Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

ELL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from

storybook reading夽
Molly F. Collins ∗
Boston University, Boston, MA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the effects of rich explanation, baseline vocabulary, and home read-
Received 21 March 2008 ing practices on English language learning (ELL) preschoolers’ sophisticated vocabulary
Received in revised form 31 July 2009
learning from storybook reading. Eighty typically developing preschoolers were pretested
Accepted 31 July 2009
in L1 (Portuguese) and L2 (English) receptive vocabulary and were assigned to experimental
or control groups. Eight books were selected and paired. Experimental participants heard
Keywords:
books read three times over a 3-week period with rich explanations of target vocabulary.
English language learners
Controls heard stories read without explanations. Parents completed questionnaires about
Preschool
Vocabulary acquisition the frequency, content, and language of home reading practices. Rich explanation, initial L2
Storybook reading vocabulary, and frequency of home reading make significant contributions to sophisticated
Sophisticated vocabulary word learning from storyreading. Findings have important implications for L2 vocabulary
acquisition in ELL preschoolers.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since 1970, the number of English language learners (ELL) in the United States has increased threefold. Nearly 20% of
school-age children are children of nonnative speakers of English (Kindler, 2002). Many ELL children under five do not attend
prekindergarten programs (Capps et al., 2005). For these children, exposure to English in school settings does not begin until
kindergarten; therefore, they must develop English at a faster rate than monolinguals if they are to understand the language
of instruction and be facile users of English. When children enter school with limited exposure to English, they are at risk for
reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Of those at risk, more than 50% do not learn English to proficiency levels
even after several years of schooling (Capps et al., 2005). Paramount to meeting the educational needs of English learners
is the knowledge of skills related to later reading comprehension and of contexts for developing these skills as early as
possible—before formal schooling.
Vocabulary knowledge is one of the strongest predictors of monolinguals’ reading achievement in middle grades
(Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Snow, Porsche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007). Robust early
vocabulary in the preschool years predicts reading comprehension in third and fourth grades (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Vocabulary acquisition rate differences begin in early childhood, and, once established, are difficult to change (Hart & Risley,
1995).

夽 This research was supported in part by the Harold Ansin Intercultural Award for dissertation research and by the Graduate Student Association at the
School of Education at Boston University. Thanks are extended to the schools, teachers, families, and children who participated in this research.
∗ Correspondence address: Erikson Institute, 451 North LaSalle Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, United States. Tel.: +1 312 893 7134.
E-mail address: mcollins@erikson.edu.

0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.009
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 85

Most of our knowledge of the role of vocabulary in ELL children’s reading achievement comes from research on school-age
English learners. Recent research identifies the primacy of English (L2) vocabulary knowledge to L2 reading comprehension
(Carlo et al., 2004; Ordónez, Carlo, Snow, & McLaughlin, 2002; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005), even in ELLs with large
first language (L1) vocabularies (Goldenberg et al., 2005). These findings underscore the importance of ELLs’ English vocab-
ulary knowledge to later reading and of probing vocabulary knowledge prior to formal schooling, an endeavor undertaken
recently by only a few researchers (Tabors, Páez, & López, 2003) yet called for with increasing urgency (Snow & Kim, 2007).

1.1. Vocabulary development

Experiences with storybook reading, involvement in conversations, and exposure to rare words influence early vocabulary
development (Beals, 1997; DeTemple & Snow, 2003; Weizman & Snow, 2001). Beginning readers (i.e., young school-aged
children) have several classroom-based contexts for vocabulary learning: explicit curricular instruction of targeted words
(Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982); repetition of words in books used for reading instruction
(McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985); classroom discussions of words (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986); and exposure to words
from read alouds (Stahl et al., 1991) and self-read texts (Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987).
These contexts offer opportunities for incidental exposure and explicit instruction. But for preschoolers and kindergartners
– typically non-readers – fewer classroom-based instructional contexts exist. Thus, other contexts within early learning
environments must be mined for their potential to support vocabulary learning.
Very robust vocabulary acquisition in native English speakers has been well-documented in storybook reading contexts
across a range of ages, including preschool (Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Reese & Cox, 1999; Sénéchal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995;
Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006), kindergarten (Eller, Pappas, & Brown, 1988; Robbins & Ehri, 1994),
and children as old as third grade (DeTemple & Snow, 2003; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Sénéchal, 1997). Moreover,
preschool children’s exposure to rare vocabulary and supportive talk about the words with adults affects kindergarten
vocabulary, a significant predictor of later reading comprehension (Weizman & Snow, 2001).
Studies of storybook reading have examined alternative notions of how storybook reading might support vocabulary
acquisition. In examining implicit exposure, many have found that simply hearing new words, through single exposures
(Stahl et al., 1991) and repeated readings of stories (Eller et al., 1988; Elley, 1989; Karweit & Wasik, 1996; Robbins & Ehri,
1994; Sénéchal, 1997), prompts incidental learning of new vocabulary. Others have examined explicit teaching in storybook
reading contexts. When explanations of new words are provided, children’s learning is even greater (Beck & McKeown,
2007; Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996; Elley, 1989; Penno et al., 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999; Sénéchal, 1997; Sénéchal et al.,
1995). Moreover, studies of explicit instruction during storybook reading followed by use of new vocabulary in curricular
activities have been shown to benefit target word learning and general vocabulary development in preschoolers (Wasik &
Bond, 2001; Wasik et al., 2006).
Although numerous studies provide convergent evidence for the helpfulness of storybook reading to vocabulary, two
meta-analyses finding similar support for vocabulary (Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994)
offer different interpretations of the strength of effects of reading on vocabulary. Critics of the weaker effects (Lonigan, 1994)
note that findings might have been more robust if the meta-analyses were conducted differently. Indeed most research
and comprehensive reviews of such research (Biemiller & Boote, 2006) suggest that storybook reading makes significant
contributions to vocabulary development in young children.
The substantial evidence that storybook reading, including some related to dialogic reading (Whitehurst et al., 1994), is
helpful to vocabulary development prompts thinking about the best way to use books to teach vocabulary. This has been
more fully explored in populations of monolinguals than in English language learners. This paper reports an intervention
with ELLs, but much of the basic work has been done on monolinguals; therefore, the author reviews it in conjunction with
research on ELLs.

1.2. Young monolinguals and ELLs

Research on the effects of storybook reading in young monolinguals spans several decades, identifies key factors that
relate to vocabulary learning, and includes classroom-based and home environments. Much less is known about the early
vocabulary development of ELL children.
In monolinguals, the number of exposures to a word makes significant contributions to its acquisition. More is better
when the range of exposures is between two and six (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Elley, 1989; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Repeated
exposures are helpful when they come from both repeated readings of the book and repetition of the word in the story, with
the latter less likely to result in children’s boredom with too many readings. Second, the explicitness of word instruction is
a key factor in vocabulary learning. The provision of explanations through various strategies, such as providing a definition,
pointing to the illustration, role-playing, and providing a synonym, is very helpful to vocabulary learning from storybook
reading (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Elley, 1989; Reese & Cox, 1999; Sénéchal, 1997). Additionally, prior general vocabulary
knowledge contributes to new word learning (Reese & Cox, 1999; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Sénéchal et al., 1995). Demonstrating
the Matthew effect (Stanovich, 1986), those who initially know more make greater gains than those who initially know less.
In contrast, research on early vocabulary development of ELL children is meager (Snow & Kim, 2007). Of the limited
research, however, findings show that books can foster learning. Roberts and Neal (2004) studied Hmong-speaking and
86 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

Spanish-speaking children’s English (L2) word learning from an instructional intervention that included storybooks. Overall
results showed a small but significant effect of hearing stories on target word acquisition. In a study of young primary
grade ELL children, Biemiller and Boote (2006) examined effects of the target word pretest task, number of readings, and
explanations on target vocabulary learning from storybook reading. The target word pretest task did not significantly affect
new word learning, explanations of words helped acquisition, and combinations of repeated readings and explanations were
differentially effective from kindergarten through second grade. Conclusions confirm similar findings in storybook studies
with monolinguals; however, research on preschoolers is needed.
The key factors that have been examined in classroom-based studies of storybook reading can also occur in home reading
environments with parents or other caregivers. Two characteristics of the home environment often found to contribute to
vocabulary learning in other studies of storybook reading are SES and frequency of home reading (Huttenlocher, Haight,
Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994; Sénéchal et al., 1995). Although recent research has begun to
describe characteristics of home reading (Barrera & Bauer, 2003) and home literacy practices in young English language
learners (Reyes & Azuara, 2008), none has examined effects of specific variables, such as frequency of reading, on vocabulary
acquisition. Thus, features of the home reading environment and their contribution to vocabulary learning warrant further
attention.
There has been no research on the contributions of preschool children’s initial second language or English (L2) knowledge
to further L2 learning, nor has there been research on the relationship between first language or Portuguese (L1) lexical
knowledge and L2 vocabulary learning in very young children. Although new research has begun to demonstrate a lack of
transfer of vocabulary knowledge (Proctor et al., 2005; Tabors et al., 2003), more study of the roles of L1 and L2 vocabulary
is warranted. Furthermore, we do not yet know whether ELL children with different amounts of L2 knowledge acquire
vocabulary differently. Is the Matthew effect present in second language learning? Do the L2-rich get richer while the
L2-poor get poorer?
With regard to intervention studies, research has not probed effects of repeated readings, rich explanations of target
words, or whether ELL preschoolers’ can learn sophisticated vocabulary from storybook reading. No studies have identified
the many variables that account for vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading in either monolingual or ELL preschool-
ers. With its enormous potential for bolstering vocabulary in second language learners, storybook reading merits further
examination.
Portuguese was selected as the language of study because there are virtually no studies of preschool second language
learners whose native language is Portuguese, even though Portuguese speakers represent a large number of English language
learners in New England. With almost one million speakers in Massachusetts alone, Portuguese is believed to be the state’s
largest foreign language group (Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers, 2008). Portuguese is structurally similar to
English in that the word order of both languages is subject–verb–object. One significant characteristic of the language that is
relevant to vocabulary is that Portuguese permits extensive subject ellipsis or deletion of the subject when the referent can
be inferred from context. This means that subjects do not have to be overtly expressed if the referent can be inferred from
the discourse. The following example illustrates subject ellipsis in Portuguese in a discussion that has identified a mouse as
the culprit of missing food in a kitchen:

Comeu o queijo.
ate the cheese (1)
‘The mouse ate the cheese’.

Some research on Portuguese suggests that children are sensitive to frequencies of subject omission (Kim, 2000). This could
affect attention to nouns in the input, and hence, new word acquisition.

1.3. Present study

The goals of the present study were twofold. The first was to identify the effect of rich explanation (i.e., multiple exposures
and several explicit strategies) on target vocabulary learning in English learners. The second was to identify whether rich
explanation made a unique contribution, over and above other factors, such as baseline vocabularies in L1 and L2 and home
reading practices, on preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. These aims are expressed in a
single research question: What is the effect of rich explanation on children’s target vocabulary learning over and above other
factors shown to be helpful (baseline vocabularies and home reading practices)?

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Eighty typically developing, 4- and 5-year-old native speakers of Portuguese (42 males and 38 females) who were second
language learners of English participated in the study. Native language is defined as the language to which children were
exposed in the home or in most of the child’s out-of-school care. The average age of participants at the beginning of the
study was 4 years, 6 months with a range from 4 years, 0 month to 5 years, 4 months.
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 87

Three school districts in the northeastern United States were recruited for participation. While one district declined to
participate due to prior engagement in other research, two gave permission for school principals to be contacted. Classrooms
serving Portuguese-speaking preschoolers were identified by the principals at each school (i.e., two from school 1 and four
from school 2). After hearing explanations of the project, both principals and all preschool teachers were interested in the
project and agreed to participate.
Families were recruited from six preschool classrooms within the two public schools serving middle- to low-income fam-
ilies in two cities. One school was an elementary school serving children from PreK through grade six. After the preschool
year, children typically remained at the school for kindergarten and later grades. The second school had 10 classrooms
of preschool only. After the preschool year, children attended kindergarten at one of several elementary schools in the
city. Participating preschools served monolinguals, ELLs, children with special needs, and Title I children and were known as
neighborhood schools within Portuguese-speaking communities. Cities were comparable in population (92,000 and 94,000),
median household income ($29,000 and $28,000), and industry (manufacturing, retail trade, education/social service, and
construction) (US Census Bureau, 2000). Enrollment data on specific ethnicities were not differentiated in school data mea-
sures; therefore, the number of children of Brazilian or Portuguese heritage fall within race categories of “white” or “black.”
Enrollment data on race/ethnicity for schools 1 and 2 are as follows: 79% and 65% white; 18% and 29% Hispanic; 0% and
6% black; and 3% and 1% Asian. In the study sample, 96% (77) were white and 4% (3) were black. Approximately 80% of the
participants’ families were low SES, as measured by free or reduced-price lunch.
All children came from families who at some point were immigrants from Portuguese-speaking countries. Nearly all of
the children’s grandparents were immigrants from Portugal, the Azores, or Brazil, and spoke only Portuguese at the time of
arrival in the US. Born outside the US as well, many of the children’s parents were immigrants and spoke Portuguese only
or Portuguese and some English at home. Although formal measures of parents’ proficiencies in Portuguese and English
were not administered, 73% returned consent forms and parent questionnaires in Portuguese and nearly two-thirds of
parents reported reading to children in Portuguese or Portuguese and English. Teachers reported that whereas some of the
children were born in countries other than the United States (i.e., were first-generation Americans), many were born in the
United States (i.e., were second- or third-generation Americans) to families who continued to speak Portuguese in the home.
Children who came from Portuguese families or who were known to have Portuguese-speaking caregivers outside of school
were targeted for participation. Potential participants in each classroom ranged from 10% to 95%, and 98% of the targeted
participants returned consent forms. (Schools and teachers were supported by families; thus, positive selection effects may
have contributed to the high participation rate.) Consenting parents or guardians filled out questionnaires and let children
participate in pretesting, storybook reading groups, and posttesting at school throughout the year. All children (n = 80) had
varying levels of skill in both languages as measured by baseline receptive vocabulary tests in Portuguese and English. All
were identified by their teachers as non-readers at the beginning of the study.
All six preschool classrooms had similar amounts of instructional time, curricular themes and components (i.e., teacher-
made curriculum), activities, and routines. All six teachers included storybook reading in daily plans. All teachers held state
licensure in early childhood education. In three classrooms, teachers and their assistants were native speakers of Portuguese.
Two of the three native Portuguese-speaking teachers held additional licensure in bilingual education. Teaching experience
of teachers ranged from 10 to 40 years. In five of the six classrooms, English was the language of instruction. In the sixth
classroom, designated a bilingual classroom, the language of instruction was primarily English with use of Portuguese left
to the teacher’s discretion. Personal communication revealed that she used more Portuguese at the beginning of the school
year than at the end.

2.2. Design

The experimental design permits the examination of the between-subjects effects of treatment on target vocabulary
acquisition. Following language pretests, participants were matched on L2 receptive scores. One member per pair was ran-
domly assigned to the experimental group and the other was assigned to the control group. For the purposes of determining
word rarity with a representative peer group, a no-story group (n = 10), was randomly created from the treatment groups to
resemble the experimental (n = 36) and control (n = 34) groups with equivalent distributions of L2 scores; however, the size of
the no-story group was kept small so as not to diminish substantially the number of participants available for the treatment
conditions. Because the sample size was too small to permit case-by-case matching on all variables, matching occurred only
according to L2 scores. The no-story group participated only in target vocabulary testing along the same timeline as other
groups.

2.3. Procedure

Pretests and group assignment preceded reading. In a quiet room outside the classroom, the researcher read one pair
of books three times over a span of 3 weeks to groups of 2–3 children. For example, Pair 1 was read once weekly for 3
weeks, followed by posttesting. Pairs 2, 3, and 4 were read in similar fashion. Books were always read in English in the same
pairs, in the same order within pairs, and across constant time intervals. Children were read to in small groups because
such formats (e.g., 3) have been shown to be more helpful to storybook reading instruction than one-on-one or large group
settings (Morrow & Smith, 1990).
88 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

The experimental protocol consisted of the researcher providing rich definitions of inserted target vocabulary during the
reading of the story. Rich definitions consisted of the following, as explained with the example, donned, in Henry’s Happy
Birthday (Keller, 1990):

(1) pointing to the illustration of the target word (R points to picture showing Henry putting on his slippers and reads, “Henry
jumped out of bed and donned his slippers.”)
(2) providing a general definition of the word (“Donned means to put on clothing.”)
(3) providing a synonym (“Henry put on his slippers; he donned slippers to wear on his feet.”)
(4) making a gesture of the word, when applicable (R imitates motion of putting a sock or shoe on foot)
(5) using the word in a context different from that of the book (“I donned - put on - my blue socks today. When you get
dressed in the morning, you don your clothes – such as your pants and a shirt - to wear to school. And when you go home
today, you’ll don your coats - put on your coats - to wear home.”)

While gestures were used with only some of the verbs, all words contained strategies 1, 2, 3 and 5. Additional talk about
the words or the story was minimized to avoid effects of extended elaboration and to preserve the continuity of the story. The
control protocol consisted of the researcher’s reading the text with inserted target vocabulary words but without providing
any components of the rich input described above.
Target vocabulary words from each pair of books were tested together in the TVT at the end of the third reading of the
books. Vocabulary posttests were administered to individual children within 30 min of the third reading of the books. To
minimize the time between the third reading and the posttest, children were read to in groups of two, rather than three, on
the third reading. The order in which children in the third reading group were posttested was counterbalanced. The entire
protocol of reading and testing was repeated three times (i.e., once for each pair of books) spanning a total of 12 weeks.
To measure the equivalence of treatment delivery across conditions, an independent observer analyzed a representa-
tive sample of videotaped readings of all eight books to both groups. Session length in minutes and total number of words
uttered per book were calculated for each pair of books per treatment group. A simple ANOVA revealed no significant differ-
ences between experimental and control protocols respectively for session length (M = 20.62, SD = 4.43; M = 15.30, SD = 4.84),
F(1,6) = 2.64, p = .16, number of words uttered per session (M = 2410, SD = 506.07; M = 1835, SD = 529.59), F(1,6) = 2.47, p = .17,
or speech rate (words/minute) (M = 117.36, SD = 8.07; M = 121.60, SD = 8.78), F(1,6) = .51, p = .50. Although equivalence on
these variables can be demonstrated, other variables, such as the researcher’s affective characteristics or the overall learning
environment, could have contributed to different experiences for the groups. As much as possible, the researcher tried to
preserve equivalence in treatment conditions or to acknowledge any possible differences therein.

2.4. Materials

2.4.1. Texts
Eight commercially available picture books were read to children. They were divided into four pairs based on similarity
in plot structure, length, and style of illustration. Pairing mitigated book effects found in previous research (Elley, 1989)
and provided an optimal number of books per session. All picture books were identified in book reviews as appropriate for
children of preschool age. This was confirmed by the researcher based on the complexity of the stories and length of the
texts. To avoid effects of familiarity, the researcher chose books that were less known, were not media- or theme-related, or
were out of print. Other criteria for book selection included clear illustrations, age-appropriate length, and topics thought
to be cross-cultural and interesting to young children: sibling and family issues, birthday parties, nature and animals, and
curiosity about an interesting event (e.g., a loud noise, getting lost). As much as possible, stories with animals as protagonists
were selected to minimize possible effects of children’s identifying with human attributes (Elley, 1989). In pair one, the
protagonists were both animals on a mission to finding something, had informative encounters along the way, and were
enlightened at the end of the story. In pair two, the animal protagonists experienced a situation common to young children
(siblings; birthday parties) and had a change of heart at the end of the story. The stories of pair three featured naiveté in
the adventures of baby animal protagonists and contained intrigue in the stories’ resolutions. The stories of pair four had
outdoor contexts and contained facts about animals’ existence in nature. Six books were narratives (fiction) and two were
information books (nonfiction) presented in a narrative style. In contrast to prior storybook reading research, nonfiction
books were chosen to determine whether words could be learned from a genre other than narrative. Prior to the study, all
teachers agreed not to read any of the books to the children. Upon initial query about each book, no child reported having
heard any of the stories at home.

2.4.2. Target words

The target vocabulary words were not words already in the texts. Rather, target words were selected by the researcher
through careful scrutiny of illustrations and text then checked for frequency on rare word lists of English vocabulary to
ensure that they would be unfamiliar to children. Words already in the texts were not selected as target words because
many children’s books do not contain sophisticated vocabulary. Moreover, of those that do, sophisticated words may not be
easily definable, may vary in number of occurrence, may not be adequately depicted in illustrations, and may have varying
degrees of importance to the story. Thus, inserting words into the texts allowed the author to control the sophistication level
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 89

of the word, to equalize the number of occurrences in the text, to ensure words’ adequate illustration, and to select words
that were equivalently unsalient to the story line. Words selected for use were either inserted as synonyms for existing
words in the texts or were inserted within whole sentences added to text. The following four criteria were used to select
target vocabulary words:

(1) applicability to the story: target words had to make sense within the text
(2) frequency of occurrence: target words had to be able to occur twice in the story
(3) ability to be illustrated: target words had to be depicted within the illustrations upon both occurrences within the text
(4) unfamiliarity of word: target words had to be unknown to children. Moreover, because target words were less easily
known, they can be referred to as rare, or sophisticated, because of their low frequencies of occurrence in common
vernacular speech (e.g., prostrate, aperture). They would be unfamiliar both in oral and written corpora.

A target word’s sophistication or rarity was examined through comparison to vocabulary rarity in an oral language measure,
a written language measure, and a representative peer group. First, Chall and Dale (1995) list was used because it represents
oral vocabulary knowledge, has been used in prior research (Weizman & Snow, 2001), and incorporates word meaning
frequencies discussed in other corpora (see Dale and O’Rourke’s Living Word Vocabulary, 1981). Second, Carroll, Davies, and
Richman’s (1971) list provided a measure of word frequency from printed materials. Finally, a representative peer group
provided evidence from same-age classmates. Findings showed that 93% of the words did not occur on Chall and Dale (1995)
list, 96% of the words occurred less frequently in written literature than 1 per 15 million words (Carroll, Davies, & Richman,
1971), and identification of the words through a target vocabulary posttest administered to the no-story group showed that
children performed no better than chance.
Between five and nine target vocabulary words were inserted within the text of each book (and hereafter are considered
to be in the text). Of the total of 56 words selected, 24 were verbs, 21 were nouns, and 11 were adjectives (see Appendix A).
None were cognates in Portuguese and English.

2.5. Measures

A battery of measures was used to assess language, home reading practices, target vocabulary, and story comprehension.
Selections were based on measures used in similar research (Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005) with consideration
for age-appropriateness and validity (Tabors et al., 2003). Prior studies note drawbacks of measuring ELL’s language skills
using measures normed on monolinguals (Váldes & Figueroa, 1996) and the difficulty of finding assessments normed on
preschoolers (Tabors et al.). The researcher chose measures normed on preschoolers and took into account comparisons to
standard (monolingual) scores.

2.5.1. English receptive vocabulary

To establish a baseline of children’s initial language skill, children’s English (L2) receptive vocabulary was measured
through the administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) by a native English speaker. A
forced-choice picture vocabulary test, the PPVT-III consists of individual test pages containing four pictures each. Children
look at the four pictures on the page, listen to the examiner’s pronunciation of the target word, and point to the picture
of the corresponding target word. The PPVT-III has two forms, A and B. In the present study, form B was administered in
English by a trained, native English speaker. Standard scores ranged from 40 to 129. Reliability for the English version of the
PPVT-III for four-and-a-half-year-old children is .95. Cronbach’s ˛ for the study sample is .95.

2.5.2. Portuguese receptive vocabulary

Due to the lack of a standardized test of Portuguese receptive vocabulary, children’s initial L1 (Portuguese) receptive
vocabulary was measured through a Portuguese translation of form A of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn
& Dunn, 1997). Two native speakers of Portuguese (one Brazilian, one Portuguese) who were professionals in the field of
early childhood education reviewed and translated the test. Only sets 1–10 were reviewed since it was determined that
items beyond set 11 would be beyond the children’s ability. Neither of the reviewers believed that any of the test items
presented objects or ideas that were culturally biased for the population in the study. Reviewers then translated the English
target words into Portuguese counterparts through a combination of direct translation and back translation, resulting in
the identification of a single lexical item to convey the meaning of the target item. Finally, reviewers examined Portuguese
words for phonological similarity to English words, but no cognates were found. The resulting Portuguese translation of
Form A was administered to children by a trained, native speaker of Portuguese. Raw scores ranged from 7 to 63. Cronbach’s
˛ for the performance on the Portuguese translation is .96.

2.5.3. Home reading practices

Parents completed questionnaires on the frequency of reading per week, types of materials read to children, topics
of discussion, types of materials read by adults, children’s interest in being read to, and language of home reading and
discussion. Questions were based on relevant factors in this and prior research (Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Lonigan, 2006; Haden,
Reese, & Fivush, 1996). Analysis focused on frequency of reading, shown to be a significant contributor to vocabulary learning
90 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

in other studies (Allison & Watson, 1994; Debaryshe, 1993; Sénéchal et al., 1995). The author also analyzed language of home
reading because it has not been previously examined for its contribution to L2 vocabulary acquisition.

2.5.4. Target vocabulary test (TVT)

A picture vocabulary test, based on the model of the PPVT-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997), was constructed to test children’s
knowledge of target words. The TVT contained the target words from each pair of books. The general design of the TVT
required that children look at four pictures on a page, listen to the researcher say the target word, and point to the corre-
sponding picture. The target word was depicted in one quadrant of the page; foils were depicted in the other three quadrants.
Pictures were not replications of illustrations in texts. Rather, pictures were line drawings that differed from the contexts
presented in books. The placement of the target word on test pages was varied with the correct picture occupying different
locations on immediately successive pages. Pages were ordered to prevent clustering of similar scenes or characters. After a
general orientation to the task and practicing on three practice pages, children were shown a target page and asked, “Show
me the picture that shows .” Items were scored as either correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Cronbach’s ˛ = .81. A
binomial expansion indicated that a TVT score of 20 would identify children scoring significantly beyond chance (2 = 18.72,
p < .001).

3. Results

3.1. Pretest and TVT data

One-way ANOVAs were conducted on the pretest data from all three groups to identify any significant preexisting dif-
ferences among treatment group means (see Table 1). Despite unequal group sizes, homogeneity of variance assumptions
were maintained. Whereas no significant differences were found among groups on age, F(2,77) = .11, p = .90, L2 receptive
vocabulary, F(2,77) = .48, p = .62, L2 expressive vocabulary, F(2,77) = .04, p = .96, and home reading frequency, F(2,74) = 2.66,
p = .08, there were significant differences between the experimental and other groups on L1 receptive scores, F (2,77) = 3.84,
p = .03, a finding due to chance randomization because of the use of random assignment. This finding will be explained in
greater detail below.
The possible TVT score range was 0–56. With a minimum observed TVT score of 8 and a maximum observed score of
44, the range was 36. No ceiling effect was apparent. Although the TVT variable was not normally distributed, winsorized
adjustment did not change results.
Mean TVT scores differed by group with the experimental group (M = 26.50, SD = 7.02) scoring higher than the control
group (M = 18.12, SD = 4.82) who scored higher than the no-story group (M = 13.80, SD = 2.35). As described previously, the
binomial expansion results showed that participants in the control and non-story groups performed below chance levels,
identifying approximately 33% of the words, whereas participants in the experimental group performed beyond chance

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of pretest data per group.

Variable (ranges) n M SD

Experimental 36a
Age (4;0–5;2) 4.59 .32
L1 receptive score (7–63) 29.44* 15.01
L2 receptive Score (40–129b ) 90.17 19.77
L2 expressive score (40–127) 90.56 20.14
Home reading/week (0–8) 3.14 2.10

Control 34c
Age (4;0–5;1) 4.56 .29
L1 receptive score (8–56) 21.94 12.31
L2 receptive score (51–121) 86.53 16.95
L2 expressive score (40–120) 90.74 18.47
Home reading/week (0–7) 2.26 1.22

No-story 10d
Age (4;3–5;2) 4.49 .27
L1 receptive score (9–39) 18.90 11.45
L2 receptive score (49–109) 85.20 21.41
L2 expressive score (40–122) 85.30 26.04
Home reading/week (0–7) 3.38 1.80

Note: L1 are raw scores. L2 are standardized scores. Age is expressed in years;months. Home reading/week = number of times per week
parents read to children.
a
19 females, 17 males.
b
One high score of 129 was retained because it falls within 3 z-scores of the mean (Osborne & Overbay, 2004).
c
16 females,18 males.
d
3 females, 7 males.
*
p < .05.
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 91

Table 2
Pearson product–moment correlations between TVT score, language, home reading variables, and age.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. TVT score – −.07 .51*** .42*** .56*** .42*** .12

2. L1R score – −.33** −.30* −.07 .03 .26*
3. L2R score – .84*** .31** .21 −.15
4. L2E score – .36** .29* −.14
5. Home rda – .76*** .20
6. Ask rd/wkb – .25*
7. Age –

Note: N, 70; TVT, Target Vocabulary Test; L1R, Portuguese receptive raw score; L2R, English receptive score; L2E, English expressive score; SCT score, story
comprehension test score; Home rd, home reading frequency each week; Ask rd/wk, number of times per week children asked to be read to at home.
a
n = 69 due to one missing value from the control group; cases excluded pairwise.
b
n = 68 due to two missing values from the experimental group; cases excluded pairwise.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001. Using a Bonferroni approach, only those with a significance level of .001, as noted with (***) in the table, are significant.

levels (2 = 18.72, p < .001), identifying approximately 50% of the words. Specifically, 80% (n = 30) of the experimental group
had TVT scores of 20 or higher. Multiple regression was used to answer the research question, first by investigating predictors
of differences in mean scores and then by examining the impact of treatment after predictors were statistically controlled.
Research Question: What is the effect of rich explanation on children’s target word learning over and above other factors?
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to predict target vocabulary scores from rich explanation, baseline
vocabulary scores, and home reading variables; however, additional relationships among variables can be examined in
Table 2. For the regression, variables were selected based on hypothesized contributions to target vocabulary learning. (SES
could not be entered into the regression because SES data on each subject could not be obtained; however, the author entered
into a supplementary regression analysis SES data on a subset of participants and found no effect on TVT.)
Step 1 of the analysis consisted of three predictor variables thought to make significant independent contributions (main
effects) to target vocabulary learning: L2 vocabulary scores, L1 vocabulary scores, and home reading frequency. L2 receptive
score was used as a proxy for L2 language knowledge because a receptive measure is less conservative than an expressive
measure in ELL populations who may experience silent periods (Tabors, 1997). Frequency of reading per week was the proxy
for home reading.
The model in Table 3 shows that main effects, as a group, accounted for a large and significant amount of the variability
in TVT scores, adjusted R2 = .41 F(3,65) = 16.46, p < .001.
Step 2 of the hierarchical regression analysis consisted of research group membership (treatment), which not only iden-
tified the significant contribution of treatment to vocabulary learning but also isolated the effects of treatment beyond
the effects of other variables (see Table 3). Treatment accounted for additional variability in TVT scores beyond variance
accounted for by main effects, R2 = .22, F(4, 64) = 30.35, p < .001.
Treatment group made the largest significant contribution to target word learning, (ˇ = .51, p < .001) in the regression
model. Home reading frequency (ˇ = .44, p < .001), and L2 receptive scores (ˇ = .39, p < .001) also made significant contribu-
tions to target vocabulary score. L1 receptive score did not make a significant contribution to the model (ˇ = .09, p = .34).
Sample size adheres to guidelines for detecting large effects in regression (Green, 1991; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
The following large (Cohen, 1988) magnitudes of effect size were observed for the three variables in the regression model:
d = 1.39 for treatment; d = 1.39 for home reading frequency; and d = 1.15 for L2 receptive score (Dunst et al., 2004). In contrast,
the variance accounted for by L1 is negligible, d = 0.

Table 3
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for predictors of TVT Score (N = 69).

Variable B SE B ˇ t

Step 1
L1 receptive .05 .05 .09 .95
L2 receptive .16 .04 .39 3.75***
Home reading frequency 1.82 .41 .44 4.47***

Step 2
L1 receptive −.03 .04 −.06 −.75
L2 receptive .16 .03 .39 4.72***
Home reading frequency 1.25 .33 .30 3.77***
Treatment group 7.50 1.16 .51 6.43***

Note: Adjusted R2 = .41 for Step 1, p = .001; R2 = .22 for Step 2, p = .001. Treatment group was coded as 1 = experimental, 0 = control.
***
p < .001.
92 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

Table 4
Indirect effects, standard errors, and 90% confidence intervals for moderated Mediation Model.

Home reading Indirect effect SE z Confidence interval

English .533 .302 1.77* .038 to 1.03

Portuguese .469 .516 .908 −.038 to 1.32
Both .527 .639 .824 −.523 to 1.58

Note: Indicating whether the indirect effect is significantly different from zero, z value must be greater than 1.64 for p < .10.
*
p < .10.

Results of the hierarchical regression prompted two subsequent inquiries. First, because findings showed that home
reading frequency was a significant predictor of TVT score, the nature of this relationship warranted further investigation.
Specifically, does home reading frequency directly impact TVT scores, or is the effect of home reading frequency indirect
through, perhaps, its effects on L2 score? Second, if the effect of home reading frequency is indirect through its effect on L2,
does this relationship hold across all languages of home reading? That is, does home reading frequency have its effect on
TVT through L2 when the language of home reading is Portuguese, English, or both?
The researcher examined the potential mediating role of main predictors on TVT scores through a series of regression
equations. Variables selected for testing in the models met criteria for establishing mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Due to
the role of initial vocabulary to new word learning in other research, the researcher hypothesized that the effects of home
reading frequency on TVT score would be influenced by children’s initial L2 scores.
The model examined the effects of home reading frequency on TVT score, as mediated by L2. Analyses indicated that
home reading frequency predicted TVT score (B = 2.30, t(68) = 5.47, p < .001). Next, L2 was regressed on home reading. Results
indicated that home reading frequency affected L2 (B = 3.20, t(68) = 2.70, p < .009). When the hypothesized mediator, (L2) was
added to the equation predicting TVT, L2 significantly predicted TVT scores (B = .15, t(67) = 3.63, p < .001), and home reading
frequency remained a significant predictor of TVT (B = 1.84, t(67) = 4.51, p < .001). A Sobel test, however, indicated that the
direct effect was significantly reduced by the addition of the mediator to the model (z = 2.12, p = .018). Thus, the conditions
for partial mediation were satisfied in this analysis. The hypothesized mediator (L2), accounted for a 20% reduction in the
direct effect.
Findings from the mediation model reveal more sophisticated relationships among variables than revealed in regression
analyses. Specifically, results show that home reading frequency impacts new word learning by influencing L2. In effect, the
more one reads, the more developed the L2, which affects sophisticated vocabulary learning.
Because the first inquiry showed a mediating effect of L2 on the relationship between home reading frequency and TVT,
the researcher examined whether this relationship held across all languages of home reading. Given the increasing evidence
of lack of transferability between L1 and L2 vocabulary in studies of very young ELLs (Snow & Kim, 2007), the researcher
hypothesized that the language of home reading variable would moderate the previously discussed mediation such that
only when language of home reading was English would the mediation hold. To identify the languages that influenced the
home–L2–TVT relationship, the researcher used moderated mediation analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
Findings showed that reading in English affected the extent to which L2 mediated the relationship between home reading
frequency and TVT score (see Table 4) at a non-traditional level of confidence (p < .10). No effects were found when language
of home reading was in Portuguese only or, unexpectedly, in both Portuguese and English. Thus, the language of home
reading has a weak moderating effect on the mediating relationship between TVT and home reading frequency only when it
is in English; otherwise, the language of home reading does not significantly affect sophisticated English vocabulary learning.
Results for this moderated mediation model are conceptually plausible: TVT is influenced by the frequency of home
reading and L2 score, and this relationship is influenced when the language of home reading is in English. More simply,
reading in English increases the impact of the frequency-L2 relationship on new word learning. Small samples sizes, however,
make detection of small effects difficult because they are less likely to represent normal sampling distributions. Furthermore,
indirect effects are only normally distributed in very special cases (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). The estimation
of indirect effects in small sample sizes is problematic because the distribution of indirect effects tends to be skewed
and leptokurtic (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). These findings for moderated mediation are speculative and should be
interpreted with caution. Stronger forms of moderated mediation might be found with larger sample sizes, but more research
is needed to address comprehensively these complex hypotheses.

4. Discussion

Significant effects of several variables were found for ELL preschoolers’ target word acquisition in a read aloud context.
Paramount was the sizable and singular contribution of rich explanation to target word learning. Specifically, rich expla-
nation was the strongest contributor in the model of factors accounting for variance. Baseline English receptive vocabulary
had a significant independent effect on target word learning whereas baseline Portuguese receptive vocabulary did not.
Other predictors for target word learning included frequency of home reading. Discussion of findings and their powerful
implications follows.
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 93

4.1. Rich explanation

Four- and five-year-old English learners acquired meanings for 33% of the new words in stories by simply hearing the
words in their story context; however, their performance was not significantly greater than would be expected by a chance.
When rich definitions were included with exposures to new words in stories, the mean number of words learned approached
50%. These findings indicate that hearing words accompanied by rich definitions prompts significantly more word learning
than only incidental exposure. Rich explanation accounted for an additional 22% of the variance in TVT scores after controlling
for other variables. More than any other factor, rich explanation (including several helpful aspects of the treatment condition)
helped ELL children learn sophisticated vocabulary from storybook reading.
The findings in the present study are more robust with respect to the use of rich definitions than those found in studies
of monolingual children (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Elley, 1989; Penno et al., 2002; Sénéchal, 1997; Sénéchal et al., 1995).
Explanations of target words included as much information as reasonably possible in a storybook reading context and were
conveyed in a variety of ways: (1) gesturing; (2) defining; (3) using decontextualized statement; (4) providing synonymous
phrases; and (5) pointing to illustrations. In addition to Elley’s (1989) strategies, gestures and statements about the target
word, applied to a personal context, may add information that is not available from pointing, synonyms, and role-playing.
Results also demonstrate that new word learning can occur across multiple genres of books, with words that are not essential
to the plot, and without even partial knowledge of words.
Children’s word learning in the present study suggests more than memorization or association, similar to Beck and
McKeown’s (2007) work with kindergartners and first graders. In the present study, posttest pictures used contexts that
differed from those in the book; therefore, children had to demonstrate understanding of the word’s meaning to select the
correct answer on the posttest.
The large effects may have been due to the rich quality of the definitions alone or to a combination of rich explanation and
other features associated with the treatment conditions, such as the number of exposures to vocabulary, the length of the
treatment period, or group size. The number of exposures to target words in the present study was six for all target words.
Other studies have had fewer exposures (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994) or an unequal number of
exposures to different target words (Elley, 1989). The present study demonstrated that robust word learning occurs with
six exposures. This accords with prior studies of word repetition in read alouds, as well as independent reading, that shows
that higher numbers of exposures (e.g., 6–12) are more efficacious than only a few (Scott, 2005).
In the present study, children learned words through incidental exposure and through explanations provided during the
three readings of each book, which spanned approximately 3 weeks for each pair of books. A 3-week span is substantially
longer than periods found in previous research (i.e., 2–7 days) (Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002; Elley, 1989; Penno et al.,
2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Sénéchal et al., 1995; Sénéchal, 1997) and may be more helpful to learning because children
have more time to process words.
Finally, Morrow and Smith (1990) found significant effects of small group size (i.e., 3) on children’s learning from inter-
active storybook reading. The small group size (i.e., 2–3) in the present study likely provided additional support to the
treatment condition.

4.2. Baseline L1 and L2 vocabularies

The present research found robust and significant effects of English (L2) receptive vocabulary on target vocabulary acqui-
sition. This finding is consistent with previous research in which monolingual children with higher initial levels of vocabulary
knowledge made greater gains in target word learning from hearing stories read aloud than did children with lower initial
vocabulary (Penno et al., 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999; Robbins & Ehri, 1994).
The importance of L2 vocabulary knowledge has been demonstrated in contexts other than storybook reading research,
including studies of older ELL’s L2 vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Goldenberg et al., 2005; Proctor et al.,
2005) and L2 vocabulary knowledge and L1 transfer on competence in explaining L2 words (Ordónez et al., 2002). Findings
from the present study show similar contributions in preschool.
Differences in monolinguals’ rates of word learning may be based on skill in using contextual cues to learn word mean-
ings (Sternberg & Powell, 1983). Also, children who already know many words may be very skilled in creating semantic
representations from text. In contrast, those with lower initial vocabulary may have less extensive experience with stories,
causing attention to be diverted to general story features, such as plot or characters, rather than meanings of new words
(Robbins & Ehri, 1994). Despite Matthew effects (Stanovich, 1986), explanation is helpful to all. The vocabulary poor do gain,
regardless of how little L2 is known.
Other hypotheses are that children with less initial vocabulary need more intensive exposure to word meanings through
other strategies (role-playing), use of realia in non-story contexts, and fortification across other settings, such as conversa-
tions.
In the present research, both low and high initial L2 vocabulary children in the experimental group were provided explicit
opportunities for acquiring the meaning of target words. Those with high initial L2 vocabulary may be more skilled in detect-
ing meaning from context or may have attained a level of word knowledge that allows them to attend to words less salient
to the plot. Their working repertoire – the words the child knows, including synonyms and background knowledge associated
with the word’s meaning – is already well-developed. In contrast, children with low L2 may focus first on adding simpler
94 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

words and semantic concepts (i.e., plot, main character data) to their repertoires before getting details of sophisticated
words.
Finally, other factors, perhaps motivation to learn new words, or memory (Ewers & Brownson, 1999; Robbins & Ehri,
1994) may account for differences in target word learning. The demands of memory would seem to be higher for second
language learners than for monolinguals, given that children must create two lexicons – one in each language – of sufficient
breadth and depth to support the addition of more sophisticated words in both languages.
The finding that L1 lexical knowledge does not contribute to L2 word learning is consistent with findings reported in
other research in which the role of L1 lexical knowledge on similar vocabulary knowledge in the L2 was examined. Ordónez
et al. (2002) found that bilingual fourth and fifth graders’ abilities to describe the meaning of a word in English were more
dependent on English vocabulary knowledge than on the transfer of commensurate abilities in Spanish. This illustrates
Cummins (1979) hypothesis that transfer of language skills may be mediated by specific types of metalinguistic knowledge.
Moreover, of the limited amount of research on preschool age ELLs, one longitudinal study found that vocabulary is the
most stable and least transferable of early literacy skills (Tabors et al., 2003). These findings highlight the importance of
L2 vocabulary to facility and competence in L2. In the present study, no target words were cognates of Portuguese words.
Under these circumstances, it would be expected that L1 lexical knowledge would not contribute to the acquisition of rare
vocabulary in the L2.

4.3. Home reading practices

Similar to prior research (Sénéchal et al., 1995), the frequency of home reading made significant contributions to vocab-
ulary acquisition. Children who hear books read at home have experience learning words from text and pictures. They are
likely to be familiar with the types of exchanges that occur in reading (e.g., receiving knowledge from text and illustrations,
discussing content), as well as the expectations that storybook reading brings to children’s thinking.
Moderated mediation findings address how the language of home reading matters to L2 acquisition. The impact is
indirect in cooperation with home reading frequency and their baseline L2 knowledge; however, its weak significance
prompts the need for further inquiry with larger sample sizes to decompose the nuances suggested only preliminarily in this
study.

4.4. Educational implications and future directions

Rich explanations of vocabulary are extremely helpful to young English learners’ word learning from storybook reading,
even when words are very sophisticated or not central to the plot. Findings from the present study, which show that sophis-
ticated vocabulary words were learned very well, attest to the power of rich explanation. When teachers provide multiple
exposures, helpful explanatory talk, and small group formats during storybook reading, they provide access to vocabulary
by increasing the breadth and depth of vocabulary learning from storybook reading. Furthermore, rich explanation fosters
word learning from books with a range of topics, illustration styles, and genres.
A minimum level of baseline L2 vocabulary is not needed before exposure to new words and explanation are helpful.
Undoubtedly, this implication challenges current thinking and practice with respect to ELLs’ education for those who do not
expose or explain because they believe children do not know enough L2 to learn sophisticated vocabulary; however, results
show there is no minimum level of receptive knowledge necessary before children benefit from exposure and word support.
Explanations are helpful regardless of initial L2 vocabulary levels.
The lack of influence of L1 knowledge found in this study does not imply that L1 vocabulary should go unsupported or that
L1 lexical knowledge is detrimental to L2 lexical learning. Rather, results suggest simply that L1 lexical knowledge, within
the range observed in this study, does not influence L2 target vocabulary acquisition when L2 targets are not cognates of
words in the L1.
In sum, several factors make important contributions to sophisticated vocabulary learning from storybook reading.
Indeed, children’s baseline language knowledge, skills in understanding the story, and the practices around storybook read-
ing at home are important to developing children’s vocabulary; however, the instructional practice of explaining words
matters uniquely and beyond other factors. From an instructional and administrative perspective, a teacher’s providing
rich explanation during storybook reading in classroom curriculum is a practical and cost-effective method for increasing
children’s vocabulary.
Rich explanation of sophisticated vocabulary encountered in storybook reading is especially helpful to new vocabulary
acquisition and should be part of read aloud instruction in early care and education programs for young children. Wasik and
Bond, 2001; Wasik and colleagues’ (2001, 2006) intervention research on training early childhood teachers to implement
interactive strategies that support vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading, as well as extend target vocabulary use
into curricular activities, shows that teachers can be successfully trained to implement rich vocabulary support practices
in classroom interactions. Although teachers can be trained, teaching teachers to make permanent changes in instructional
practices is neither quick nor easy. Training must be intensive and ongoing. Components of training noted to be particularly
helpful to teachers of low-income children included specific instructional language (i.e., what to say/do), rationales and
evidence for the importance of talking about words and reading with young children, modeling of specific behaviors by
experienced coaches, and observation and feedback of the teacher’s own instruction (Wasik et al., 2006). Undoubtedly,
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 95

the intensive and ongoing nature of such training requires considerable investments of time and resources as well as the
cultivation of positive relationships between teachers and coaches.
Future research should examine the effect of rich explanations on general vocabulary growth through posttests in both
languages. Studying growth in both general vocabulary and TVT scores over a long period of time would provide insights about
the amount of L2 vocabulary needed to position children for increasing gains in new word learning. Future research should
examine contributions of L1 and L2 when both vocabulary bases are equivalent within children. Future studies should exam-
ine the effect of rich explanation and exposure to sophisticated words in the L1 and in learners of other L2 languages. Research
could examine the effect of interactive talk about the words, over and above the benefits of only what the reader does.

4.5. Limitations and conclusions

Incomplete data on subjects’ SES limits generalizations about this population as well as the role of SES in target word
learning. The lack of effect found in supplementary analyses may reflect limited or unrefined measurement of SES or may
suggest accurate contribution to TVT in view of other predictors. The extensive amount of testing already used in this study
and the unavailability of a reliable second TVT prevented use of a delayed posttest of target learning; however, evidence
from previous research indicates that word learning is relatively permanent (Elley, 1989; Sénéchal, 1997) and even greater
than at immediate posttests (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). More could be known about language use at home. Because this study
included only children with Portuguese L1s, results are generalizable only to native speakers of Portuguese.
Rich explanation, L2 vocabulary, and frequent reading at home make significant contributions to ELL preschoolers’ English
vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Recognizing the importance of storybook reading to vocabulary learning in
early childhood, prior to formal reading instruction in elementary grades, is crucial to helping children develop a robust
oral language base. Rigorous words can be learned when the quality of reading and vocabulary support is high. Young ELL
children’s well-supported experiences with vocabulary of varying breadth and depth will promote facile access to a rich
repertoire.

Appendix A.

List of books and target words.

Title of book (# target words) Nouns Verbs Adjectives

Possum & the Peeper (6)

by Anne Hunter clamor emerge rotund
crest inhale
reeds

Raccoon on His Own (9)

by Jim Arnosky bog nudged shallow
rim waded
fauna draped
crouched
submerged

Geraldine First (5)

by Holly Keller furrowed
deposited
imitate
bared
strewn

Henry’s Happy Birthday (5)

by Holly Keller spatula donned unruly
bunting
zig-zag

Baby Bird’s First Nest (8)

by Frank Asch tuft perched prostrate
slumber dove mauve
montage hind

Baby Duck’s New Friend (6)

by Franc Asch ripples plummet auburn
arch aloft
corona

Box Turtle at Long Pond (8)

by William George predator burrowed mottled
basks speckled
retracts
severs
extends
96 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97

Title of book (# target words) Nouns Verbs Adjectives

In the Woods: Who’s Been Here (9)

by Lindsay George boulder
foliage jut spindly
trail gaping
fragments splayed
aperture

Total (56): 21 24 11

References

Allison, D. T., & Watson, J. A. (1994). The significance of adults’ storybook reading styles on the development of young children’s emergent reading. Reading
Research and Instruction, 34(1), 57–72.
Arnosky, J. (2001). Raccoon on his own. NY: Putnam.
Asch, F. (1999). Baby bird’s first nest. NY: Harcourt Brace.
Asch, F., & Asch, D. (2001). Baby duck’s new friend. NY: Harcourt Brace.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barrera, R. B., & Bauer, E. B. (2003). Storybook reading and young bilingual children: A review of the literature. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer
(Eds.), On reading books to children: Teachers and parents (pp. 253–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beals, D. E. (1997). Sources of support for learning words in conversation: Evidence from mealtimes. Journal of Child Language, 24, 673–694.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertories through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(3), 251–271.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. NY: Guilford.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(4), 580–590.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–57.
Brabham, E. G., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers’ reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early
elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 465–473.
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal,
96(4), 415–422.
Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational
transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005, September 30). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the no child left
behind act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230 new demography.pdf.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–206.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book. NY: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc.
Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Manual for the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). Living word vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory. Chicago, IL: Worldbook.
Debaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language skill. Journal of Child Development, 20, 455–461.
DeTemple, J. M., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Teachers and
parents (pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The
interrelationships among vocabulary phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge in pre-K children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 47–69.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Trivette, C. M. (2004). Guidelines for calculating effect sizes for practice-based research syntheses. Centerscope: Evidence-based
approaches to early childhood development, 3 (1). Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://www.evidencebasedpractices.org/centerscope.
Eller, R., Pappas, C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergartners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 5–24.
Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 174–187.
Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). Kindergarteners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and
working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20(1), 11–20.
Farver, J. A., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. (2006). Home environments and young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
21(2), 196–212.
George, L. B. (1995). In the woods: Who’s been here? NY: Greenwillow.
George, W. T. (1989). Box turtle at long pond. NY: Greenwillow.
Goldenberg, C., Rezaei, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005, May). Home use of English and Spanish and Spanish-speaking children’s oral language and literacy achievement.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510.
Haden, C. A., Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1996). Mothers’ extratextual comments during storybook reading: Stylistic differences over time and across texts.
Discourse Processes, 21, 135–169.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hunter, A. (1998). Possum and the peeper. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 236–248.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767–787.
Karweit, N., & Wasik, B. (1996). The effects of story reading programs on literacy and language development of disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(4), 319–348.
Keller, H. (1990). Henry’s happy birthday. NY: Greenwillow Books.
Keller, H. (1996). Geraldine first. NY: Greenwillow Books.
Kim, Y. (2000). Subject/object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9, 325–351.
 M.F. Collins / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25 (2010) 84–97 97

Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficiency students and available educational programs and services 2000–2001 summary
report. (Report No. ED-00-CO-0113). George Washington University: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction
Educational Programs. Prepared for Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English
Proficient Students. Retrieved on October 20, 2007 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/seareports/99-00/sea9900.pdf.
Lonigan, C. J. (1994). Reading to preschoolers exposed: Is the emperor really naked? Developmental Review, 14, 303–323.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.
Multivariate Research, 39, 99–128.
Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers, Inc. (n.d.). Answers to frequently asked questions. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from Massachusetts Alliance
of Portuguese Speakers Web site: http://www.maps-in.org/efaq.htm.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and
use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522–535.
Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 213–231.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning words from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237–270.
Ordónez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 719–728.
Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
9 (6). Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6.
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome
the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methodology, and practice. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42, 185–227.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256.
Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 20–28.
Reyes, I., & Azuara, P. (2008). Emergent biliteracy in young Mexican immigrant children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 374–398.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1),
54–64.
Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English language learner’s oral proficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy
development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 283–311.
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.
Scott, J. A. (2005). Creating opportunities to acquire new word meanings from text. In E. H. Hiebert, & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary:
Bringing research to practice (pp. 69–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child
Language, 24, 123–138.
Sénéchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(2), 218–229.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for English language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum
(Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 123–139). NY: Guilford.
Snow, C. E., Porsche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing Co.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
Stahl, S. A., Richek, M. A., & Vandiver, R. J. (1991). Learning vocabulary through listening: A sixth-grade replication. In J. Zutell, & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner
factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction. Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 185–192). Chicago, IL: National
Reading Conference.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,
21, 360–401.
Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. S. (1983). Comprehending verbal comprehension. American Psychologist, 38, 878–893.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Development
Psychology, 38(6), 934–947.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Tabors, P. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing
Co.
Tabors, P. O., Páez, M. M., & López, L. M. (2003). Dual language abilities of bilingual four-year-olds: Initial findings from the early childhood study of language
and literacy development of Spanish-speaking children. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, Winter, 70–91.
US Census Bureau, (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Retrieved on March 24, 2007 from http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-
bin/pct/pctProfile.pl.
Váldes, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1996). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wasik, B., & Bond, M. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 243–250.
Wasik, B., Bond, M., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 63–74.
Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning.
Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265–279.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for
children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679–689.