1. The Relationship of Head Start Preschool Teachers’ Use of Mental State Verbs in Two Settings and Children’s Vocabulary Growth Erica M. Barnes University at Albany David K. Dickinson Vanderbilt University

2. Academic Language Children must have the ability to use academic language to comprehend texts and engage in academic conversations pertaining to science, social studies, math, or language arts (Schleppegrell, 2004). “The specialized language, both oral and written, of academic settings that facilitates communication and thinking about disciplinary content” (Nagy and Townsend 2012, p. 92).

3. Mental State Verbs Thinking is central to academic language! Mental state verbs (MSV), which express thoughts, memories, knowledge, feelings, or ideas (Shatz, Wellman, & Silber, 1983), are useful for engaging in academic conversations as they promote a metacognitive stance (Olson, 1994;(Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002).

4. Importance of MSV Mental state verbs help children come to understand and express internal states (Booth, Hall, Robinson, & Kim, 1997), which are feelings, goals, intentions, and cognitions (Beeghly, Bretherton, & Mervis, 1986). MSV may help children develop metalinguistic awareness (Booth & Hall, 1995), which may facilitate vocabulary learning.

5. Developmental Progression Children begin to use mental state verbs around age 2 (Bretherton et al., 1981) First, children use MSV to discuss perceptions or physiological states such as the five senses or emotions (happy, sad, angry). Gradually, children may incorporate MSV relating to cognition or thought processes (Bretherton & Beeghly, 1982).

6. Maternal Use & Child Acquisition Maternal talk about a child’s desires, bodily states or emotions at 15 months uniquely predicted the use of mental state language at 24 months (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006). No relationship between cognitive words and children’s use of MSV was found at this age (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006). Significant relationships between cognitive word use and production for children at 33 months of age (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2008) Adults’ use of emotion-focused MSV was related to children’s PPVT scores (r=.41, p <.05) at 28 months of age (Bretherton & Beeghley, 1982).

7. Effects of MSV Children’s knowledge of cognitive words was related to vocabulary (r=.56) and reading comprehension (r =.44), (Booth & Hall, 1994). Cognitive word knowledge was correlated with listening comprehension (r=.45), and with vocabulary, conversation, and reading ability in five year old children (r =.38 to.61) (Olson & Torrance,1987)

8. Theory of Mind MSV use is of particular importance between the ages of 3 &5 due to the emergence of TOM Children need to use and understand MSV in order to explain their thoughts and feelings, as well as those of others

9. Initial Vocabulary abilities Children with larger vocabularies tend to have greater success with learning new words than children with smaller vocabularies (Matthew Effect) Mothers of children with Down Syndrome used fewer internal state words, particularly those relating to cognition, than mothers with children categorized as typically developing (Beeghley et al., 1986)

10. Research Questions 1. What is the frequency of the different categories of MSV used by teachers across two instructional settings? What relationships exist between categories and across instructional settings? 2. Is teachers’ use of MSV related to children’s end-of-year receptive vocabulary? Is this moderated by initial language ability? 3. Which categories of MSV are related to children’s end- of-year receptive vocabulary? Is this moderated by initial language ability?

11. Sample 52 Head Start classrooms in the Southeastern U.S. 52 lead teachers –all female –96.2% self-identified as African American. –16.3 years teaching pre-K (10.9 years in HS) –77% Associate’s Degree; 17% having a Bachelor’s degree. –92% CDA

12. Children 97.3% African American, 4.6 years at pre- test. Children came from low-income homes Low-language sample (n= 247) had an average standard score of 65 (SD = 7.2) on the PLS-4 Moderately-low language sample (n=242) had an average standard score of 90 (SD=9.9).

13. Data Transcribed videos from Fall of school year during Book Reading and Group Content Instruction Videos coded and analyzed in CLAN (MacWhinney, 2005) Modified version of Bretherton & Beeghly’s (1982) list of MSV was used (207 words).

14. Coding MSV divided into four categories (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2008): –Bodily States: five senses (hearing, sight, taste, touch, smell) –Desire: wants or needs –Emotions: feelings (happy, sad, love) –Cognition: knowledge or thoughts

15. Data Analysis Multi-level modelling to account for the nested nature of the data (children nested in classrooms, nested in schools, etc.) Three levels to final model Covariates: intervention condition*, teachers’ experience in HS*, sample, nonverbal-IQ *non-significant, trimmed from models

16. Book ReadingMinimumMaximumMeanSD MSV Types12110.14.2 MSV Tokens111036.923.5 Bodily State Types0621.2 Tokens05610.511.2 Cognition Types1156.52.6 Tokens18322.915.5 Desire Types051.31.2 Tokens02033.8 Emotions Types020.30.6 Tokens090.61.5

17. Group Content Instruction MinimumMaximumMeanSD MSV Types3199.64 MSV Tokens512634.525.9 Bodily States Types051.91.2 Tokens0398.49.2 Cognition Types2126.12.5 Tokens3892217.6 Desire Types061.3 Tokens0153.33.9 Emotions Types020.30.6 Tokens0120.92.6

18. Correlations No significant correlations between settings Teachers who used more categories of MSV during book reading also used more categories of MSV during GCI (r =.299, p =.03). Multiple correlations were found among categories of MSV within setting. Emotion MSV only significantly correlated with bodily states in book reading (r =.46, p =.001), but was not correlated with other categories in book reading or any of the categories in group content instruction

19. bSEp Book Reading Intercept12.443.35.00 Pre-test0.720.04.00 Leiter0.360.09.00 Sample5.081.17.00 Types0.410.220.06 Tokens-0.010.040.77 GCI Intercept10.93.1.00 Pre-test0.720.04.00 Leiter0.340.08.00 Sample5.071.16.00 Types0.870.21.00 Tokens-0.080.030.02

20. bSEp Book Reading Intercept13.233.470 Pre-test0.720.040 Leiter0.340.090 Sample5.171.180 BS Types1.280.590.03 Cognitive Types0.110.260.66 Desire Types0.240.50.64 Emotion Types-0.121.020.91 CGI Intercept12.133.140 Pre-test0.730.040 Leiter0.340.090 Sample5.061.170 BS Types0.0030.560.99 Cognitive Types0.360.250.15 Desire Types1.220.530.02 Emotion Types1.011.020.32

21. bSEp Book Reading Intercept14.872.990 Pre-Test0.720.040 Leiter0.340.090 Sample5.151.180 BS Tokens0.690.30.03 Cognitive Tokens-0.0030.040.95 Desire Tokens0.180.150.22 Emotion Tokens0.330.35 GCI Intercept15.242.910 Pre-Test0.730.040 Leiter0.340.090 Sample5.031.180 BS Tokens0.090.070.18 Cognitive Tokens-0.090.040.03 Desire Tokens0.490.190.01 Emotion Tokens0.180.230.44

22. Moderator Analyses Moderator analyses were performed for models that had main effects Moderator was initial language ability (sample) by variable of interest No significant moderator effects The degree of benefit of teachers’ MSV use did not depend on children’s initial vocabulary ability

23. Discussion

24. Descriptives Teachers using MSV about three times per minute Using the most advanced form of MSV (cognitive) more frequently than other forms. Nearly three times as many. Typically using know and think

25. Context and MSV Use No significant difference in MSV use across settings However, no relationship between settings for MSV use (more use in book reading doesn’t indicate more use in GCI) Mothers changed used of MSV across contexts (Bretherton, Beeghley, & Mervis, 1986). Teachers may use different registers across settings (Dickinson, Hofer, Barnes, & Grifenhagen, 2014).

26. Instructional Settings Significant relationships most abundant in GCI Setting may provide unique supports for learning MSV Conceptually-driven instruction related to vocabulary gain (Gonzalez et al., 2010; Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011). Setting may encourage thinking about concepts and their relationships with vocabulary, thus facilitating metalinguistic awareness

27. Lower vs. Higher Levels of MSV Only significant relationships for MSV categorized as lower, in contrast to previous work Teachers may provide more support with these verbs through gestures or facial expressions, or within illustrations Less ambiguous than other MSV More familiar, allows for deeper learning

28. Initial Language Ability Moderator not significant, may indicate initial language ability not a factor Developmental trajectory of MSV from other studies (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2006 & 2008; Bretherton & Beeghley, 1982) Sample all in the below-average range, may need larger differences for moderator effect to be detected

29. Conclusions Teachers’ use of MSV may be beneficial for children with below-the-mean vocabulary scores Current emphasis on academic language and thinking by CCSS indicates that children need to have strong understanding of MSV Teachers should be encouraged to model this type of language use to facilitate children’s language growth and metalinguistic awareness

30. Thank you! ebarnes@albany.edu Slides are available on the LRA website