...:.v.y: . . .

.. .9».

ant:
v 4.

7.6%."

2.4

an

. .-..2...m§

My

 

erg...”

t .
z 3...

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Hand...
3%... .
. a...

 

r
. flgfiufi. z . 2;“? :

34......18W .2.&Nh.\z.n.n.m«e

 

L ' 1'3 v1
. L. ..
. l ‘4.
, A

E
Rh}: 1
.3 35.
:23"; a
an .34: 932... him
. m}; 1.1:
. nu}... ah...

.b
E .3 1......
1.... iii... .y.
.3

 

 

2 5t 9 .3. . . . V .r. 5.. . . . ,...
L .. . ..
5.2. .52. . .. . .. . a. i... #5.

Jr :3. :33!‘ 12;.“

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
AND TEMPERAMENT .

presented by

Toko Oshio

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master's . Child Development
degree in

 

 

L/{/ W I J/

Major professor

 

Date 5’,/'1//0":L

 

0.7639 MSUis an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

[2‘35

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
m if”: WI} ( “o.
. “159.2153“ 701 2 523%
grist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 clelRC/Dateoue.p65~p.15

 

RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND TEMPERAMENT

By

Toko Oshio

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Ecology

2002

 

 

u I - . -ollf
\ (figlnillrfiii.'l‘£!i

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND TEMPERAMENT
By

Toko Oshio

This study investigated the relationship between children’s temperament and
language development. Specifically, the study explored the relationship between
children’s temperament and receptive language development of preschool children.
There were two groups: one included children who spoke English as a first language, and

children who spoke English as a second language.

To my grandfather, Dr. Kajiura who is watching me from the heaven

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First, I would like to appreciate my adviser, Dr. Soderman. In the summer of
1997, I met her in the class for the first time when I was an undergraduate student. Since
then, she has inspired, encouraged, and guided me to where I am now. I am grateful to
Dr. Soderrnan for understanding me and being such a wonderful role model to me.

Second, I cannot stop thanking my committee members, Dr. Luster and Dr.
Whiren. They both have been very accessible, supportive, and offered tremendous help.
I often rushed into their offices with a frown face, but I always left them with a happy
smile after talking to them.

I owe a big “Arigato” to my friend, Yasuo. He has been a super supporter even
though he is in Japan. His emotional support and encouragement have flown over the
Pacific Ocean.

1 would also like to thank my best tomodachi, Julie, Ariana, Orion, and Alan.
They have given me tremendous help, joy, and laugh. I do not know how I could handle
this challenge and keep my sanity without them.

Finally, I would like to thank my family in Japan for believing me that I could
accomplish my goals and letting me be as I am. They are physically far away from me,

but their love is always with me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ....................................................................................... ix
Chapter I
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
Need for the Study ....................................................................................................... 3
The Purpose of Study .................................................................................................. 4
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 5
Conceptual and Operational Definitions ...................................................................... 8
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 10
Assumptions .............................................................................................................. l 1
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 11
Number of Subjects ............................................................................................... 11
Depth of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 11
Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 13
Language Development ............................................................................................. l3
Receptive Vocabulary ............................................................................................ 14
Ecological Factors for Language Development ...................................................... 16
Second Language Acquisition ................................................................................... 17
Ecological Factors for Second Language Acquisition ............................................. 22
Children who Learn English as a Second Language ............................................... 25
Temperament ............................................................................................................. 26
Ecological Factors for Temperament ...................................................................... 30
Summary of Literature Review .................................................................................. 31

Chapter III

Methods ........................................................................................................................ 32
Sample ...................................................................................................................... 32
Research Design ........................................................................................................ 38
Independent and Dependent Variables ....................................................................... 39
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 39
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................... 40

Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey - Child (DOTS-R Child) .................. 4O
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition (PPVT-III) ................................... 42
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................ 43
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 44

Chapter IV

Results .......................................................................................................................... 46
Descriptive Data ........................................................................................................ 46
Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament ................................... 49
Relationships between Demographic Data, Temperament, and Receptive Vocabulary 53
Development ............................................................................................................. 53
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 56
Summary of Data ....................................................................................................... 59

Chapter V

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 62
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 62
Suggestions for Future Research and Practice ............................................................ 65

References ..................................................................................................................... 69

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Demographics of Children who Spoke English as a First or Second Language ......... 33
Table 2

Age of Children ................................................................................... 33
Table 3

Family Demographics by English as a First or Second Language ......................... 34
Table 4

Family Income .................................................................................... 36
Table 5

Parents’ Education Level ........................................................................ 37
Table 6

Parents’ Occupation .............................................................................. 38
Table 7

PPVT and DOTS-R ............................................................................... 48
Table 8

Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament for Children Who Spoke
English as aFirst Language...... .............. 51
Table 9

Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament for Children Who Spoke
English as a Second Language .................................................................. 53
Table 10

PPVT Score and Family Income ................................................................ 55
Table 11

PPVT Score and Father’s Occupation .......................................................... 55
Table 12

Correlations between PPVT and DOTS-R for Children Who Spoke English as a First
Language ............................................................................................ 57
Table 13

Regression Model Predicting PPVT ............................................................. 58

vii

Table 14

Beta Coefficients of Variables Influencing PPVT .............................................. 58
Table 15

Correlations between PPVT and DOTS-R for Children Who Spoke English as a Second
Language ............................................................................................. 59

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1
The Ecology of Temperament and Receptive Language Development ....................... 7

ix

Chapter I
Introduction

All children, no matter what language they speak, acquire language skills by
interacting with pe0ple in their environment. Language development has been studied
by many researchers from various disciplines such as child development,
neuropsychology, linguistics, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and anthropology.
HOE-Ginsberg (1997) identified two reasons for studying language development, “One
reason is its potential value to basic research into the nature of the human mind. A
second is its potential value to applied questions about treating language disorders, about
designing education for young children, and about teaching second language to those
who want or need to learn them” (p.4).

Recent increased understanding of temperament has established new ways to
support children. The programs utilizing the construct of temperament have been
provided in classrooms, pediatric practices, mental health clinics, and various settings for
children with special needs (Chess & Thomas, 1996). Many findings about
temperament allow parents and professionals to appreciate the ways in which children
differ from each other and the positive contributions of this variability to their

environments. Reviewing studies regarding temperament, Chess and Thomas (1996)
1

pointed out four implications of the significant findings about temperament: 1) a
temperamental component has been elaborated in parent education programs provided by
professionals such as health workers and child care providers; 2) the applications of
temperament within the health care and the school setting, and to the children with
special needs have become more frequent; 3) there have been increased investigations
about the biological basis of temperament, cultural factors, and the ramifications of
expanded and modified concepts of temperament and goodness of fit; and 4) the
applications of temperament have necessitated an examination of the need for revision of
traditional and limited methods of clinical practice.
Statement of the Problem

There is a universal continuum of language development (Kostelnik, Soderman,
& Whiren, 1999). Despite the overall regularity of language acquisition, there are a
number of sociocultural and psychological influences that impact language development
in varying degrees. It is clear that positive precursors to language development are not
evenly distributed across all children because there are a variety of factors in their
families or contexts that either enrich or inhibit their language development (Soderman,
Gregory, & O‘Neill, 1999). These factors include socioeconomic status, gender, home

language environment, and parenting style.

‘ Achieving developmental milestones of language development has been found
to be a predictor of positive outcomes for children. Language skills have been
frequently used by professionals to investigate intelligence, competence, and desirable
outcomes. Specifically, positive factors include strong receptive and expressive
vocabulary (Soderman, Gregory, & O’Neill, 1999).

Concurrently, there has been an interest in investigating children who speak
English as a second language. In 2000, the US. Census Bureau reported that there are
approximately 9.7 million children, 5 to 17, who speak a language other than English in
their home. In comparison, it was estimated that there are 43 million children who
spoke only English at home. Therefore, approximately 18 percent of children who are 5
to 17 years old learn English as a second language in the US.
Need for the Study

The developmental continuum and various factors that influence language skills
are well documented (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1997). The review by McLaughlin, Gesi, and
Osanai (1995) found relationships between second language acquisition and
environmental factors such as primary language, parenting style, socioeconomic status,
and gender. Furthermore, studies have investigated the relationship between second

language acquisition and the socio-emotional development for children (Spomer &
3

Cowen, 2001). However, to the best of my knowledge, the relationship between
temperament and language development has not been investigated.

Even though there are many investigations regarding factors contributing to first
or second language development, little is known about the relationship between
temperament and first or second language acquisition. Ellis, Fotos, He, Heimbach, and
Takashima (2000) emphasize the necessity of investigating the relationship between
personality and second language learning so that there can be more effective methods to
support the increasing population who speak English as a second language. For instance,
it has not yet been investigated whether active children acquire more vocabulary because
they interact with others more or whether children who have high adaptability learn
language more quickly than children who have lower levels of adaptability.

Furthermore, it has not yet been studied if there is any difference between first language
acquisition and second language acquisition relating to temperament styles.
The Purpose of Study

This study was designed to investigate the relationship between children’s
temperament and language development. Specifically, the study explored me
relationship between children’s temperament Lnd receptive la_ngtiage development.

There were two groups: one included children who spoke English as a first language, and
4

a: second groupincluded children who spoke English as a second language.

Conceptual Framework

For this study, two theories were utilized in order to investigate the relationship

between language acquisition and child temperament. One is a human ecology theory

and the other is the interactionist theory of language development.

Human ecology theory postulates that the quality of life of human beings and the

quality of their environments are interdependent (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Furthermore,

the well-being of each individual and family cannot be considered in isolation from the

well-being of the whole ecosystem. In other words, each individual is not seen as its

own entity, but an integral part of a system interacting within an environment.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory explains that a child develops within a complex

system which is influenced by multiple levels of surrounding environments (1979).

Bronfenbrenner (1979) conceptualizes four ecological environments which are all

interactive. The relationship and the impact of each of these contexts influence

development. Time, proximity, and prior interactions all impact current and future

interactions.

Regarding language development, Tomasello (1995) postulates that “languages

are cultural artifacts that differ radically among different cultures, and languages change
5

in important ways as the communicative needs of their speakers evolve over time” (pp.
152). Historically, there have been two major perspectives regarding language
development: social learning theory and nativism. Over the years, many studies have
concluded that, in fact, both theories are crucial to understanding language development,
and thus the interactionist theory was created. The interactionist theory postulates that
language is a means of communication that is utilized in the context of social interactions
as individuals strive to transmit their messages from one to another. Therefore,
language development results from a complex interaction between biological maturation,
cognitive development, and a linguistic environment which is significantly influenced by
the child’s desire to communicate with peers (Tomasello, 1995).

This juxtaposition of these theories supports the study of the relationship
between language acquisition and children’s temperament. From the interactionist
theory, a child develops language skills which are influenced by nature, biological
maturation, and interactions with environments. Moreover, the ecological environment
plays a crucial role in a child’s temperament. Thomas and Chess (1977) state that
temperament is considered to be the stylistic component of behavior, that is, how an
organism does whatever it does. The impact of temperament lies in whether a particular

individual’s repertoire provides a goodness of fit with the characteristics of a specific
6

environment (Windle, 1989). Based on the theoretical framework, the conceptual model
for this study is illustrated in Figure 1. Children’s temperament and receptive language
development influence each other in their ecology. Children’s experiences have mutual
relationships with temperament and receptive language development, and heredity impact
children’s temperament and receptive language development.

Figure l

The Ecology of Temperament and Receptive Language Development

 

Experiences

 

 

 

 

Temperament ‘ > Receptive Language Development

 

 

 

Heredity

 

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

The following conceptual and operational definitions are relevant throughout

 

 

 

this study:

Term Conceptual Definition Operational Definition
Receptive Receptive vocabulary is the Receptive vocabulary is
Vocabulary comprehension of words used by defined as the child’s score

children and adults when listening on Peabody Picture
to other’s speech (Hoff-Ginsberg, Vocabulary Test Third
1997). Edition (Dunn & Dunn,
1997)
Temperament Temperament is the characteristic Temperament is defined as

 

 

behavioral styles that individuals
manifest in behavioral patterns
(Windle & Lerner, 1986).

These patterns include:

Activity, the current motor
component in a given child’s
fimctioning and the diurnal
proportion of active and inactive
periods;

Rhythmicity, the
regularity/irregularity of
biological functioning;

Approach-Withdrawal, the
characteristic response patterns to

new persons, situations, or events;

 

the child’s score on the
Revised Dimensions of
Temperament Survey
(Windle & Lerner, 1986).

Activity is defined as
the child’s score on 11
questions in the DOTS-R.

Rhythmicity is defined
as the child’s score on 16
questions in the DOTS-R.

Approach- Withdrawal
is defined as the child’s

score on 7 questions in the
DOTS-R.

 

 

 

Flexibility-Rigidity, the
stylistic pattern of adjustment to

one’s environment;

Mood, the contrast of the
amount of pleasant, joyful, and
friendly behavior with unpleasant
and unfriendly behavior;

Attention
Span-Distractibility, the
combination of persistence that is
the continuation of an activity in
the face of obstacles to the
maintenance of the activity
directions and distractibility that is
the effectiveness of extraneous
environmental stimuli in
interfering with or in altering the
direction of the ongoing behavior.

Flexibility-Rigidity is
defined as the child’s score

on 5 questions in the
DOTS-R.

Mood is defined as the
child’s score on 7 questions
in the DOTS-R.

Attention
Span-Distractibility is
defined as the child’s score
on 8 questions in the
DOTS-R.

 

Language
Acquisition

Language acquisition is a learning
process in which children are
involved when they develop first
language skills and which occurs
in the context of social
interactions within their
environment (Tabors, 1997).

Language acquisition is the
level of receptive vocabulary
for children who speak
English as a first language,
as measured by the PPVT-III
in this study.

 

 

Second Language
Acquisition

 

Second language acquisition is a
learning process in which children
are involved when they develop
language skills in a first language
as well as in a second language
(Tabors, 1997).

 

Second language acquisition
is the level of receptive
vocabulary for children who
speak English as a second
language, as measured by
the PPVT-III in this study.

 

 

 

ESL Children Children who learn English as a
second language are those who
speak a language other than
English as their first language
(Grant, 1995).

 

 

 

Children who lean English
as a second language are
identified by demographic
information obtained for
Child Development
Laboratories Database.

 

Research Questions

The overall research question is whether there is a relationship between

temperament and children’s receptive vocabulary. There are four specific research

questions for this study:

Question 1: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive

vocabulary development for children who speak English as a first

language?

Question 2: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive

vocabulary development for children who speak English as a second

language?

Question 3: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate with the

receptive vocabulary development of children who speak English as a

first language?

Question 4: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate with the

receptive vocabulary development for children who speak English as a

10

 

second language?

Assumptions

The assumptions on which this study is based are:
1. Children learn the majority of their language skills within the first five years of their

lives.

2. Receptive vocabulary development is a part of language development.
3. Children learn language skills through interactions with others in their environment.
4. Receptive vocabulary is necessary for speaking and written language.
5. DOTS-R measures temperament.
6. PPVT-III measures receptive vocabulary.
Limitations

The following are limitations in this study:

Number of Subjects

The number of children participated in this study is considered as a major
imitation of this study. Every effort was made to secure at least 30 subjects for each
group, i.e.; children who speak English as a first language, and children who speak
English as a second language. Parental consent forms for the CDL-DB were distributed

to every family that attended to the CDLs in January 2002. The research project team
11

 

collected parental consent forms through the head teachers.

Depth of the Study

This study investigated the relationship between temperament and only receptive
language, and did not explore the relationship between temperament and expressive
language. Furthermore, this study did not examine possible factors at other levels of the
ecological system that may have influenced the receptive vocabulary of the children

studied.

12

Chapter [I
Literature Review

The literature relevant to the various factors of this study is reviewed under the
following headings: language development; second language acquisition; and
temperament.
gaguage Development

Kostelnik, Soderman, and Whiren (1999) note that all children follow a six-step
sequence in language development, no matter which language the children acquire.
Language develops following a universal continuum. From birth, infants are sensitive
to what they listen to and hear in their environment. They pay attention closely to
human speech, including changes in sound, rhythm, and intonation. Next, cooing and
babbling happen by 3 to 4 months. Differentiating between speech and nonspeech
noises, children begin playing and experimenting with speech sounds. On average, an
infant will have eight to twelve words within the first 16 months of life (Hoff-Ginsberg,
1997)

After exploring and practicing sounds, children start to use sentences of two
words as telegraphic speech. This is usually utilized to describe actions, possessions, or

locations. Vocabulary increases to 15 to 20 words by 18 months of age for most
13

toddlers. It again doubles to 50 words when the child is approximately 2 years old. By
the age of three, children will have acquired 300 to 1,000 words (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1997),
and have been exposed to as many as 6,000 and 20,000 words in their environment
(Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 1999). Furthermore, an average first grader utilizes
more than 14,000 words (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1997).

Although all children seem to follow the same steps in their language
development, there are some factors that may influence their language development.
Soderman, Gregory, and O’Neill (1999) note that one of the explanations can be found in
recent brain research. Connecting neurons from one part of the brain to another area is
required for reading. When these phenomena do not happen in the brain for some
reasons, the children would have difficulties in reading.

Receptive Vocabulary

Soderman, Gregory, and O’Neil (1999) define phonological awareness as
knowledge of the sounds in speech. They emphasize that phonological awareness is a
necessary skill that makes a significant impact on language development. Furthermore,
they suggest that there have been correlations between early phonological awareness and
later positive outcomes in the emerging literacy of young children. Following the

prelinguistic period where they are exposed to primary speech sounds, children start
14

producing their first words at the approximate age of twelve months (Hoff-Ginsberg,
1997). Hoff-Ginsberg, however, emphasizs that the appearance of a child’s first word is
not a major milestone for language development. Instead, she highlighted that the most
important developmental milestone in phonological awareness comes when a child has
acquired approximately 50 words. Reaching this point, children seem to achieve a new
understanding of the phonology in their language that sets them on the pathways toward
adult competence (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1997).

In their very first words, children do not seem to have a system for representing
each sound in their language. Hoff-Ginsberg (1997) describes this period as
prerepresentational phonology. It has been documented that the sounds most common
in children’s babble are also most common in their early vocabulary. This period
develops into representational phonology when children have acquired approximately 50
words. At this point, children say most one- and two-syllable words after hearing them
only a few times. Children then begin to establish a phonological system and
significantly increase the number of words that they have stored in memory.

Although there have been many investigations regarding receptive vocabulary in
infants, little is known about receptive vocabulary of young children (Hoff-Ginsberg,

1997). Discussing the relationship between receptive and expressive vocabulary,
15

Hoff-Ginsberg (1997) posits that the order in which particular sound speech appears in
children’s language production is influenced by the speech sounds within the meaningful
units in children’s environments. Therefore, receptive language is always more
advanced than expressive language.

Ecological Factors for Lzmguage Development

There found to be a difference in the brain growth between genders. It is noted
that young males can be behind females in their cognitive development from six to
eighteen months (Soderman, Gregory, & O’Neill, 1999). They also describe that boys
have been shown to be at greater risk for language disorders, and they are three to five
times more likely to have reading and spelling difficulties, oral language problems,
attention-concentration deficiencies, directional confusion, memory sequencing problems,
and deficiency in ability to retrieve linguistic representations.

Reviewing the literature regarding language acquisition, Page and Ramirez
(1986) discuss the several factors in at a child’s home environment that influence
language acquisition. They explain that mother’s speech has been found to be a
significant factor in the development of language skills in children. It was found that
children whose language acquisition was accelerated had mothers with speech patterns

that reflected more expansions, expansions-like expressions, partial repetitions and
16

extensions of children’s preceding speech. Furthermore, the influence of home
characteristics such as socio-economic status, parents’ education levels, and affectionate
environment on children’s language skills and academic achievement was reported
(Soderman, Gregory, & O’Neill, 1999).
Second Language Acquisition

There are diverse ways in which children are exposed to a second language
environment. Some children may have parents who speak two different languages as
their first language. Other children might come to the US. from a country where
English is not spoken. As a result, there are children who develop two or more varied
language skills simultaneously or sequentially from their early years. Tabors (1997)
defines that second language acquisition is a learning process in which children are
involved when they develop their first language skills as well as second language skills.

According to McLaughlin, Gesi, and Osanai (1995), there are four types of
conditions of language exposure and use by bilingual children in the US. Type 1 is a
group of children who are simultaneously developing both languages equally or nearly
equally as they are exposed to both language environments. Type 2 represents children
who have had high exposure to a second language in their environment, but have rarely

used the language. Type 3 children have had little exposure to English beforehand, but
17

they start use English as much as possible and acquire the skills quickly. Finally, type 4
children have few opportunities to use English or consciously decide not to use English in
their lives.

There is a controversy over the definition of simultaneous acquisition and
sequential acquisition. Since children develop a number of language skills within their
first three years, McLaughlin, Gesi, and Osanai (1995) suggest that children should be
considered to learn two languages simultaneously if the second language is introduced
before age three. If a child starts learning a second language after the age of three, a
child engages in a sequential acquisition of second language. In contrast, Tabors (1997)
believes that simultaneous acquisition can only occur if the child from birth is exposed to
both languages. She considers all other language acquisition to be sequential.

It can be assumed that two languages proceed equally if a child develops two
languages at the same time, and if those languages skills are learned equally during
childhood. However, some studies have found several distinguishing aspects that make
second language acquisition unique and different from first language acquisition (Barona,
1986; Tabors, 1997). First of all, second language learners have some prior knowledge
about how language works in their environment and its use. For those children, the

second language acquisition is not a process of exploring what language is but rather a
18

method of communication. Second language acquisition can also take place at any age.

However, first language acquisition should begin at birth. Acquiring a first language

skill is a relatively unproblematic process for typical healthy children. However, second

language acquisition may be more challenging relating to each child’s individual talents,

willingness to takes risks, and motivation (Tabors, 1997).

Currently, most scholars believe that the stages of development of second

language are the same as the stages for monolingual speakers if the child acquires two

languages simultaneously (McLaughlin, Gesi, and Osanai, 1995). Goodz (1994)

reported that bilingual children demonstrated no significant delay or retardation in their

language development. In contrast, Bialystok (1988) argued that bilingual children had

lower vocabulary scores than monolingual children. Moreover, some studies found that

children who are learning two languages simultaneously make unequal progress in the

languages. McLaughlin, Gesi, and Osanai (1995) described that each language’s

fluency is varied over time. There seems to be no simple relationship between a child’s

proficiency in each language and the amount of time spent with each language.

Tabors (1997) describes a four stage developmental sequence of second

language acquisition for young children who are learning a second language sequentially.

At first, children begin with a period of time when they continue to use their native
19

languages in the second language setting. Then, they realize that their native language
does not seem to work in the current setting. As a result, children begin a nonverbal
period of collecting information about the new language, and probably spending time in
sound experimentation. As they gain information and increased comfort in the new
language, children begin to use individual words and phrases in the new language with
others. Finally children develop productive use of the second language.

When young children become aware that they are in a setting where a different
language is spoken, they have to make a choice: they can keep speaking their home
language or they stop talking. In Tabors’s (1997) study, most children were quickly
convinced by unsuccessful attempts to use their home language in the classroom and
discontinued to speak the home language in the classroom. Saville-Troike (1987)
observed a considerably longer period of home language use. A number of researchers
have observed that children who develop second language acquisition enter a period of
silence (Hakuta, 1978; Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Tabors, 1997). This mute or silent period
seems to be a consistent feature of many young children’s experience in second language
acquisition.

Even though children stop talking, this does not necessarily mean that they stop

communicating. Tabors (1997) found the use of nonverbal strategies by the second
20

language learners in her study was most common during the first few months in the
second language environment when they needed to get attention, to request, to protest,
and to joke. While the children are nonverbal, they utilize nonverbal communication
tools as well as collect information about the new language. Tabors (1997) identifies
two strategies of gathering data: spectating and rehearsing. Children who learn a second
language actively observe when they are with English speakers and focus on the usage of
language. Furthermore, the second language learners work on producing English,
although their verbalization does not appear to be communicative. Children are likely to
rehearse extremely quietly as they play near English speakers. Saville-Troike (1988)
notes that much of rehearsing vocalizations is done at a low volume so that even those
near the children could not hear them in her study with directional microphones to
capture and record their vocalizations. In order to proceed to the next step of speaking a
second language, children collect sufficient information and experiment with sounds so
that they can feel comfortable and competent in the new environment.

When second language learners begin to use their new language, Tabors ( 1997)
found two consistent features that children use: telegraphic speech and formulaic speech.
Telegraphic speech refers to the use of few content words as an entire utterance. This

type of speech is a typical feature of language development of a first language.
21

Furthermore, the use of formulaic speech has been documented. The words and phrases
such as yes, no, hi, bye-bye, excuse me, and I don 2 know are used by the second language
learners frequently. The high-utility language is extremely helpful for children when
they get into and out of social interactions in the classroom (Tabors, 1997). Wong
Fillmore (1979) found that second language learning children use unanalyzed formulaic
phrases in many situations. These formulas often help children to get into the play
frame and send their message across with a limited language skill.

Once children who learn a second language gain a number of vocabulary items
and useful phrases to communicate, they start the process of productive language use
(Tabors, 1997). This means that children can begin building their own sentences.

While they go through this stage, children have to make guesses about how the language
is constructed. They utilize everything they already understand about the second
language, and acquire more complicated aspects of the second language by making many
mistakes and being gently corrected.

Ecological Factors for Second Langu_age Acquisition

Tabors (1997) identifies definite individual differences in how children approach
the developmental pathways of second language acquisition, and how quickly they

proceed toward second language acquisition. Wong Fillmore (1979) concluded that
22

individual differences are found among the second language learners and these

differences are related to the interaction of cognitive and social factors. Tabors (1997)

posits that there are at least four factors that determine or influence the individual

difference of second language acquisition: motivation, exposure, age, and personality.

In order to acquire a second language, young children must have a desire to learn

a second language. If the family plans to stay in the United States for only a short time

period, children may not feel the necessity of learning English as a second language.

On the other hand, if the family immigrated to this country and has no plan to go back to

their home country, children have to learn English. In addition, if the child wants to

communicate with people who speak the second language, they are more apt to do so.

Therefore, the children have to be sufficiently motivated to start learning a new language

(Tabors, 1997).

Prior exposure to the second language and the quantity of exposure to that

environment can be another factor. If a child enters the second language environment

with prior knowledge, this may affect how quickly this child can start to pursue the

second language in the new setting. The amount of time spent in contact with the new

language is also important for the speed with which a child may acquire the language.

Age may play a crucial role in how a child approaches second language learning.
23

Young children are at an advantage in second language learning because the cognitive

demand of what they must learn is quite low. However, younger children are also at a

disadvantage because their cognitive capacity to absorb information is not great.

Personality also plays an important part in the way an individual child

approaches the second language learning. Saville-Troike (1988) found that six out of

nine children entered a nonverbal period during which five of them used private speech

as a means of mobilizing information about the new language. Those five children who

used private speech were characterized as inner directed and more reflective in their

general learning style. Wong Fillmore (1979) describes children who had greater

fluency of English were less anxious with communication and quite uninhibited in

speaking the new language.

Barona (1986) maintains that parents are particularly influential in the area of

second language learning as their attitudes toward the target language and culture will

either facilitate or inhibit their child’s leaning. Furthermore, Banora (1986) emphasizes

that children’s attitudes toward language learning are shaped by the community in which

they live, and the effects of community or cultural group attitudes have to be considered

as important factors for second language acquisition. He notes that factors such as

group cohesiveness, cultural similarity, self-concept, and attitude influence social
24

distance between a child and the environment and inevitably determine the rate of second
language acquisition.

Children who Learn English ja§_a Second Languagg

There is a sharp increase in the number of children who learn English as a
second language due to the increase of immigrants, foreign workers, and international
students and scholars. This trend has made a significant impact on educational settings,
and communities in the United States. According to Tabors (1997), 91 percent of Head
Start programs reported an increase in at least one cultural or linguistic group during the
previous 5 years. Tabor also found that 23.9 percent of Head Start children had a first
language other than English.

Bilingualism and second language learning have received great attention from
families and professionals. There have been mixed findings regarding second language
acquisition’s benefits and influences on child development. Some parents and educators
are concerned about the possibility of language confusion when children are exposed to
two languages from an early age. Learning English as a second language could be a risk
factor for children, their families, and communities due to the loss of their primary
language (Wong Fillmore, 1991). However, recent studies support the benefits of

second language acquisition, and encourage that every child should have the opportunity
25

to being exposed to two or more languages as long as the home language is preserved
(Toppelberg, Snow, & Tiger-Flushberg, 1999).

Diaz (1985) reports that full bilingualism is associated with a variety of
cognitive advantages for the children who demonstrate age appropriate developmental
milestones. Hakuta (1986) discusses that the process of acquiring two languages from a
very early age is beneficial for children’s cognitive and social development. Spomer
and Cowen (2001) compared children’s referral to school mental services of those who
speak only English to those who learn English as a second language. They found that
teachers’ ratings of second language learners were characterized by fewer acting-out
behaviors, more internalized problems, and more learning problems than children who
speak only English. Additionally, second language learners showed greater frustration
tolerance.

Temperament

“Temperament may best viewed as a general term referring to the how of
behavior. It differed from ability, which is concerned with the what and how well of
behaving, and from motivations, which accounts for why a person does what he or she is
doing” (Chess & Thomas, 1996, p.32). Temperament is both a behavioral style, and a

characteristic way that each individual experiences and responds to internal and external
26

environment. It does not address what and how well the individual can perform a task

or behave, but it simply is how an individual performs the behavior. Furthermore,

temperament is a phenomenological term and does not have other implications. It is

influenced by environmental factors in its expression and even in its nature as

development proceeds (Thomas & Chess, 1977).

Thomas and Chess (1977; 1986; and 1996) identified nine categories of

temperament through their New York Longitudinal Study. These categories are 1)

activity level, 2) rhythmcity also known as regularity, 3) approach or withdrawal, 4)

adaptability, 5) threshold of responsiveness, 6) intensity of reaction, 7) quality of mood,

8) distractibility, and 9) attention span. Activity level represents the motor component

in a child’s behavior and the diurnal proportions of active and inactive periods.

Rhythmicity or regularity refers the predictability and unpredictability of any behaviors.

It is analyzed in relation to physical routines such as sleep-wake cycle, feeding pattern,

and elimination schedule. Approach or withdrawal means the initial response to a new

stimulus such as a new toy, a new person, or a new food. Approach is considered to be

a positive responses and withdrawal as negative reactions which are displayed by mood

expression or motor activity. Adaptability is a response to new situations and changes.

It is concerned with the nature of the initial response rather than the ease with which they
27

are modified in a desired direction. Threshold of responsiveness means the intensity
level of stimulation that is necessary to generate a response. Intensity of reaction is the
energy level of response, irrespective of its quality of direction. Quality of mood is
defined as the amount of pleasant, joyful, and friendly behavior, contras to unpleasant,
crying, and unfriendly behavior. Distractibility is the effectiveness of extraneous
environmental stimuli interfering with or altering the direction of the ongoing behavior.
Attention span and persistence consists of two categories. Attention span means the
duration of a particular child’s activity. Persistence refers the continuation of an activity
in the face of obstacles to the maintenance of the activity direction.

Thomas and Chess (1977; 1986; and 1996) created three particular combinations
of behavioral characteristics, which they named constellations. These constellations
were not new categories beyond the nine categories explained above, but clusters of
functionally significant behaviors. The first constellation is characterized by regularity,
positive approach response to new stimuli, high adaptability to new situations, and mild
or moderately intense mood that is predominately positive. This type of child is termed
easy child. Thomas and Chess (1977) found that easy children represented about 40
percent of their New York Longitudinal Study’s samples. The second constellation is

characterized by children with negative withdrawal responses to new stimulus, no
28

adaptability to new change, and intense mood expression that is frequently negative.
This type of child was called the diflicult child, which constituted 10 percent of the
children sampled. The third constellation is marked by a combination of negative
responses of mild intensity to new stimuli with slow adaptability after repeated contact.
Thomas and Chess call this type of child slow-to-warm-up. The slow-to warm-up
children represented about 15 percent of the samples.

To describe the interactions between individuals who exhibit these constellations,
Thomas and Chess (1977) created the concept of the “goodness of fit.” This concept
has been used to characterize the kinds of relationships between child temperament and
environmental factors. Chess and Thomas (1996) state that the “Goodness of fit results
when the organism’s capacities, motivations, and style of behavior and the environmental
demands and expectations such as parents temperament and teacher’s teaching style are
in accord” (p.52). The relationship between child temperament and environmental
characteristics has a major impact on parent child interaction. Thomas and Chess state
that, “the concept of goodness of fit has led the development of prevention, early
intervention, and treatment methods for children with problems through the process of

parent guidance “ (p. 62).

Many scholars have concluded that behavioral problems may not be due to an
29

abnormal behavior style but can be a result of a “poor fit” or incompatible association
between child’s temperament and environment. Thomas and Chess (1977) found that
some of their difficult children developed behavioral problems primarily when their
parents had been unable to moderate their children’s behavior because of stressed
relationship and conflicts between child’s and parents’ temperaments.

Ecological Factors for Temperament

Keogh (1989) found the temperamental traits most significant for problems in
school performance were low task orientation, low flexibility, negative mood, and high
activity. Furthermore, Carey (1998) investigated the relationship between the diagnosis
of ADHD and temperament. He reports that some children with ADHD could result
from a “poor fit” between their temperaments and environmental factors instead of
disorders. As a result, Carey (1998) warns that the popularity of ADHD diagnosis may
happen at the expense of appropriate recognition of normal temperament differences.

Lerner, Lerner, and Zabaki (1985) conducted the assessment of general academic
achievement, specific reading achievement, and temperament for elementary school
children. They found that there is a significant relationship between a child’s academic
performance and temperament. Moreover, Nelson, Martin, Hodge, Havill, and

Kamphaus (1999) found that difficult children have indications of problems later in
30

school such as high negativity, low scores, and poor adaptability.

SummaryLof Literature Review

Many studies have been conducted to investigate how environmental factors

influence a child’s language development. However, very little is known about the

relationship between a child’s temperament and language development. Although

Tabors (1997) suggests that personality may impact on second language acquisition, there

has been no investigation conducted to identify how each individual behavioral

characteristics influences second language acquisition. Griffiths (1991) notes that

personality had largely been ignored as a variable in language acquisition. An increased

awareness between the relationship of temperament and language acquisition will be a

valuable contribution to the study of teaching English as a first or second language and

second language acquisition.

3]

Chapter III
Methods

Chapter III will discuss the methodological procedures utilized in this study.
The areas presented here are Sample, Research Design, Independent and Dependent
Variables, Research Questions, Instrumentation, Data Collection Procedures, and Data
Analysis.
Sam le

The subjects of this study came from the classes in the Child Development
Laboratories at Michigan State University. This study utilized a part of the data that had
been collected for the CDL-DB since January 2002. The subjects were preschool
children between thirty months and sixty months old who came to a half-day program
four days per week.

The total number of participants for this study was eighty-two, which included
41 females and 41 males. Of those, 60 children spoke English as a first language, and
16 children spoke English as a second language. The mean age was approximately four
years and two months old (Mean=48. 15 months, SD= 8.68). Table 1 presents the
frequency of gender and first or second language learner, and Table 2 presents the

descriptive data on age.
32

Table 1

Demographics of Children who Spoke English as a First or Second Language

 

 

 

 

 

n %
Female
English as a first language learner 27 35.5%
English as a second language learner 12 15.8%
Male
English as a first language learner 33 43.4%
English as a second language learner 4 5.3%
Total 76 100.0%
Table 2
Age of Children
N Mean Std. Deviation
Age 82 48.15 8.68

 

The CDL-DB contains demographic information on the children investigated.

This study utilized demographic variables including race/ethnicity of children, language

spoken at home, the number of siblings and adults at home, family income, mother’s

education and occupation, and father’s education and occupation. The majority of the

children are White (N=55, 72.4%), and the second largest group is Korean (N=9, 11.8%).

There are sixty children (78.9%) who spoke English at home and nine children (11.8%)

33

who spoke Korean at home. Approximately fifiy one percent of the children have only
one sibling, and approximately twenty one percent of the children have no siblings. The
largest group of children had younger siblings (N=39, 47.6%). The children are
predominantly living with two adults (N=70, 85.4%). Table 3 presents the frequency of
race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, the number of siblings, the number of younger
siblings, and the number of adults living with them.

Table 3

Family Demographics by English as a First or Second Language

 

n %

English as a first language learner (N=60)

 

Language spoken at home

English 60 100.0%
The number of siblings

None 10 16.7%

1 ‘ 30 50.0%

2 14 23.3%

3 or more 6 10.0%
The number of younger siblings

None 26 43.3%

1 f 31 51.7%

2 3 5.0%
The number of adults at home

2 56 94.9%

3 3 5.1%

 

34

Table 3 (cont’d)

English as a second language learner (N=l6)

 

Language spoken at home

Korean 9 56.3%

Chinese 4 25.0%

Other 3 18.7%
The number of siblings

None 6 37.5%

1 9 56.3%

2 1 6.3%
The number of younger siblings

None 11 68.6%

1 5 31.3%
The number of adults at home

2 14 87.5%

4 2 12.5%

 

3S

The median family income level is $75,000 — 84,999, and the mode is
above $95,000.
Table 4

Family Income (N= 72)

 

 

Family Income n %
Above $95,000 27 37.5%
$85,000-$94,999 2 2.8%
$75,000-$84,999 9 12.5%
$65,000-$74,999 6 8.3%
$55,000-S64,999 6 8.3%
$45,000-$54,999 5 6.9%
$35,000-$44,999 1 1.4%
$25,000-$34,999 4 5.6%
$15,000-$24,999 7 9.7%
Less than $14,999 5 6.9%

 

Approximately 99 percent of mothers (N=75) have at least some college
education or higher, and nearly half of mothers have a professional or graduate degree
(N=35, 42.7%). All fathers (N=76, 100%) have at least some college education or
higher, and 52.4 percent of them (N=43) have a professional or graduate degree. Table

5 presents the frequency of educational level.

36

Table 5

Parents’ Education Level (Mother N=77 & Father N= 76)

 

 

Educational Level n %
Mother 35 46.1%
Professional / Graduate Degree
Father 43 56.6%
Mother 36 47.4%
College or Technical School Degree
Father 25 32.9%
Mother 4 5.3%
Some College or Technical School
Father 8 10.5%
Mother 1 1.2%
High School
Father 0 -

 

The highest frequency of mother’s occupation is homemaker (N=37, 45.1%).
Almost half of fathers’ occupation is corporate manager, executive, professor, or highly

skilled professional (N=3 7, 45.1%). Table 6 presents the frequency of occupations.

37

Table 6

Parents’ Occupation (Mother N=75 & Father N=70)

 

 

Occupation n %
Corporate Manager, Executive, Professor, or Mother 13 17.3%
High Skilled Professional Father 37 52.9%
Mother 15 20.0%
Middle Manager, Other Professional
Father 20 28.6%
Mother 7 9.3%
Public School or Junior College Teacher
Father 7 10.0%
Factory, General Sales, Service, or Mother 3 4.0%
Office Work Father 1 1.4%
Mother 0%
Graduate Student
Father 5 7.1%
Mother 37 49.4%
Homemaker
Father 0 0%

 

Research Design

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between temperament

and language development measured by the receptive vocabulary of children between 30

- months and sixty months old in the Child Development Laboratories at Michigan State

University. The study was non-experimental. This exploratory study was a secondary

data analysis and utilized the data that had been collected for the Child Development

Laboratories Database (CDL-DB).

38

Independent and Dependent Variables

This study includes an independent variable and a dependent variable.

Independent Variable: Speaking English as a first or second language.

Temperament including seven dimensions: Activity

Level—General; Activity Level—Sleep; Approach—Withdrawal;

Flexibility—Rigidity; Attention Span-Distractibility; Mood; and

Rhythmicity.

Dependent Variable: Receptive vocabulary of children

Research Questions

The overall research question is whether there is a relationship between

temperament and children’s receptive vocabulary. There are four specific research

questions for this study:

Question 1: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive

vocabulary development for children who speak English as a first

language?

Question 2: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive

vocabulary development for children who speak English as a second

language?
39

Question 3: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate With the
receptive vocabulary development of children who speak English as a
first language?

Question 4: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate with the
receptive vocabulary development for children who speak English as a
second language?

Instrumentation

Two instruments were utilized in this study to assess the temperament and the
receptive vocabulary development of children: The DOTS-R: Revised Dimensions of

Temperament Survey - Child (Windle & Lerner, 1986) and PPVT-III: Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test Third Edition (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). The CDL-DB modified the

response scale of DOTS-R from a four-point Likert scale to a five-point Likert scale.

Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey - Child (DOTS-R Child)
The DOTS-R was developed by Richard M. Lerner and Michael Windle in 1986.

This is a revised version of an earlier measurement, the DOTS, which was developed in

1982 by Richard M. Lerner, Marian Palermo, Avron Spiro, and John R. Nesserlroade.

The DOTS-R was created because researchers believed that several characteristics of the

DOTS restricted the predictive utility of the measure (Windle & Lerner, 1986). The
40

instrument includes 54 questions, and measures several of the more salient dimensions of
temperament which are consistent with the nine characteristics of temperament identified
by Thomas and Chess in 1977. Furthermore, this instrument was designed as an age
continuous measure of temperament for all individuals from early childhood to early
adulthood. Therefore, there are three versions of the DOTS-R, and they are referred to
as the DOTS-R Child, the DOTS-R Child (Self), and the DOTS-R Adult.

The DOTS-R Child is designed to be completed by a parent or another caregiver
who has extensive contact with the child. This is suitable for use with children from
two and a half year old preschoolers through middle elementary level, that is, third to
fourth grade.

According to Windle and Lerner (1986), the preliminary testing of the DOTS-R
Child was conducted on a sample of children who came from middle-class families.

The group consisted of 114 preschoolers (52.6% male; 93 % white; mean age = 4.12
years; SD= .98 years). No test for normality was conducted during the construction of
the DOTS-R (“Windle & Lerner, 1986).

For discriminability, the DOTS-R Child effectively discriminates seven

dimensions of temperament. It was found that the DOTS-R discriminates more

effectively than the DOTS. The DOTS only yielded one factor, Approach-Withdrawal,
41

while two factors, Flexibility-Rigidity and Approach-Withdrawal, were yielded by the

DOTS-R. Additionally, the DOTS-R has greater specificity of the Rhythmicity factors

than the DOTS.

For reliability, the internal consistency indicates .84 for Activity Level -

General, .70 for Rhythmicity, .84 for Approach-Withdrawal, .91 for Mood, .79 for

Flexibility-Rigidity, and .79 for Attention Span-Distractibility. Furthermore, the

DOTS—R Child was correlated with the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and

Impulsivity Temperament Measure (EASI-II), and the Esyneck’s Personality Measure

(EPI) in the study conducted by Windle (1989). Moderate to high correlations that

ranged from .19 to .48 were found between the similar labeled dimensions of the three

measures, while low correlations that ranged .01 to .15 were found between dissimilar

dimensions.

Peabog Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition (PPVT-III)

Dunn and Dunn published the third edition of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test (PPVT-III) in 1997. This instrument is an individually administered, untimed,

norm-referenced, and wide-range test. It is designed for persons aged 2.5 through 90+

years to assess receptive vocabulary attainment for standard English. PPVT-III contains

four training items and 204 test items grouped into 17 sets of 12 item each. The item
42

sets are arranged in order of increasing difficulty. It was standardized nationally on a

sample of 2,000 children and adolescents, and 725 persons over 19 years old. It

produces a raw score that can be converted into age-referenced norms (Dunn & Dunn,

1997)

The manual of the PPVT-III stated that alternative-forms reliability coefficients

computed from standard scores range from .88 to .96 with a median value of .94 (Dunn &

Dunn, 1997). Moreover, the split-half reliability coefficient was .95. Test-retest

reliability was calculated on the scores of 226 subjects in four age groups; all reliability

coefficients ranged from .91 to .94.

The PPVT-III has been investigated for the correlations with several vocabulary

and achivement tests. The mean correlations between PPVT-III and achievement tests

range from .33 to .80, and between PPVT-III and language tests range from .42 to .75.

Data Collection Procedures

All data were collected for the CDL-DB. This study utilized a part of the

database that includes temperament and receptive vocabulary.

As of February 2002, the research project team for the CDL-DB consisted of two

graduate students and five undergraduate students from Family and Child Ecology

Department, Michigan State University, being supervised by Dr. Darrell Meece. All
43

investigators were trained for data collection. The forms of the DOTS-R Child were

distributed to each family who attend to the CDLs, and the measurement was attached to

the parental consent forms in January 2002. Therefore, when the team received the

parental consent forms through each head teacher at the CDLs, the DOTS-R Child forms

completed by the parents were collected. Upon the arrival of the parental consent

forms, the investigator conducted the PPVT-III to assess the receptive vocabulary of the

child for whom parental consent was obtained. The PPVT-III was conducted

individually in his or her own classroom or the hallway that is located next to the

classroom by one or two investigators.

Data Analysis

Descriptive data for receptive vocabulary score and the seven dimensions of

temperament were investigated. The correlation between the seven dimensions of

temperament and receptive vocabulary score, between each of the seven dimensions of

temperament, and between demographic data, temperament, and receptive vocabulary

score were computed. For a measure of association for two interval-ratio variables,

Pearson’s r was used.

In order to investigate how the dimensions of temperament relate to receptive

vocabulary score, a regression model was created. Regression was also utilized to find
44

. I .
4-..?" r

out how demographic variables relate to receptive vocabulary scores.

Moreover, t-test and ANOVA procedures were used to investigate differences

among categorical variables. To find out the differences between the individual

dimensions of temperament, depending upon whether the children spoke English as a

first or second language, t-tests were computed. ANOVA was computed to see whether

receptive vocabulary score differs depending on family income level and father’s

occupation, and whether each of the seven dimensions of temperament differed

depending on the language spoken at home.

45

q. 'u‘ l E'
-w

Chapter IV

Results

All data for this study came from the Child Development Laboratories Database

(CDL-DB). The data for analyzing the seven dimensions of temperament were

measured by the DOTS-R. Receptive vocabulary development was measured by the

PPVT—III. These two variables were analyzed to investigate the relationship between

temperament and receptive vocabulary development. Following the descriptive data,

the findings for each research question are presented.

Descriptive Data

The PPVT-Ill was administered by the research group of the CDL-DB. The

mean of the standardized PPVT score for eighty-two children was 103.9. The DOTS-R

instrument was utilized for temperament. The DOTS-R assessed seven dimensions of

temperament: Activity Level-General, Activity Level-Sleep, Approach-Withdrawal,

Flexibility-Rigidity, Attention Span-Distractibility, Mood, and Rhythmicity. The

DOTS-R was completed predominately by mothers (N=67, 81.7%) with only nine fathers

completing the measurement (1 1.0%). For six cases, the respondents were not

identified.

An independent sample t-test was used to investigate a significant difference in
46

the PPVT scores between two groups: the children who spoke English as a first language,
and the children who spoke English as a second language. There was found to be a
significant difference (df=24.11, t=3.28, p<.05) between first language learners and
second language learners. The first language learners had higher PPVT score than the
second language learners.

Furthermore, an independent sample t-test was used to determine if a significant
difference existed in the seven dimensions of temperament depending on whether the
children are first or second language learners. Two of the temperament dimensions had
significant differences depending on learning English as a first or second language:
Flexibility—Rigidity (df=25.99, t=2.28, p<. 05) and Mood (df=23. l, t=2.47, p<. 05).

The children who spoke English as a first language had higher Flexibility-Rigidity scores
(N=60, Mean=3.64, SD=. 61) and Mood scores (N=60, Mean=4.62, SD=. 43) than the
children who spoke English as a second language (Flexibility-Rigidity: N=16,
Mean=3.28, SD=. 54 Mood: N=16, Mean=4.3l, SD=. 44). The children who spoke
English as a first language were found to be more flexible as well as displaying a more
positive mood than the children who spoke English as a second language.

Although an independent t-test was utilized to determine the significant

differences in the PPVT scores and the seven dimensions of temperament depending on
47

gender, there were no significant differences between female and male. Table 7 presents
the descriptive data for the PPVT and the DOTS-R.
Table 7

PPVT and DOTS-R

 

Range

. . . Std. ,
Mrnrmum Maxrmum Mean , , Variance
Devratron

Children who spoke English as a first language (N=60)

 

Receptive Standardized

 

61.00 133.00 106.58 15.01 225.37
Vocabulary score of PPVT
Activity
1.29 4.71 3.01 .75 .56
Level-General
Activity
1.50 5.00 3.20 .93 .86
Level-Sleep
Approach-
, 1.67 4.83 3.45 .66 .44
Withdrawal
Temperament Flexibility-
, , , 1.17 4.83 3.64 .61 .37
Rrgrdrty
Attention Span—
, , _ , 1.50 5.00 3.06 .64 .42
Distractibility
Mood 3.29 5.00 4.62 .43 .18
Rhythmicity 1.44 4.88 3.63 .63 .39

 

48

Table 7 (cont’d)

Children who spoke English as a second language (N=16)

 

Receptive Standardized

 

57.00 113.00 93.00 14.64 214.40
Vocabulary score of PPVT
Activity
2.14 4.71 3.10 .79 .62
Level-General
Activity
1.75 5.00 3.66 .83 .69
Level-Sleep
Approach-
. 1.83 4.00 3.11 .62 .38
Withdrawal
Temperament Flexibility-
, , , 2.33 4.17 3.28 .54 .29
Rigidity
Attention Span-
, , , , 1.88 4.25 3.18 .66 .43
Distractibility
Mood 3.43 5.00 4.31 .44 .19
Rhythmicity 2.27 4.00 3.46 .47 .22

 

Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament

The correlations were computed to investigate the relationships among the

dimensions of temperament for both the children who spoke English as a first language

and the children who spoke English as a second language.

There were found to be various strong and significant correlations between the

seven dimensions of temperament for the children who spoke English as a first language.

Mood and Flexibility-Rigidity (r=. 60, p<. 01), Mood and Approach-Withdrawal (r=. 46,

49

p< .01), and Approach-Withdrawal and Flexibility-Rigidity (r=. 62, p<. 01) were strongly

and significantly correlated. The children who expressed a more positive mood were

likely to be more flexible and to approach new stimulus more positively. In addition,

the children who were more flexible were likely to show more positive responses to new

situations. It was also found that there was a strong and significant negative correlation

between Activity Level-General and Attention Span-Distractibility (r=-. 62, p<. 01).

The children who had lower activity levels were likely to be more attentive and less

distracted.

There were significant correlations between Flexibility-Rigidity and

Rhythmicity (r=. 31, p<. 05), and Approach-Withdrawal and Rhythmicity (r=. 28, p<. 05).

The children who behaved more regularly were likely to be more flexible and to approach

new situations more positively. Activity Level-Sleep and Rhythmicity were

significantly and negatively correlated (r=-. 30, p<. 05). The children who had more

stable sleeping patterns were likely to behave more regularly. Table 8 presents the

correlations between the seven dimensions for the children who spoke English as first

language.

50

Table 8

Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament for Children Who Spoke

 

 

English as a First Language (N=60)
Pearson r
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Activity Level-
- .07 -.23 .Ol -.62** -.12 .05
General
2. Activity Level-
- -.18 -.13 -.O4 -.18 -.30*
Sleep
3. A h-
ppmac - .62** -.25 .46** .28*
Withdrawal
4. Fl 'b'l't -
.6)?! .1 I y - -.18 .60** .31*
Rigidity
5. Att t. S -
. en 1011. pan - -.06 '01
Distractibility
6. Mood - .04
7. Rhythmicity -

 

*

p<. 05 ** p<.01

There were various correlations between the seven dimensions of temperament

for the children who spoke English as a second language.

There was a strong and

significant negative correlation between Attention Span-Distractibility and Activity

Level-Sleep (r=-.63, p<. 01).

The children who had more stable sleeping patterns were

likely to be more attentive and less distracted. There was found to be a strong and

significant correlation between Flexibility-Rigidity and Approach-Withdrawal (r=. 74,

51

p<. 01). The children who were more flexible were likely to approach new situations.
Moreover, it was found that there were two significant correlations at the .05
level. Approach-Withdrawal and Activity Level-General (r=. 56, p<. 05) were
significantly correlated. The children who positively approach new situations were
likely to be more active. Attention Span-Distractibility and Activity Level—General
(r=-.60, p<. 05) were significantly and negatively correlated. The children who were
more attentive were likely to be less active. Table 9 presents the correlations between
the seven dimensions of temperament for the children who spoke English as a second

language.

52

 

Table 9

Correlations between the Seven Dimensions of Temperament for Children Who Spoke

English as a Second Language (N=] 6)

 

 

Pearson r
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Activity Level-
- .46 .56* .34 -.60* -.09 .27
General
2. A t‘ 't L l-
c M y eve - .21 .39 -.63** -.16 -.26
Sleep
3. A roach-
pp - .74** -.43 -.01 -.31
Withdrawal
4. Flexibility-
. . . - - 37 .03 - 20
Rigidity
5. Attention Span-
. . . . - -.38 - 10
Distractibility
6. Mood - .08

7. Rhythmicity -
* p<.05 ** p<.01

 

Relationships between Demographic Data, Temperament, and Receptive Vocabula_ry_
Development

There were some significant findings regarding the relationships between
demographic data, temperament, and receptive vocabulary development. When an
ANOVA was computed, there were significant differences between family income level
and receptive vocabulary development (dfr-9, F=2.480, p<. 05), and between father’s
occupation and receptive vocabulary development (df=4, F=3.411, p<. 05). In both of

53

these AN OVAs, there were clearly differences in receptive vocabulary scores depending
on family income and father’s occupation. The mean PPVT scores of the children who
came from families earning less than $14,999 was 98.20, and the mean PPVT scores of
the children who came from the family earning above $95,000 was 105.37. However,
these means were not highest or lowest respectively. The families of the children who
had the highest mean PPVT scores (N=5, Mean=l 12.60, SD=10.33) earned $45,000 to
$54,999. The fathers of the children who had the highest mean PPVT scores (N=37,
Mean=108.11, SD=15.84) worked as corporate managers, executives, professors, or
highly skilled professionals, and the fathers of the children who had the lowest mean
PPVT scores (N=5, Mean=87.80, SD= 20.29) were graduate students. Table 10 presents
the descriptive data of receptive vocabulary score and family income, and Table 11

presents the descriptive data of receptive vocabulary score and father’s occupation.

54

.D r' . j;
“""F'r

Table 10

PPVTScore and Family Income (N= 72)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PPVT score
Family Income
N Mean Std. Deviation
Above $95,000 27 105.37 18.08
$85,000-$94,999 2 105.0 7.07
$75,000-$84,999 9 107.0 15.36
$65,000-$74,999 6 105.67 9.03
$55,000-$64,999 6 112.0 8.25
$45,000-$54,999 5 112.60 10.33
$3 S,000-$44,999 1 124.0 -
$25,000-$34,999 4 98.5 3.11
$15,000-$24,999 7 82.14 17.45
Less than $14,999 5 98.2 7.60
Table 11
PPVT Score and Father’s Occupation (N= 70)
PPVT score
Father’s Occupation Std.
N Mean , ,
Devration
Corporate Manager, Executive, Professor, or
, , , 37 108.11 15.84
High Skilled Professronal
Middle Manager, Other Professional 20 102.5 13.86
Public School or Junior College Teacher 7 102.29 10.89
Factory, General Sales, Service, or 1 70 0
Office Work '
Graduate Student 5 87.8 20.29

 

55

 

Research Questions

Question 1: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive
vocabulary development for children who speak English as a first
language?

The overall relationship between temperament and receptive vocabulary
development for children who speak English as a first language was weak, and not
significant. None of the dimensions of temperament were correlated with the receptive
vocabulary development of children whose first language was English.

Question 2: What is the relationship between a child’s temperament and receptive
vocabulary development for children who speak English as a second
language?

The overall relationship between temperament and receptive vocabulary
development for children who spoke English as a second language was weak, and not
significant. Regarding the individual dimensions of temperament, there was found to be
a strong and significant negative correlation (r=-.66, p<. 01) between Attention
Span—Distractibility and receptive vocabulary development. The children who had
higher vocabulary scores were more likely to have shorter attention spans.

Question 3: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate with the
56

receptive vocabulary development of children who speak English as a

first language?

As already stated, there were no significant correlations between each particular

dimension of temperament and receptive vocabulary. Table 12 presents the correlations

between receptive vocabulary development and the seven dimensions of temperament.

Table 12

Correlations between PPVT and DOTS-R for Children Who Spoke English as a First

Language (N=60)

 

 

Pearson r
Activity Activity A 1 Fl 'b'l' Attention Rh _
pproaCi exi 1 ity ythmi-
Level- Level- _ Span- Mood .
-Witlidrawal -Rigidity City
General Sleep Distractibility
Standardized
score of the -.22 -.14 -.08 -.05 .08 .02 .24
PPVT

 

Additionally, regression was utilized to create a model to predict receptive
vocabulary development. All dimensions were used at first to predict the receptive
vocabulary development, and the result indicated that Rhythmicity and Activity
Level-General might have strong relations to the receptive vocabulary development.
Thus, the model was created with these two predictors. It was found that Rhythmicity

had an influence in predicting the receptive vocabulary development.

57

‘31.,

 

y = 98.294 + (-4.592)( Activity Level-General) + (6.103)(Rhythmicity)

The unstandardized beta coefficient of Rhythmicity was significant at the .046 level, and

the beta coefficient of Activity Level—General approached significance at the .072 level.

The overall model predicted 11 percent of the variance in receptive vocabulary

development. Table 13 presents the summary for this model, and Table 14 presents the

beta coefficients.

Table 13

Regression Model Predicting PP VT (N=60)

 

 

 

R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.334 .111 .080 14.399
Table 14

Beta Coefficients of Variables Influencing PPVT (N=60)

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients ,
t Sig.
Std.
B Beta
Error
Activity
45% 2.506 -.229 -.1832 .072
Level-General
Rhythmicity 6.103 2.995 .255 2.038 .046

 

Dependent Variable: PPVT score

58

 

Question 4: How do each of the seven dimensions of temperament correlate with the

receptive vocabulary development for children who speak English as a

second language?

There was found to be a strong and significant negative correlation (F-.66,

p<. 01) between Attention Span—Distractibility and receptive vocabulary development.

However, this was the only individual dimension that correlated with receptive

vocabulary development of children who spoke English as a second language. The

correlations between receptive vocabulary development and the seven dimensions of

temperament are illustrated in Table 15.

Table 15

Correlations between PPVT and DOTS-R for Children Who Spoke English as a

Second Language (N=] 6)

 

 

 

Pearson r
Activity Activity Approacli- Flexibility- Attention Rhythmi-
Level- Level- . . _ _ Span- Mood .
General Slccp Withdrawal Rigidity Distractibility City
Standardized
score of the .22 .42 .23 .08 -.66** .17 -.20
PPVT
** p<. 01

Summary of Data

 

The study was designed to investigate the relationships between receptive
59

 

 

vocabulary development and temperament for both the children who spoke English as a

first language and the children who spoke English as a second language. Additionally

the demographic data were also used to investigate the relationships among demographic

data, receptive vocabulary development, and temperament.

For children who spoke English as a first language, no significant correlations

were found between each individual dimension of temperament and receptive vocabulary

development. Yet, it was found that Rhythmicity had an influence on receptive

vocabulary development when a regression model was created.

For children who spoke English as a second language, there was a strong and

significant negative correlation between Attention Span-Distractibility and receptive

vocabulary development. The children who had higher PPVT scores were likely to be

more distracted and have shorter attention span.

There were some findings between demographic variables, receptive vocabulary

development, and temperament. Significant differences between family income level

and receptive vocabulary development, and between father’s occupation and receptive

vocabulary development were also discovered. Significant differences were found in

Flexibility-Rigidity and Mood of temperament and in the PPVT scores between children

who spoke English as a first language and children who spoke English as a second
60

 

language. The first language learners had higher PPVT scores and were more flexible

than the second language learners. The children who spoke English as a first language

expressed more joyfiil and pleasant moods than the children who spoke English as a

second language.

61

Chapter V
Discussion

The discussion regarding the result of this study is described in this final chapter.
It contains conclusions and suggestions for future research and practice.

Conclusions

The study was designed to investigate the relationship between temperament and
the receptive language development of children. Specifically, this study explored the
relationship between children’s temperament and the receptive language development of
two groups: children who spoke English as a first language, and children who spoke
English as a second language. This study utilized secondary data. All data came from
the Child Development Laboratories Database (CDL-DB).

Only one strong and significant negative correlation was found between
receptive vocabulary development and Attention Span-Distractibility, a particular
dimension of temperament, for children who spoke English as a second language. This
indicated that as children’s attention span decreased, receptive vocabulary increased.
This may be because second language learners who are highly distracted may move more
frequently, interact with others more frequently, and be more aware of what is happening

in their microsystems. Additionally, these children might receive more attention from
62

a“ [:3 |

 

adults as a result of distracted behavior. This phenomenon may contribute to the high
frequency of interactions between those children and adults, and of exposures to the
environmental language. Further investigation is necessary and these hypotheses are
limited to only receptive language. Because the correlation was based on only sixteen
children, it must be interpreted with appropriate caution.

There were no significant correlations between the seven individual dimensions
of temperament and receptive vocabulary development for children who spoke English as
a first language. In the regression analysis, it was found that Rhythmicity was related to
the receptive vocabulary development for children who spoke English as a first language.
Rhythmicity is defined as a regularity of biological fiJnctioning of children in this study.
Therefore, the receptive vocabulary development of the children who spoke English as a
first language may be influenced by the regularity of their behavior. Regular behavioral
patterns might contribute to more frequent exposure to the same vocabulary words, and
the repetition is beneficial for receptive language development. If this hypothesis is true,
this phenomenon should occur to the children who spoke English as a second language as
well. However, it did not appear to the children who spoke English as a second
language in this study. Therefore, further investigation is essential to find out how

temperament influences receptive language development.
63

A significant relation between family income level and receptive vocabulary
development was found. The children who had the highest mean score of receptive
vocabulary had fathers with more prestigious occupations. Concurrently, the fathers of
children who had the lowest mean scores were factory workers, general sales staff,
service workers, or office staff. According to the demographic data of the CDL-DB, the
children with high receptive vocabulary scores are more likely to come from affluent
families with two highly educated adults. In 2001, the mean income for families with
children under 18 years old for all races in the US. was $67,074
(http://www.ferret.bls.census.gov/macro). The mode family income from the CDL-DB
was above $95,000. Therefore, the children who participated in the CDL-DB came
from significantly affluent families. Furthermore, the US. census bureau (2000) has
documented that the mode educational attainment for both genders and all races is a high
school degree. In the CDL-DB, approximately 43 percent of mothers and 52 percent of
fathers had professional or graduate degrees. This indicated that the majority of
children had two highly educated parents. These particular characteristics of the
CDL-DB highlighted the uniqueness of the children in this study. Therefore, the results

of this study may not be generalized to children in the general population.

64

ml

 

_S_i_iggestions for Future Research and Practice

The result indicated that there is only one relationship between the seven
dimensions of temperament and receptive vocabulary development for the children who
spoke English as a second language and who go to the half-day preschool program at the
CDLs. The relationship between temperament and receptive language vocabulary has
not been investigated sufficiently, and the result of this investigation was designed to
explore this unknown relationship. Therefore, the findings from this study may
contribute to the initial discovery of knowledge regarding the relationship between
temperament and receptive language vocabulary for children who speak English as a first
or second language. Further investigations are necessary to find out more specific
relationships between receptive vocabulary development and temperament. As
reviewed in Chapter II, interactions with others can be a crucial factor for the receptive
vocabulary development of children. Activity Level, Attention Span —Distractibi1ity,
Approach-Withdrawal, and Flexibility-Rigidity specifically need to be investigated
because these temperamental dimensions relate to children’s interactions with peers and
adults. Investigating more specific relationships between temperament and language
development will significantly contribute to the practices in the classrooms and other

settings for children. If behavioral patterns influence language development, teachers
65

could consider behavioral differences in young children as learning difference rather than
learning deficits. The distracted behavior usually receives a negative reputation;
however, teachers might be able to take advantage of distracted behavior to structure the
classroom environment. Teachers can plan activities with active interactions
purposefiilly to promote children’s receptive language vocabulary. On the other hand,
the children who behave quietly in the classroom might not be receiving enough support
from the teachers and other adults because of good behavior. They might need more
attention from teachers and other adults to extend their language development. Finding
out the specific relationships between temperament and receptive language development
will contribute to structuring more appropriate learning environment and creating a more
appropriate teaching method.

The number of children who spoke English as a first language was 60, compared
to only 16 second language learners. The sample size is a distinct limitation of this
study, and there must be other factors that influence the relationship between
temperament and receptive vocabulary development. As inferred by this study, there
may be a different language learning process for first language learners and second
language learners. Overcoming the limitations of this study, further investigation should

be conducted to discuss whether there is a difference in the learning process depending
66

 

upon whether the children speak English as a first or second language. The findings
from a timber investigation will be beneficial for teachers in the classroom so that they
can structure more appropriate environments for children’s needs. They could provide a
variety of activities that promote children’s language development depending upon
whether the child learns English as a first or second language.

There are many variables that influence children’s receptive language
development as discussed in Chapter 11. These variables should be considered as one of
the many factors that influence receptive vocabulary language. Moreover, the
relationship between temperament and expressive language should be also investigated
for a more comprehensive understanding of children’s language development.
Participants for further investigation should come from families with more diverse
backgrounds requiring a larger sample size. It will be beneficial to find out how these
variables associate with or influence receptive language development and temperament.
Findings from more complex relationships will be helpful to structure the environments
that support children’s learning. They will be useful in various settings where children
are involved.

This study utilized the CDL-DB through this study, it was discovered that there

were several limitations regarding this database. First, there were demographic data
67

 

missing for approximately seven percent of cases. Second, the race and ethnicity

variables were incorporated together in the original data so that it was impossible to

utilize this combined variable for a thorough investigation of children’s cultural and

familial background. Third, the diversity of language spoken at home was dominantly

English and Korean. There were several other languages indicated as a first language;

yet the frequency was so low that comparisons could not be made.

There are many factors that may contribute to children’s language development

and temperament in their micro-, meso-, exso-, and macro- systems. This study

explored only one of the tremendous number of variables. Further investigations are

essential to better understand the relationship between children’s receptive language

development and temperament. These two variables also relate to many other factors in

children’s ecology. Discovering how ecological factors contribute each other to child

development will be extremely useful for families, teachers, researchers, and all other

professionals who wish for children’s well being.

68

 

References

Annual demographic survey: March supplement. Retrieved April 26, from

http://www.ferret.bls.censusgov/macro

Barona, A. (1986). Non-linguistic factors in second language learning. In E. Garcia,
& B. Flores (Eds), Language and literacy research in bilingual education.
Tempe, AZ: Center for Bilingual Education, Arizona State University.

Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 560-567.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buboltz, M., & Sontag, M. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R.
LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of family theories and
methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Carey, W. (1998). Temperament and behavior problems in the classroom. The School
Psychology Review, 27 (4), 522-533.

Chess. 8., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and practice. New York:
Bruner/Mazel.

Chess, 8., & Thomas, A. (1986). Temperament in clinical practice. New York:
Guilford Press.

Diaz, R. (1985). The intellectual power of bilingualism. Q News! Lab Comp Hum
Cogn 7, 15-22

Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1997). Examiner ’3 manual for the PPVT/ll. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.

69

 

Ellis, R., Fotos, S., He, Q., Heimbach, R., & Takahima, H. (2000). Leaninga second
languagethrough interaction. (Studies in bilingualism, 17). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins Publishing.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly,
8(2), 111-127.

Goodz, N. S. (1994). In F. Genesee (Ed), Educating second language children: Ihe
whole child. The whole curriculum. The whole community. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Grant, R. (1995). Meeting the needs of young second language learners. In E. Garcia,
B. McLaughlin, B. Spodek, & O. Saracho (Eds), Meeting the challenge of
linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education. New York:
Teacher’s College Press.

Griffiths, R. (1991). Personality and second-language leaning theory, research, and
practice. In E. Sadotono (Ed), Language Acquisition and the Second /
Foreign Language Classroom Anthropology Series, 28, 35.

Hakuta, K. (1978). A report on the development of grammatical morphemes in a
Japanese girl learning English as a second language. In E. Hatch (Ed), Second
language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic
Books.

Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1997). Language development. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.

Keough, B. (1989). Applying temperament research to school. In G. Kohnstamm, J.
Bates, M. Rothbart (Eds), liemperament in childhood. New York: Wiley.

70

 

Kostelnik, M., Soderman, A., & Whiren, A. (1999). Developmentally appropriate
curriculum: Best practice in early childhood education (2“ ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lerner, R., Palermo, M., Spiro, A., & Nesselroade, J. (1982). Assessing the dimension
of temperamental individuality across the life span: The dimensions of
temperament survey (DOTS). Child Development, 53, 149-159.

Lerner, J., Lerner, R., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary school
children’s actual and rated academic performance: A test of a goodness-of-fit
model. Child Psychology Psychiatry 26, 125-136.

McLaughlin, B., Gesi, A., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in
bilingual preschool children [Electric nersion]. NCBE Program Information
Guide Series, 20.

Nelson, 3, Martin, R. Hodge, S., Havill, V., & Kamphaus, R. (1999). Modeling the
prediction of elementary school adjustment from preschool temperament.
Personality and Individual Difi'erences, 26, 687-700.

Page, A., & Ramirez, A. (1986). Some effects of bilingual home environments on
academic performance and linguistic skills. In E. Garcia, & B. Flores (Eds),
Language and literacy research in bilingual education. Tempe, AZ: Center for
Bilingual Education, Arizona State University.

Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Dilingual discourses: The negotiation of meaning without a
common code. Linguistics, 25, 81-106.

Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language leaning
strategies during the “silent period.” Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.

Soderman, A. K., Gregory, K. S., & O’Neill, L. T. (1999). Scaflolding emergent

literacy: A child-centerd approach for preschool through grade 5. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

7l

 

Spomer, M., & Cowen, E. (2001). A comparison of the school mental health referral
profiles of young ESL and English-speaking children [Electric version].
Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 69-82.

Tabors, P. (1997). One child, two languages. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel

Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10,
131-156.

Toppelberg, C., Snow, C., & Tager—Flusberg, H. (1999). Severe developmental
disorders and bilingualism. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry 38 (9), 1197-1199

Windle, M. (1989). Temperament and personality: An exploratory interinventory study
of the DOTS-R, EASL-II, and EPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53 (3),
487-501.

Windle, M., & Lerner, R. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperament
individuality across the life span: The revised dimensions of temperament survey
(DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, I (2), 213-230.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In
C]. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds), Individual difi'erence in

language ability and language behavior: New York: Academic Press.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346

72

 

E

iiiiiiiiiiijijiiiijiijii