spanish-speaking children received less individual attention by their English speaking teachers than other children. Alternatively, Chesterfield et al. (1983) examination of the English development of Spanish-speaking preschoolers found English-speaking teachers initially were the main English source for EL2 learners. The more the EL2 learner interacted with the English-speaking teacher, the more proficient in English the Spanish-speaker. However, they also found that when minimal interactions transpired between the English-speaking teachers and the EL2 children, the EL2 children developed their proficiency from their verbal interactions with their English-speaking peers. Consequently, the more the children interacted with English-speaking peers, the more English proficient the EL2 learners became. Wong Fillmore (1982, 1991) illustrated how four kindergarten teachers’ use of English influenced how much English the students in each classroom acquired. She demonstrated that the language opportunities were more important than the structuring of instruction.

Other researchers in education have demonstrated that social communication is critical for oral language development. Interactional ethnographers view teaching and learning as social, interactive communicative processes and study classrooms as cultural settings for understanding how students learn (Green et al. 2002). The ethnographic approach supports attempts to understand the “consequences of membership, and how differential access within a group shapes opportunities for learning and participation” (Green et al. 2002, p. 206). Whereas, by focusing on interaction, researchers seek to understand how, through language routines, social practices in the daily activities of the classroom contribute to gaining access to learning and to the construction of knowledge (Green and Dixon 1994; Rex 2006). This combined focus on the social culture of the classroom and the language interactions is well suited to build upon recent research that suggests the mere exposure to an English-speaker, or speaker of the L2, is not as important as the nature of the interaction (Saunders and O’Brien 2006).

The Interactionist Model (Wong Fillmore 1991) encompasses the reciprocal relationship of the social, linguistic and cognitive processes between the learner, the speaker of the second language (L2) and the social setting. Collectively, the three processes explain the interaction between the learner and the L2 speaker, and the development of the learner’s understandings of the grammatical and social structures of the L2. To successfully acquire the L2, the social context must contain three components: learners, who realize they must learn the L2 and are motivated; speakers of the L2, who know the L2 well enough to provide access to the language and help the learner learn it; and social setting, situations that bring learners and speakers into frequent contact. The term optimal learning opportunity that is used throughout this paper refers to social contexts that provide these three components.

A recently published study by Early et al. (2007) has found preschool teachers’ education is not related to the children’s academic gains. However, earlier studies have found that teachers’ experiences and knowledge of child development affect how they interact and respond to second language learners, thus influencing second language acquisition (Clarke 1999; Gillanders 2007; Saville-Troike 1987). More knowledgeable and experienced teachers anticipated and responded to learners’ questions and needs, which helped the children adjust to the new environment of a classroom. These teachers also scaffold learners’ development by building from their prior abilities, and structuring activities in particular ways to address individual needs. Less experienced teachers had more difficulty recognizing discomfort or confusion, and spent most of their time dealing with classroom management and discipline-related issues (Clarke 1999; Saville-Troike 1987). Gillanders (2007) studied one veteran monolingual English-speaking teacher whose methods of developing a trusting relationship, offering consistent and clear routines, incorporating Spanish instructional materials and modeling positive interactions created a social context that provided opportunities for English language development.

With only three studies examining teacher qualifications on second language development, more research is needed. This study is a step in that direction. It is a slice from a much larger ethnographic study of the language practices in a preschool classroom over a two-year period. The larger study described how four representative student cases of preschool-aged second language learners developed their oral production of English through their social interactions with their teachers during spontaneous interactions (Piker 2005). That study found that teacher qualification does affect EL2 learners’ oral language development. The research questions guiding data selection and analysis were: How did four Spanish primary children’s social interactions with their teachers encourage their change in language use? What strategies did the children use to understand the teachers’ English inquiries?

Methodology

Setting and Participants

The classroom is located in a federally funded Head Start center in a Mid-Western section of the United States where more than 90% of the children enrolled produce Spanish as their primary language. The classroom composition included two female classroom teachers and, on average, 17 children (11 girls). The Head Teacher Sue,Footnote 1 a European-American monolingual English speaker, had a Bachelor’s degree, but no previous experience working in a school setting, nor had she taken courses in child development. The assistant teacher Linda is a Mexican-American bilingual speaker. Her educational knowledge evolved from attending six years of Head Start workshops prior to data collection. The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 5 years. Of the 13 children identified as Spanish-Primary, we chose two girls and two boys as our four student cases. Two of the children (Carmen and David) had some experience using English at the beginning of the school year, had older siblings who spoke English, and had been in the program the previous year. The other two children (Rita and Javier) had minimal English experience at the beginning of the school year, and were the eldest children in their families. All four children were expected to enter kindergarten the following academic year.

Procedures and Instruments

Using an ethnographic approach, the first author, who is bilingual—Spanish and English, observed and documented classroom practices twice a week for approximately 3 h a day between October and February, a total of 30 days in the classroom. The authors focused their analysis on the Free Play event. This event promoted spontaneous social interactions among the children and the teachers. The children interacted with their same-language peers, different-language peers, and in a mixed-group of same and different-language peers. The children played either alone, in small groups of two to four (either same- or different-language peers), or as a large group of 7–12.

The data collection strategies used are participant observations and video recording. As a participant observer, the first author participated in all classroom activities, including group times and children’s play, as well as had multiple jobs, including playing with children and preparing tables for lunch. She also participated in conversations where the teachers and other adults discussed classroom practices, curriculum, children and administrative issues. Because three- and four-year-old children play in multiple size groups and use conversational language, video records enhanced the quality and accuracy of field notes and were instrumental to studying and analyzing classroom interactions. The video-camera data was collected on 24 days.

Data Analysis

The data corpus for analysis was selected from the 24 video-recordings of the Free Play event. We selected two days in December, January and February for each child; and 1 day in October for Rita, 1 day in November for Carmen and Javier, and 2 days in November for David. The days chosen for one child at times differed from the days chosen for another child. The length of time any one child was recorded for each Free Play event differed among the children: for Carmen 26–63 min, for David 13 to 57 min, for Rita 10 to 51 min and for Javier 13–65 min.

For the analysis, we proceeded through a series of analytical steps for each child. First, we described each child’s behavior during each Free Play event, which totaled 29 descriptions for all four children. Second, a list of all the English words spoken during each event was developed. Third, using a Grounded Theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998), we coded the descriptions using line-by-line coding. Each description was divided into scenarios, which represented a time period in which the child participated in an activity or activities in one location. For each scenario, three elements were coded. Language Use is the verbal and nonverbal forms of communication being used by the child during the interaction, such as the production of Spanish, English, or a mix of languages. The Participants Involved reference the individuals involved in the interaction, such as a same-language peer, a different-language peer, and a teacher. Finally, the Types of Interactional Moves are terms that described the interactions between the child and the other individual(s), for example playing, requesting to play, arguing, negotiating, and sharing with peer.

Results

As a result of the cross-case comparison, we ascertained that the four Spanish-primary children’s acquisition of English appeared to be influenced in particular ways by their social interactions with their peers and teachers. For this report, we focus on how the classroom teachers’ language use affected the types of opportunities available to the children—either optimal or non-optimal—such that they influenced the children’s English language development. An optimal learning opportunity refers to the social context that includes the motivated EL2 learner and the L2 speaker, who responded in ways that foster further communication. These social interactions prompt the learners’ use and knowledge of English in more complex forms (Wong Fillmore 1982, 1991; Fassler 1998).

Teachers’ Language Use

As the school principal and the program goals stated, the Head Start teachers were to support both the children’s primary language and their English language development. For the case study children, the teachers’ language choice was mostly consistent, such that Sue mostly spoke English and Linda generally spoke Spanish with them. Therefore, it appeared as though each teacher supported one language. However, after closer examination of why and how the teachers interacted with the four children, no evidence emerged of the teachers providing them with optimal circumstances for developing their oral production of English into more complex forms. Nevertheless, we witnessed the teachers supporting the case study children’s comprehension of English in other ways. Two similar patterns emerged from observations of how the teachers’ language choices, when conversing individually with each child or with the children as a group, may have influenced the children’s English language development.

When Addressing a Group of Mixed-Language Children

We noted that Sue and Linda consistently spoke English when addressing a group of children that included a case study child and at least one EP child (David: three instances; Carmen: six instances; Rita: two instances; and Javier: one instance). The teachers appeared to reserve Spanish for translating when necessary. Because their teachers initiated conversation in English, the children may have understood that English was used as the medium of communication between different language individuals. There is research to suggest that students use the language of the curriculum more often within the classroom than another language (Saunders and O’Brien 2006). Thus, the teachers’ actions of speaking English and using Spanish for translations most likely privileged English as the important language of teaching, as well as possibly prompting the children to develop their English comprehension skills so as to follow the teachers, but not their oral language skills. The teachers’ practices encouraged listening to English more than speaking English.

Teachers’ Brief Responses

The second common pattern confirms this interpretation of the teachers’ limited support of the four children’s oral production of English. All together, the children had 27 interactions with Sue and 48 interactions with Linda; most of these dealt with classroom-related issues (17 and 44, respectively), such as instructing the children to clean up or line up, reprimanding the children for breaking a classroom rule, and asking them to put certain things away that were not related to cleaning up an area. Of the 14 instances when the children attempted to share what they made or to relate a family story, the teachers’ brief responses to the children prevented the children from experiencing optimal interactions, which prevented them from developing their oral production of English into more complex forms. The amount of English produced by the children with the teachers was minimal (see Table 1).

Table 1 The children’s English production when communicating with Suea
Full size table

Of their combined 75 interactions with the teachers, the children responded nonverbally 37 times and in Spanish 21 times, speaking English with the teachers less than 1/3 of the time (see Table 2). Because they only spoke briefly for a few instances with the teachers, the children were unable to improve their oral production of English into complex forms. The limited language support from the teachers adversely affects both L1 and L2 language development, and general literacy development.

Table 2 The language used by the children when conversing with Sue and Linda
Full size table

Child’s Ability to Understand the Teachers’ English Inquiries

The students’ readiness to build their comprehension of English, and the teachers’ decision to speak English when addressing groups of mixed-language children and when asking or answering the children’s inquiries regarding classroom-related issues, required the children to possess a certain level of comprehension for responding appropriately, in verbal and nonverbal ways. Because the children responded appropriately to the teachers’ instructions and the teachers accepted their nonverbal responses, the teachers appeared to have no reason to change which language they spoke. Three strategies emerged from the observational data that illustrate the children’s perceived comprehension of English.

The teachers strategically asked the children if they understood English. For example, Linda explicitly sent a message to Javier regarding the importance of understanding English. The first observed instance of Linda scolding Javier occurred when he and Carlos were reprimanded for playing rough and running around the room with Shannon. After Linda stated in English that running was not permitted in the classroom and that they should not be playing rough, she asked Javier and Carlos in English if they understood her. Linda made a point to confirm that the boys understood what she had said in English, suggesting that understanding English was important. Javier responded appropriately thereafter when he was reprimanded in English.

The children appeared to use listening as a strategy for comprehension and interaction. They attended to the teachers and others’ behaviors and conversations even though they might not physically engage or look at them. For example, while Javier sat at the art table playing with play dough, Linda and Sue, who were sitting and standing elsewhere, announced several times in English that the children had to sit at the table and not walk around the room with play dough in their hands, and they also specifically stated these instructions to Brian and Edgar (EP children). Most of the children physically looked in their respective direction when the teachers made the announcements, except for Javier. David, who had been sitting next to Javier, walked over to where the first author sat to show her what he made out of play dough. Javier warned David that he would get in trouble if he left, indicating he had understood the teachers’ instructions.

Lastly, the children used their same-language peers as a resource. The following example demonstrates how Rita turned to her peers to understand how to respond appropriately to Sue’s inquiries. Sue asked a group of mixed-language children in English if anyone had to go to the bathroom. Rita responded appropriately by mimicking the other children and teacher. Similarly, when Sue scolded the children for running, Rita attended to how the other children responded and imitated their actions by also sitting on the carpet. Rita appeared to perceive Sue’s intentions and an appropriate response from watching how the other children responded.

Discussion

Our study confirmed that children’s social interactions with others are seminal for language development. However, mere exposure to a social context with English speakers is not enough to develop the learners’ oral production as was demonstrated with the case study children. Given the current lack of qualified Head Start teachers and barriers to their training (Ackerman 2004), the pairing of the two teachers—one college educated and the other well trained—would appear to be an ideal way of managing the insufficient qualifications of a single teacher (Epstein 1999). Assuming that this type of pairing would have predicted more optimal conditions for children’s learning of English, and the recent lack of evidence that teacher education influences academic outcomes (Early et al. 2007), the cases in this classroom caution against jumping to that conclusion. While the SP children’s English improved, that development had more to do with English used as the curriculum and procedural language of the classroom than with intentional instruction or encouragement. Other evidence in the larger study confirms that the children attended, mimicked, and acted according to how English was understood by their classmates in order to participate appropriately (Piker 2005). The language they understood was more a code of authority and obedience. Although the children did develop their English skills, the question remains—did they learn enough to be successful at more than obedience in English-only kindergarten classrooms? When the teachers were asked this very question at the end of the year, their unilateral response was “we don’t know.”

What we do know from this study is that while the teachers’ may not have supported the children’s oral production, they did provide opportunities to develop English comprehension, or receptive language. However, that comprehension was limited. Language development includes both receptive and expressive abilities that work closely together. As expert English speakers, through their spontaneous interactions during art and table activities, the teachers could have exposed the children to a more extensive English vocabulary and encouraged them to speak English in different ways and across events (Fassler 1998). Fassler (1998) explains how a teacher consciously linked vocabulary from Group Time activity with Table Activities. These connections between activities equipped the kindergarten children learning English as a second language with materials and vocabulary for successfully communicating with other members of the classroom. But the teachers in our study did not. Head teacher Sue’s limited knowledge of child development and lack of experience most likely kept her from understanding what she and Linda could have done to provide a language- and learning-rich environment for the children (Clarke 1999; Gillanders 2007; Saville-Troike 1987). Two alternative explanations may account for the teachers’ limited interactions with their charges. First, the teachers may have taken a Maturationist approach to EL2 development and expected the children would naturally acquire English over time. Second, the nature of Free Play events in this classroom offered few required interactions between the children and the teachers. During this event, the children were allowed to play whenever and with whomever they wished. Had we picked another event, such as Circle Time, we may have found more teacher–child interactions that optimally supported the children’s English language development. However, given the established patterns of interaction observed between the teachers and students during Free Play time, and the limited development of the children’s English over the year, we consider that unlikely.

We posit that even these few cases suggest a number of recommendations for teachers. In light of the evidence that positive social language interactions play an important role in second language development, our main recommendation is that teachers assist English language learners in building social relationships that support and encourage sharing, playing, and spending time with English speakers. Four suggestions for how this may be enacted are suggested by this research. First, teachers could facilitate more optimal circumstances (Wong Fillmore 1982, 1991) that allow the learners to interact with more proficient English speakers, such as themselves and their peers. After observing the classroom play culture and the social relationships that are developing, the teacher can strategically encourage particular students to engage with play groups. Second, teachers could take care to use commonly-spoken language for classroom activity throughout the day. Regularly heard words and phrases for common activities, relationships, and objects—such as “Let’s play here”—provide more opportunities for students to associate language with meaning, and build comprehension and vocabulary. Third, teachers could create contexts within their classrooms that make it possible for learners and English speakers to interact in meaningful ways. Play spaces as well as work spaces that focus interaction in a space or around a table could encourage their engagement in socially invested interactions. Finally, teachers could use the learner’s same-language peers and different-language peers as resources for assisting the learner in participating in classroom activities, responding appropriately to teachers’ inquiries, and providing optimal interactions. Deferring questions to other students whom teachers know can be helpful, asking children to engage in a common activity the teacher knows one child can do, or encouraging perseverance of a joint activity could make use of available social peer resources. We encourage others to use caution when stating teacher preparation and experience is not a significant indicator of student performance for all children.