Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Day care supervisors’ interactions with three and four year old children perceived as behaviourally different… Polowy, Hannah 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A2 P64.pdf [ 6.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054593.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054593-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054593-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054593-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054593-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054593-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054593-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054593-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054593.ris

Full Text

DAY CARE SUPERVISORS' INTERACTIONS WITH THREE AND FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN PERCEIVED AS BEHAVIOURALLY DIFFERENT IN A NATURAL DAY CARE SETTING BY HANNAH S. POLOWY  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH" CJOLDMBIA October,  1978  (c) Hannah S. Polowy, 19 78  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y I  further  for  of  this  freely  British  available  for  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e  the  requirements  Columbia,  I agree  reference and copying o f  this  for  that  study. thesis  purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  representatives. thesis for  It  financial  i s understood that gain shall  written permission.  Department  fulfilment of  the U n i v e r s i t y of  s h a l l make it  scholarly  by h i s  in p a r t i a l  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Columbia  not  copying or  publication  be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  DAY CARE SUPERVISORS INTERACTIONS WITH 1  THREE AND FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN PERCEIVED AS BEHAVIOURALLY DIFFERENT IN A NATURAL DAY CARE SETTING  The  major purpose o f the study was t o determine  whether there are observable  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n t e r a c t i o n s  of day care s u p e r v i s o r s with t h r e e and four year o l d c h i l d r e n whom they p e r c e i v e as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and w i t h c h i l d r e n who are not p e r c e i v e d  i n t h i s manner.  I t was hypo-  t h e s i z e d t h a t a day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with and  three  f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t would be u n l i k e t h a t s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n who are not p e r c e i v e d The  i n t h i s manner.  i n t e r a c t i o n s o f s i x day care s u p e r v i s o r s  48 three and f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n were recorded tape i n a n a t u r a l day care s e t t i n g .  with  on video  A questionnaire  completed  by the s u p e r v i s o r s , was used t o i d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n they p e r c e i v e d t o be b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted.  As a r e s u l t , e i g h t c h i l d r e n from each c e n t e r were  s e l e c t e d ; two g i r l s and two boys i d e n t i f i e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t , and two g i r l s and two boys i d e n t i f i e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted.  Video-taped o b s e r v a t i o n s  were subsequently coded  u s i n g the Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d System (1969).  Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  A f t e r minor m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the codes,  61 codes were employed t o d e s c r i b e the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r w i t h each c h i l d .  T h i r t y - t h r e e v a r i a b l e s were  s e l e c t e d by combining codes; the v a r i a b l e s were grouped i n t o nine c l u s t e r s f o r a n a l y s i s . support,  The nine c l u s t e r s a r e :  c h i l d c r e a t e d support,  teacher  created  Total  support,  t o t a l non-support, c h i l d c r e a t e d non-support, teacher non-support, c h i l d c r e a t e d p r a i s e , teacher and response o p p o r t u n i t i e s .  created  created p r a i s e ,  M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance  was used t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s . The r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d t h a t some i n t e r a c t i o n s had not been observed.  Some c l u s t e r s of i n t e r a c t i o n s were n o t  d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and behavioura l l y adapted c h i l d r e n by the day care s u p e r v i s o r , and some c l u s t e r s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  differentiated  between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n by the day care s u p e r v i s o r .  The sex o f the c h i l d  d i d not a f f e c t the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the c h i l d i n any way. The  f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t day care  supervisors  do respond d i f f e r e n t l y t o young c h i l d r e n whom they  perceive  to be b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and t o those they p e r c e i v e t o be b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted. r e c e i v e l e s s t o t a l support,  Behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children and l e s s n u r t u r e ; they  receive  more t o t a l non-support and c r i t i c i s m than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted children.  iv  In g e n e r a l i t i s concluded  t h a t i f day  care  v i s o r s are given knowledge about the nature of t h e i r with children  superinteractions  they w i l l be a b l e t o enhance the q u a l i t y  of  care they p r o v i d e each c h i l d and t o p r o v i d e o p t i m a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r a l responses by v i r t u e o f t h e i r supportive i n t e r a c t i o n with  children.  own  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i i  Abstract L i s t of Tables  iv  L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s  vi  Acknowledgement  xi  CHAPTER I  CHAPTER I I  PROBLEM  1  I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Problem  1  Statement o f Problem  2  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f Problem  3  Summary  6  REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theoretical Considerations Review o f I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s Systems Parent-child  interaction  7 7 13 13  Therapist-child interaction  15  T e a c h e r - c l a s s i n t e r a c t i o n analyses used i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d s e t t i n g s  15  Teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n studies i n e a r l y childhood education  19  Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System  23  Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System employeed i n r e s e a r c h  29  CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY P i l o t Study  36 36  Data c o l l e c t i o n  37  Coding procedures  38  I n t e r - c o d e r agreement  39  vi  Table o f Contents - Continued Chapter  Page  I I I (continued) P r i m a r y "Sfcudyy  40  Population  40  Setting  4o  Day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r  42  Children  42  Sample s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e  42  Sample  48  Data  Day c a r e c e n t r e s and s u p e r v i s o r s  48  Children  49  collection  51  Coding procedure  52.  Design  52  Data  5 3.  analyses  Statistical CHAPTER I V  •...  RESULTS AND  analyses  57  SUMMARY  61  Introduction  61  Results  62  Preliminary  Analyses  Multivariate Analysis  62 of Clusters  63  Cluster  I Total  Support  Cluster  I I Support C h i l d Created  .67  Cluster  I I I Support Teacher  69  Cluster  IV T o t a l Non S u p p o r t  64 Created  71  C l u s t e r V Non S u p p o r t C h i l d C r e a t e d C l u s t e r V I Non S u p p o r t T e a c h e r  Created  -  7. 3  75  Cluster VII Praise C h i l d Created  77 •  Cluster VIII Praise  79  Teacher  Created  Table o f Contents - continued Page CHAPTER V  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions Non  Differentiated Interaction  82 82 84  Differentiated Interaction  87  Limitations  90  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Day Care P r a c t i c e  91  Implications f o r supervisors  91  Implications f o r evaluation  92  Implications f o r c h i l d r e n  93  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g day care supervisors  95  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research  Bibliography  96  101  Appendix A  Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board Standards  10 6  Appendix B  L e t t e r of Inquiry  114  Appendix C  Summary Table o f Non Computable V a r i a b l e s  115  Appendix D  D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms  116  Appendix E  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System  118  Biographical  Information  124  viii  LIST OF TABLES  Table  Page  1  Coder/Researcher  P e r c e n t Agreement:  P i l o t Study  2  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Scores  50  3  I n t e r Coder P e r c e n t Agreement Primary Study  52  4  Formation of V a r i a b l e s  54  5  C l u s t e r Formation  58  6  C l u s t e r I . C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r T o t a l Support  66  7  Cluster I. Multivariate Analysis T o t a l Support  66  8  C l u s t e r I I . C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Support C h i l d Created  68  9  Cluster I I . Multivariate Analysis Support C h i l d Created  68  of Variance f o r  of Variance f o r  40  10  C l u t t e r I I I . C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Support Teacher Created  70  11  Cluster I I I . Multivariate Analysis f o r Support Teacher Created  70  12  C l u s t e r IV. C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r T o t a l Non Support  72  13  C l u s t e r IV. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s T o t a l Non Support  of Variance f o r  72  14  C l u s t e r V. C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Non Support C h i l d Created  74  15  C l u s t e r V. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s Non Support C h i l d C r e a t e d  74  16  C l u s t e r V I . Cell.Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Non Support Teacher Created  76  17  Cluster VI. Multivariate Analysis f o r Non Support Teacher Created  76  of Variance  of V a r i a n c e f o r  of Variance  ix L i s t o f TABLES - Continued  Table  Page  7s:  18  C l u s t e r V I I . C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s for Praise C h i l d Created  •• • -  19  Cluster VII. M u l t i v a r i a t e Analysis of Variance f o r P r a i s e C h i l d Created  78  20  C l u s t e r V I I I . C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r P r a i s e Teacher Created  80'  21  C l u s t e r V I I I . M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f Variance o f P r a i s e Teacher Created  8©  ;  LIST OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  Illustration  Page M o d i f i e d Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n Coding Form,  25  Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  45  F u l l y Crossed F a c t o r a l Design  53  W (<?  xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I t i s the p l e a s a n t custom, when one f i n a l l y  approaches  the c o n c l u s i o n o f a d i s s e r t a t i o n , to p u b l i c l y acknowledge f r i e n d s and c o l l e a g u e s whose e f f o r t and presence  provided the  needed support, encouragement and c o o p e r a t i o n . Dr. Peggy Koopman, my a d v i s e r , o r i g i n a l l y encouraged the r e s e a r c h e r to i n v e s t i g a t e the day care environment f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and I am deeply f o r her long continuous  grateful  support and guidance.  At each s u c c e s s i v e stage i n the r e s e a r c h task the long hours o f guidance  o f Dr. Todd Rogers made i t p o s s i b l e t o  move ahead on problems of o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and statistical  analysis.  I am p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r e c i a t i v e o f the wise counsel which other members o f my d o c t o r a l committee, Dr. Norma Law, and Dr. S t a n l e y Perkins, p r o v i d e d on the problems o f study design, o r g a n i z a t i o n and w r i t i n g . The author wishes to express a s p e c i a l thanks t o the s i x day care s u p e r v i s o r s and the two Day Care  Information  O f f i c e s , who a l l must remain u n i d e n t i f i e d , but g r a c i o u s l y and courageously  p r o v i d e d the data f o r the study.  I should  to express a p p r e c i a t i o n to Jane A l l a n , Debbie Jones,  like  Jean  J e f f r e y s , Dale M a r t i n and A l l a n a M i l l e r who spent c o u n t l e s s hours l e a r n i n g the coding system and coding hours o f v i d e o tapes.  vii  I am deeply indebted to the two photographers,  Audrey  Walmsley and L e r r y Legebokoff who v i d e o taped many hours o f interaction.  A very s p e c i a l thanks to Frank Ho f o r the computer  p r o c e s s i n g o f the data and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f v a s t amounts o f computer p r i n t o u t s h e e t s . I acknowledge with deep a p p r e c i a t i o n the s i n c e r e i n t e r e s t and moral  support g i v e n by many o f my f r i e n d s and  c o l l e a g u e s i n the f i e l d o f e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n . In c o n c l u s i o n , I wish to express my boundless  grati-  tude to my f a m i l y ; Ed my husband, Teresa and Garry my c h i l d r e n , R o s a l i a my mother who gave so much c o n f i d e n t encouragement i n the years throughout  t h i s period of s t r e s s .  t h i s work would not have been  accomplished.  vix  Without  this,  CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM  I n t r o d u c t i o n to Problem  From 1973  to 1975  the number o f c h i l d r e n between the  ages of t h r e e to f i v e r e c e i v i n g day  care s e r v i c e s i n B r i t i s h  Columbia i n c r e a s e d more than f o u r f o l d . immediate day care f o r approximately  In p r o v i d i n g almost  10,000 more c h i l d r e n ,  these day c a r e programs were developed  and  implemented without  a c o r r e s p o n d i n g e v a l u a t i o n of the v a r i o u s important components making up the day care environment.  S i n c e the r a p i d  expansion  of day c a r e , many q u e s t i o n s have been r a i s e d concerning q u a l i t y of experiences p r o v i d e d the c h i l d r e n .  The  the  intention  i n t h i s study i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s o f the c o n s t a n t and i n t e n s e a d u l t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n maintained  i n the day  care  environment. At the c o n c l u s i o n of, t h e i r study o f the day c h i l d r e n w i t h s p e c i a l needs i n B r i t i s h Columbia Robinson and McDermick suggested child  interaction.  care  (1973),  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the a d u l t -  They concluded  t h a t once a day care  super-  v i s o r has evaluated a c h i l d , whether r i g h t l y or wrongly, e x p e c t a t i o n s about the t e a c h i n g s t y l e s used with t h a t c h i l d may  be i n f l u e n c e d by t h a t [ s i n g l e ] e v a l u a t i o n .  suggested  T h e i r study  t h a t day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s are l i k e l y to make d e c i s i o n s  about i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n on the b a s i s of how  comfortable or  2  uncomfortable  they f e e l with the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d .  v i s o r u s u a l l y l a b e l s c h i l d r e n who  make him f e e l  The  super-  comfortable  as " h y p e r - a c t i v e " , " e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d " , " s o c i a l l y mala d j u s t e d " , "language The  d e f i c i e n t " or developmentally l a g g i n g . "  i n v e s t i g a t o r s i m p l i e d t h a t a c h i l d so l a b e l l e d i s p e r c e i -  ved by the s u p e r v i s o r as behaving d i f f e r e n t l y from the other children.  T h i s , i n t u r n , may  action with that  a f f e c t the s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r -  child.  Even though the Robinson  and McDermick study  was  m e d i c a l l y based and r e m e d i a l l y o r i e n t e d , the g l o b a l c o n c l u s i o n s suggested t h a t examination  of a day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r -  a c t i o n with i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n i s necessary t o understand b e t t e r meet the needs o f the c h i l d i n the day care Bell  and  environment.  (1972) s t r o n g l y s t a t e s t h a t the c h i l d ' s  con-  t r i b u t i o n t o c a r e t a k e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n cannot be i g n o r e d i f a f u l l understanding of the process of i n t e r a c t i o n i s desired.  However, the c h i l d ' s r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h  the day care s u p e r v i s o r was the parameters important.  d e l i b e r a t e l y not i n c l u d e d w i t h i n  of t h i s study even though i t i s r e c o g n i z e d as  The f i n d i n g s r e s u l t i n g from t h i s study c o u l d  c e r t a i n l y i n i t i a t e subsequent of r e c i p r o c a l  r e s e a r c h t o address t h i s aspect  interaction.  Statement of Problem The purpose  of t h i s study was  v a t i o n whether a day-care  to determine  supervisor interacted  by  obser-  differently  3  with c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d as " b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t " *  than  he d i d with the other c h i l d r e n and whether the s u p e r v i s o r v a r i e d h i s / h e r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h g i r l s or boys.  Significance To date,  of Problem  i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h has been d i r e c t e d  t e a c h e r - p u p i l i n t e r a c t i o n at the elementary and high level  (Travers, 1973).  to  school  L a c k i n g such r e s e a r c h i n e a r l y  child-  hood e d u c a t i o n , the tendency has been e i t h e r to e x t r a p o l a t e the f i n d i n g s  about elementary s c h o o l s i n t o e a r l y  e d u c a t i o n , or t o extend t r a i n i n g procedures  childhood  e x i s t i n g developmental theory  f o r young c h i l d r e n  i n day c a r e .  t e a c h i n g and q u a l i t y programmes f o r young c h i l d r e n grounded i n such e x t r a p o l a t i o n s and e x t e n s i o n s . t h a t e a r l y c h i l d h o o d educators  into But  cannot be  It i s essential  b u i l d t h e i r knowledge of  i n t e r a c t i o n a l analyses upon e a r l y c h i l d h o o d education E x i s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h with primary secondary students  indicates  good  t h a t the t e a c h e r ' s  research. and  perception.of  an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d a f f e c t s h i s or her i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h a t child.  Hargreaves  (1972) d e s c r i b e s the  process:  Teacher s e l e c t i v i t y [ s i c ] p e r c e i v e s and i n t e r p r e t s c h i l d behaviour and through repeated p e r c e p t i o n s develops a conc e p t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d who i s e v a l u a t e d , c a t e g o r i z e d and l a b e l l e d . Response t o the c h i l d i s i n the l i g h t of these e v a l u a t i v e l a b e l s . (p.161) I t i s of the utmost'importance t h a t e a r l y  childhood  educators have knowledge based upon r e s e a r c h about the e f f e c t * See Appendix D f o r D e f i n i t i o n of Terms  4  of the day  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s p e r c e p t i o n s  of the i n d i v i d u a l  c h i l d , upon t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h a t c h i l d as  described  by Hargreaves. Information as P i a g e t  provided  by such developmental t h e o r i s t s  (1962), Bandura (1961), White  (1976) and Bruner  (1970)  i n d i c a t e t h a t a d u l t response through i n t e r a c t i o n with a c h i l d forms an important l e a r n i n g f u n c t i o n f o r the c h i l d d u r i n g e a r l y pre-school  years.  T h i s p e r i o d between the ages of  t o f i v e i s the t r a n s i t i o n between i n f a n c y and school. and  the three  entrance to  During t h i s p e r i o d , the c h i l d r e f o c u s s e s h i s energy  l e a r n s t o d i r e c t h i s behaviour i n t o s o c i a l l y  channels.  This process  seems t o be  acceptable  f a c i l i t a t e d b e s t by  c o n s i s t e n t presence of a n u r t u r i n g , s u p p o r t i v e  the  caregiver,  parent  or another s i g n i f i c a n t a d u l t i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e .  Bruner  (1970) s t a t e s t h a t without such l e a r n i n g , the  cannot a c t i n ways t h a t are a c c e p t a b l e  to s o c i e t y .  r e s u l t , t h a t c h i l d i s s o c i a l l y c r i p p l e d and his  f u l l energy to the next stages  his  school  the  child As  a  cannot devote  o f h i s development d u r i n g  years. From h i s own  extensive  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Bronfenbrenner  r e s e a r c h and  observational  (1971) summarizes the develop-  mental t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t t o i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d of e a r l y c h i l d h o o d  education:  5  The young cannot p u l l themselves up by t h e i r own b o o t - s t r a p s . I t i s p r i m a r i l y through o b s e r v i n g , p l a y i n g and working with o t h e r s , o l d e r and younger than hims e l f , t h a t a c h i l d d i s c o v e r s both what he can do, and who he csn become, t h a t he develops both h i s a b i l i t y and h i s i d e n tity. I t i s p r i m a r i l y through exposure [to] and i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n o f d i f f e r e n t ages t h a t a c h i l d a c q u i r e s new i n t e r e s t s and s k i l l s , and l e a r n s the meaning o f t o l e r a n c e , coo p e r a t i o n and compassion... t h e r e i s but one c a u t i o n t o be born i n mind, t h e c r u c i a l f a c t o r , o f course, i s not how much time i s spent w i t h a c h i l d , but how t h e time i s spent. A c h i l d l e a r n s , he becomes human, p r i m a r i l y through p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i n c h a l l e n g i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h those whom he l o v e s and admires. I t i s the example, c h a l l e n g e and reinforcement p r o v i d e d by people who c a r e t h a t enable a c h i l d t o develop both h i s a b i l i t y and h i s i d e n t i t y . (p.54) E a r l y c h i l d h o o d educators m a i n t a i n t h a t t o understand the needs o f young c h i l d r e n and t o develop a meaningful program f o r them, one ought t o observe and study the behaviour o f the c h i l d and t e a c h e r i n the n a t u r a l s e t t i n g .  Kounin  (1967)  e l a b o r a t e d t h i s p o s i t i o n i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a t the primary school  level: In the c u r r e n t stage o f s c i e n c e s , t h e r e i s room conducted i n the s p i r i t see what can be l e a r n e d the s p i r i t o f debate t o t h e s i s o r theory can be The p r e s e n t s t i  behavioural f o r researches of enquiry to r a t h e r than i n see what hypotested. (p.123)  The p r e s e n t study was i n i t i a t e d i n t h i s  spirit.  Summary  C h i l d care, as p r o v i d e d by the day care c e n t r e s  has  been conceived as meeting the needs of c h i l d r e n ' s growth and development by e n a b l i n g them to i n t e r a c t w i t h the day  care  supervisor. The  study was  i n i t i a t e d i n the s p i r i t of e n q i r y  i n order t o g a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about a day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with t h r e e and  f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n who  p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t .  The data were c o l l e c t e d  by u s i n g a v i d e o camera i n the n a t u r a l day coded with the Brophy and Good Dyadic a c t i o n System (1969).  The  were  care s e t t i n g  and  Teacher-Child Inter-  f i n d i n g s r e s u l t i n g from the  study  c o u l d be u s e f u l t o day care s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h e i r attempt to meet b e t t e r the needs of the young c h i l d i n a day  care  environment. The four c h a p t e r s . Chapter  remainder of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s o r g a n i z e d In.Chapter  into  I I , . t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed;  I I I , the methodology i s d e s c r i b e d ; i n Chapter  IV,  data r e s u l t s are presented and d i s c u s s e d ; and i n Chapter c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn and i m p l i c a t i o n s are  suggested.  in the  V,  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE  The  review of l i t e r a t u r e is..presented^  separate s e c t i o n s :  theoretical considerations,  a n a l y s i s systems and s t u d i e s o f t e a c h e r - c h i l d In  t:at<  f o r t h i s study i s d e s c r i b e d  employing the s e l e c t e d  interaction.  The  and a review o f r e s e a r c h  system i s p r e s e n t e d .  Theoretical  The  interaction  f o u r t h s e c t i o n , the i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s e s system  selected  school  ihectthreethree  Considerations  o v e r a l l development of c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r p r e -  years i s the b a s i c concern o f e a r l y childhood  educators  concept of growth and development as based upon a s e r i e s  of developmental steps,^nutu*.iHgr'*an d. s u p p o r t i v e environment, T  has  been o u t l i n e d by r e s e a r c h e r s i n both c l i n i c a l and obser-  vational  studies. Bruner  i s innate.  (1971) s t a t e s t h a t the s t r a t e g y  f o r learning  He suggests t h a t b e f o r e the new-born c h i l d ' s  system can be a c t i v a t e d , he must l e a r n a s e r i e s o f p r i m i t i v e codes.  The c h i l d l e a r n s them by i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a s u p p o r t i v e  a d u l t who p r o v i d e s a model f o r behaviour and feedback i n terms of acceptance o f the c h i l d .  Bruner concludes t h a t a c h i l d ' s  attempts a t l e a r n i n g may be stopped i f he i s denied the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r a c t i n g with a n u r t u r i n g  s i g n i f i c a n t adult  8  Bruner"s theory supports the assumption t h a t the day care s u p e r v i s o r  must p r o v i d e young c h i l d r e n with s u p p o r t i v e  n u r t u r e through c o n t i n u a l care s u p e r v i s o r  and a c c e p t i n g  interaction.  The day  thus becomes one o f the s i g n i f i c a n t a d u l t s i n  the c h i l d ' s l i f e and a c t i v a t e s b a s i c s o c i a l and emotional learnings  important a t t h i s stage o f development. Bandura  (1963) demonstrated t h a t c h i l d r e n who i n t e r -  a c t w i t h warm, a t t e n t i v e a d u l t s d i s p l a y c o n s i d e r a b l y  more  i m i t a t i v e behaviour than those c h i l d r e n who i n t e r a c t with a d u l t s who d i s p l a y c o l d d i s t a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . that c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y considerable  He suggested  s o c i a l l e a r n i n g o f an  i n c i d e n t a l i m i t a t i v e s o r t f a c i l i t a t e d by a n u r t u r a n t  adult.  When i n t e r p r e t e d f u n c t i o n a l l y , Bandura's i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the q u a l i t a t i v e development o f b e h a v i o u r a l s o c i a l implies up The  t h a t the day care s u p e r v i s o r  structures  who c a r e s f o r the c h i l d r e n  t o t e n hours a day p r o v i d e s a strong model f o r behaviour. implication  i s t h a t the extent o f the s u p e r v i s o r ' s  influence  depends upon the q u a l i t y o f the a d u l t c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Undoubtedly, the t h e o r i e s o f Bruner,-Bandura ^and a no' o t h e r s have meaning f o r day care p r a c t i c e and e s p e c i a l l y f o r the q u a l i t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n between the day care and  young c h i l d r e n .  supervisors  Young c h i l d r e n cannot be expected to l e a r n  s o c i a l , emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s u n l e s s the day c a r e supervisor  can p r o v i d e the p r e r e q u i s i t e  interactions  Bruner and Bandura suggest a r e b a s i c to l e a r n i n g .  that  9  Piaget  (1961), i n h i s theory o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , des-  c r i b e s t h e young c h i l d ' s thoughts as e g o c e n t r i c because t h e c h i l d c o n s t r u c t s r e a l i t y t o s u i t h i m s e l f through symbolic In the process o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  the c h i l d becomes more aware  of h i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y a t t h e same time, m o d e l l i n g others whom he observes. the s i g n i f i c a n t others  himself  with  (parents, c a r e g i v e r s ) i n h i s e n v i r o n A l s o , he  i s provided with  i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s behaviour through  t h e i r response.  During  environment.  after  In e f f e c t , he i d e n t i f i e s h i m s e l f  ment whom he may take as models f o r h i s behaviour.  i s almost completely  play.  t h i s time a young c h i l d ' s development  dependent upon h i s t r a n s a c t i o n s with t h e  He a c q u i r e s concepts a c t i v e l y , not p a s s i v e l y ,  through h i s a c t i o n s and t h e feedback he r e c e i v e s i n h i s i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e care g i v i n g a d u l t .  .If„we -accepta-fiaget'i"s^theories  as v a l i d , we .realize t h a t before going  to s c h o o l , a c h i l d needs  a d u l t s who are f r i e n d l y , n u r t u r i n g , c l e a r i n t h e i r d i r e c t i o n s , and  s u p p o r t i v e o f the r u l e s t h a t determine a c c e p t a b l e  In the i n t e r a c t i o n a l process  behaviour.  between t h e c h i l d and the a d u l t ,  the c h i l d gains an understanding and what i s expected o f him.  o f who he i s , what he can do,  He l e a r n s by watching a d u l t s  behave and a c t , by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the a c t i v i t y and t h e e x p e r i ences p r o v i d e d by the a d u l t , and by r e l a t i n g to s i t u a t i o n s which e l i c i t a d u l t a t t e n t i o n , be i t p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e . Other important  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t c h i l d r e n develop  d u r i n g the p r e - s c h o o l p e r i o d are i n c r e a s e d language  skills,  the o b s e r v i n g and a c t i n g o u t o f a d u l t r o l e s , and g r e a t e r knowledge about what i s a c c e p t a b l e  behaviour.  L u r i a (1961) and  10  Vygotsky  (19 62)., S o v i e t p s y c h o l o g i s t s ,  words used by a d u l t s d u r i n g a d u l t and  f e e l s t r o n g l y that  the i n t e r a c t i o n between a  c h i l d i n f l u e n c e the c h i l d ' s behaviour.  the  nurturing  Their  research  notes the i n f l u e n c e upon a young c h i l d ' s behaviour thro ugh swords 1  spoken to him by  by ahe  adult.  A s A s a c h i l d l e a r n s the words used %  ahe a d u l t , he i s able to i n t e r a c t by c o n t r o l l i n g h i s behaviour  w i t h the a d u l t .  Through v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n a^.eh-ildlBeginsritot~  understand h i s own  behaviour and  w i t h whom he i n t e r a c t s . theory  p l a c e s great  the e f f e c t he has  The methodology a r i s i n g out o f  Through i n t e r a c t i o n with -an- a d u l t who  has: upon!adults.  provides  couragement, i n s t r u c t i o n , . demonstration and .1:4;. c h i l d v e r y  on o t h e r s .  The  nurture,  behavioural  Soviet researchers  indicate that verbal  p a r a l l e l between m o t h e r - c h i l d  inter-  c h i l d i s most  s i g n i f i c a n t i n shaping taie c h i l d ' s behaviour with  day c a r e  en-  e a r l y l e a r n s the e f f e c t s of h i s a c t i o n s  a c t i o n between the n u r t u r i n g a d u l t and ;ae  The  this  emphasis upon t r a i n i n g the young c h i l d  to become aware of the e f f e c t hiscjlanguage  examples,  upon those  others.  i n t e r a c t i o n and  s u p e r v i s o r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n has been e s t a b l i s h e d  the r e s e a r c h  o f White  (19 71), who  intended- .to ;  by  idehtijEytthe.  techniques by which a mother i n f l u e n c e s her c h i l d ' s development and  behaviour.  White i n v e s t i g a t e d how  of c h i l d r e n i n the f i r s t preparation  to s t r u c t u r e experiences  s i x y e a r s of l i f e so t h a t  f o r normal education  White c o l l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n  may  optimal  be accomplished.  about the competencies'of a s i x  year o l d , but he found t h a t most of the q u a l i t i e s t h a t t i n g u i s h the outstanding  Initially,  s i x year o l d can be achieved  disin a  11 l a r g e measure by the age  of three and  subsequent r e s e a r c h con-  c e n t r a t e d on the c h i l d below the age of White r e p o r t s  three.  (1978) t h a t the development o f a  c h i l d ' s c a p a c i t y f o r l e a r n i n g and o v e r a l l  "competence" i s  obvious d u r i n g the second year of l i f e and becomes s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the age of t h r e e .  He observe^'- t h a t some c h i l d r e n developed  b e t t e r than others because of the way  the mother (care g i v e r )  responded to the emergence of locomotor a c t i v i t y i n 'he's?-child. White and ing  h i s c o l l e a g u e s confirmed  the home l i f e o f ch-il'dreno .  d i r e c t and powerful child.  t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s by  study-  They found t h a t the mother's  i n d i r e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s with her c h i l d are the most  formative  f a c t o r s i n the development of a competent  White d e s c r i b e s the mother's i n t e r a c t i o n with  competent c h i l d as n u r t u r i n g , p e r m i s s i v e , a s t i c , t a l k a t i v e and  indulgent,  her enthusi-  suggestive.  Gordon (1975) r e p o r t s ir. a long term study on  stimu-  l a t i o n of young c h i l d r e n t h a t by i n c r e a s i n g the p o s i t i v e responses of the mother the development of her c h i l d i s enhanced. E v a l u a t i o n of the f i r s t  two  t h a t a t the end of the f i r s t entered  years of parent  education i n d i c a t e d  year, c h i l d r e n of mothers  the program e a r l y were developmentally  who  s u p e r i o r to  c h i l d r e n whose mothers d i d not r e c e i v e t r a i n i n g . A p o s i t i v e example of the long term e f f e c t i v e n e s s of n u r t u r e on young r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n i s the c l a s s i c study Skeels who  (1942) .  T h i r t e e n c h i l d r e n approximately  of  18 months o l d  had been diagnosed as r e t a r d e d were t r a n s f e r r e d from an  u n s t i m u l a t i n g , overcrowded orphanage t h a t allowed  for l i t t l e  12  p o s i t i v e human i n t e r a c t i o n to a r e s i d e n t i a l c e n t r e f o r m e n t a l l y retarded a d u l t s .  Older m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d g i r l s served as  f o s t e r mothers f o r these c h i l d r e n .  A f t e r a year and a h a l f  the c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e score had gained an average o f 27.5  p o i n t s and they were then p l a c e d i n a d o p t i v e homes. In  c o n t r a s t , a c o n t r o l group o f normal i n t e l l i g e n t c h i l d r e n i n g i n the orphanage decreased i n two and one-half y e a r s . study of the two groups.  remain-  i n i n t e l l i g e n c e about 20 p o i n t s  L a t e r Skeels  (1960) d i d a f o l l o w - u p  The c o n t r o l group continued t o l i v e  i n the orphanage and the experimental group l i v e d i n a normal environment.  On a l l measures, s o c i a l adequacy, economic  self-  s u f f i c i e n c y and s c h o o l i n g , the experimental c h i l d r e n were f u n c t i o n i n g as middle c l a s s a d u l t s , while a l l o f the c h i l d r e n i n the c o n t r o l group had h i s t o r i e s o f enrollment i n h o s p i t a l s f o r the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d , poor employment h a b i t s , and s o c i a l adjustment  difficulties. One  notes from the S k e e l s ' study t h a t long range  e f f e c t s of e a r l y and continuous  i n t e r v e n t i o n over many years  were h i g h l y dependent upon the mother-surrogates w i t h the c h i l d r e n .  interaction  T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n was h i g h l y s u p p o r t i v e  because the mother s u r r o g a t e s gave much time t o t a l k i n g t o , p l a y i n g w i t h and s t i m u l a t i n g the c h i l d r e n .  The r e s u l t s o f  t h i s c l a s s i c study supports Bloom's (1964) f i n d i n g s and the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f these s t u d i e s should be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o present day-care  practices.  The r e s e a r c h o f Bruner, Bandura, P i a g e t , Luria., White, Gordon and Skeels p r o v i d e the developmental  Vygotsky,  theory base  for this investigation.  These t h e o r i e s suggest t h a t i n order  to a c t i v a t e the b a s i c s o c i a l and  emotional l e a r n i n g s  impor-  t a n t t o the young c h i l d at t h i s stage of development, a d u l t must p r o v i d e n u r t u r e , support, as d e s c r i b e d  as d e f i n e d by Bruner and  by P i a g e t ;  encouragement and  t i o n , as suggested by Vygotsky; and by Gordon and  enthusiasm, as  I t appears to t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , review of v a r i o u s  instrucdescribed  interaction recording  Systems  after  considerable  systems, t h a t  systems designed t o analyze i n t e r a c t i o n may  g o r i z e d i n t o f o u r separate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : interaction,  (b) p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t - c h i l d  teacher-class  i n t e r a c t i o n , and  emphasis p l a c e d  e a r l y childhood  (a)  be  these cate-  parent-child  interaction,'  (c)  (d) t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n .  Each o f these c l a s s e s i s d i s c u s s e d greater  Bandura;  White.  L i t e r a t u r e Review o f I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s  various  an  i n turn with  upon the t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i n  programs.  Parent-child interaction The  p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n research  years of development. and  Bishop  The  (1951) p r o v i d e d  has  had many  c l a s s i c s t u d i e s of Champney (1939) the i n i t i a l b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r  research. Champney  (1939) s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s i n h i s  investi-  g a t i o n t h a t were s u i t a b l e f o r a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s parent-child interaction.  Categories  on the assumption t h a t the c h i l d of s t i m u l a t i o n and  of  i n the system were based  (1) "being the c e n t r a l source  o b j e c t of r e a c t i o n "  (Champney, p.527) and  (2)  "as r e c e i v e r and i n t e g r a t o r o f s o c i a l s t i m u l i " parent behaviour.  (p.528) shaped  S e v e n t y - f i v e codes c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t e n  groups d e s c r i b e behaviour  of t h e p a r e n t .  Seven groups r e p r e s e n t  p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between parent and c h i l d ; two groups d e a l w i t h g e n e r a l parent behaviour; and one group i l l u s t r a t e s home behaviour.  The r a t i n g s c a l e demanded t h a t  the s c o r e r show a complex i n c i s i v e judgement which r e q u i r e d e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e . Bishop  (19 51) developed  a framework t o observe  p a r e n t a l behaviour based upon stimulus-response t h e o r y .  The  p a r e n t a l i n t e r a c t i o n was t r e a t e d as the s t i m u l u s and the c h i l d ' s behaviour was d e f i n e d as the response.  In e f f e c t the Bishop  category system measures the m o t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p under experimental c o n d i t i o n s i n order t o d e s c r i b e the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n t h i s i n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e s s e n t i a l t o the p e r s o n a l i t y development o f the c h i l d . E i g h t e e n v a r i a b l e s were developed to  by Schaefer  (1959)  d e s c r i b e the s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s o f mother and  c h i l d i n t h e home as w e l l as i n a r e s e a r c h s e t t i n g .  The d a t a  were c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g the parent and by an o b s e r v a t i o n r e c o r d i n g system.  The Headstart Programme i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s  a l s o gave r i s e t o many p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s (Caldwell  (1967), White  (1971) and Gordon (1976) ) which p r o -  v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o h e l p parents modify  t h e i r behaviour so  t h a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n c o u l d achieve more and e a r l i e r c o g n i t i v e skills.  15 Therapist-child  interaction  These i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s r o l e of the t h e r a p i s t .  systems are based on  the  I t i s assumed i n the development of t h i s  i n t e r a c t i o n a l measurement t h a t the one  seeking h e l p  has  problems, u s u a l l y emotional problems, t h a t do not  permit  to f u n c t i o n  I t i s assumed  or i n t e r a c t i n an a c c e p t a b l e manner.  a l s o t h a t the help.  therapist  i s s u i t e d t o a s s i s t the person  him  requiring  Because the d e v e l o p e r s of t h e r a p i s t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n  systems u s u a l l y assume a problem e x i s t s , t h e i r c a t e g o r i e s p a t h o l o g i c a l l y based.  The  are  t h e r a p i s t must l i s t e n , observe,  make statements of r e c o g n i t i o n .  In the  and  Moustakas-Sigel-Shalock  System (1956) a s i n g l e c h i l d i s observed i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h toys or m a t e r i a l s  i n a c l i n i c a l playroom.  The  i s recorded every f i v e seconds on a s c o r i n g over 150  variables.  The  response t o the c h i l d , the p i s t , and  sheet  Strupp system (19 60)  i n t e r a c t i o n between the t h e r a p i s t and  the t h e r a p e u t i c  c h i l d ' s behaviour containing  analyses  c h i l d , the  the  therapist's  c h i l d ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the  thera-  climate.  Teacher-class i n t e r a c t i o n analyses Used i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d s e t t i n g s At p r e s e n t , o b s e r v a t i o n instruments are for observing teacher-class  interactions.  abundant  Simon and  Boyer  (1970) have l i s t e d more than 100  observation recording  Subsequently, Travers  Stubbs and  p o i n t e d out increased  (1973) and  Delamont  systems. (1976)  t h a t r e c e n t classroom o b s e r v a t i o n instruments have  in sophistication, incorporating  systems such as Anderson's  the  (1946), W i t h a l l ' s  ideas of  (1949)  and  earlier  16 Flanders'  (1960). The t e a c h e r - c l a s s i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s e s systems  here have the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :  reviewed  a l l have been used by  t h e i r authors as w e l l as by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s ; a l l produce data w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l implication's; a l l have been developed  f o r ana-  l y z i n g t e a c h e r - c l a s s i n t e r a c t i o n s ; and a l l have been designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r teacher-group  i n t e r a c t i o n analyses i n early  c h i l d h o o d education s i t u a t i o n s , such as nursery s c h o o l , day care, k i n d e r g a r t e n and f i r s t  grade.  Richenberg-Hackett  (1962) developed a d e s c r i p t i v e  o b s e r v a t i o n instrument t o r e c o r d the p r a c t i c e s and a t t i t u d e s of n u r s e r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s .  The data were c o l l e c t e d w i t h t e n  minute a n e c t o d a l r e c o r d i n g s d u r i n g a f o u r hour o b s e r v a t i o n period.  Then the data were d i v i d e d i n t o d i s c e r n a b l e u n i t s o f  a c t i o n and c a t e g o r i z e d . was noted with each u n i t .  The who-to-whom, and t h e a c t i v i t y An episode  (unit) was recorded each  time the t e a c h e r addressed a c h i l d , moved from one p l a c e t o another o r p i c k e d up a d i f f e r e n t p i e c e o f equipment. were c o l l e c t e d i n t h r e e major c a t e g o r i e s : (2) m o t i v a t i n g techniques and a c t i v i t i e s , values.  (1) teacher  The data approach,  and (3) l e s s o n s and  T h i s system focuses upon t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f the teacher  w i t h the c h i l d r e n and t h e r o u t i n e s and a c t i v i t i e s t h a t he uses t o t r a n s m i t a t t i t u d e s and values t h a t he c o n s i d e r s important.  The  r e s u l t s suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t e a c h e r ' s m o t i v a t i n g techniques and t h e c h i l d ' s performance. Prescott  (1967) designed an o b s e r v a t i o n system t h a t  focused upon t e a c h e r behaviour  i n a day care s e t t i n g .  A unit  17  of teacher a c t i v i t y was d e f i n e d as "an a c t on the p a r t o f the teacher which i n v o l v e s d i s c e r n a b l e c o n t a c t w i t h an o b j e c t o r person"  ( P r e s c o t t , p.65).  He added  v e r b a l and non-verbal communication,  (1) encouragement,  (2)  and (3) guidance t o the  major c a t e g o r i e s o f Richenberg and Hackett.  In a d d i t i o n t o  the t e a c h e r ' s behaviour, he recorded the l e s s o n s taught and g l o b a l i n d i c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s behaviour, as w e l l as some o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a day care c e n t r e .  T h i s system attempts t o f i n d  relationships  between teacher behaviour, classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n , and c h i l d behaviour and Katz  achievement. (19 69) developed a Teacher-Behaviour  Instrument and a C h i l d Behaviour Survey Instrument classroom i n t e r a c t i o n i n H e a d s t a r t programmes.  Survey to observe  RaUsinged  ahe»point sampling technique ,w.sheL. s t u d i e d the behaviour o f the s p e c i f i c c h i l d l o n g enough t o i d e n t i f y and check i t o f f i n the a p p r o p r i a t e c e l l .  The major dimensions  i n the Katz  system a r e (1) c o n t a c t ,  (2) f e e d i n g ,  feedback,  (6) nurturance, and (7) dominant  tone.  (5) c o n t r o l ,  A l l o f these dimensions  (3) t e a c h i n g ,  (4)  are s u b d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s  except f o r dominant tone, which was entered o n l y once f o r each o b s e r v a t i o n .  The type o f a c t i v i t y observed was a l s o  b r i e f l y recorded. Caldwell  (19 69) developed the Approach  System o f  I n t e r a c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e the young c h i l d  i n h i s home  and^sehoo^envdronment'i pThisdprocedures f o r patter-nijignresponses  of a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n i n a p r e - s c h o o l environment i n v o l v e s b r e a k i n g behaviour  i n t o s h o r t episodes:  (2) what i s the a c t i o n , and  (1) who i s a c t i n g ,  (3) t o whom i s the behaviour d i r e c t e d ,  (4) the category o f behaviour.  Data were c o l l e c t e d i n  the p r e - s c h o o l s e t t i n g as w e l l as i n the home t o determine if  the behaviour  the p r e - s c h o o l .  i n the home s e t t i n g d i f f e r e d from t h a t o f Both teacher and p a r e n t a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h  the c h i l d are observed response,  and recorded  i n terms o f q u a l i t y o f  a t t e n t i o n given, information given, i n t e r f e r e n c e ,  nurture, g r a n t i n g o f requests and non compliance. S e v e r a l guides p u b l i s h e d on how t o assess the l e a r n i n g environment i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d education programs have been published.*' (Spodek 1973; B i b e r 1971; and Gazden 1972). One  o f the most comprehensive f o r observaton  i s t h a t o f M a t t i c k and P e r k i n s a d v i c e , a model was developed  (1973) .  and assessment  With Wechsler's  t o r e f l e c t adequately  p r i n c i p l e s o f c h i l d development and the s a l i e n t of day care e d u c a t i o n .  However, the authors  the b a s i c  characteristics  have not y e t  d e v i s e d a focused systematic way t o measure the i n t e r a c t i o n between the day care s u p e r v i s o r and the c h i l d r e n . A f t e r reviewing the v a r i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n a l systems the present w r i t e r decided  t h a t the p a r e n t - c h i l d and t h e r a p i s t -  c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s systems were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h i s study.  These instruments  require d>Jp.b:s:erry'aM\©nijiri- -bcSth.  c l i n i c a l and home environments r a t h e r than i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n group s e t t i n g s .  E x t e n s i v e coder  t r a i n i n g i s needed  19  to code i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t were not n e c e s s a r i l y v a l i d to  the  day c a r e s e t t i n g . The  t e a c h e r - c l a s s i n t e r a c t i o n a l systems were u n s u i t a b l e  f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons:  The  about teacher  c h i l d response as d e p i c t e d  Caldwell  behaviour and  (19 69)  are too complicated  of t h i s problem. analyses  many v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n  The  categories in  f o r the narrower d e f i n i t i o n  Richenberg-Hackett  (19 62) i n t e r a c t i o n  i l l u s t r a t e the t e a c h e r - c l a s s focus which do not meet  the needs of t h i s study.  Much of the r e c o r d i n g depends e n t i r e l y  uponnaneedotes which are i n s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e f o r the ent study  ( i . e . , P r e s c o t t 1967).  system devised by Katz which r e q u i r e s two  (19 69)  separate  and  interaction analysis  i l l u s t r a t e s i n t e r a c t i o n a l coding  instruments.  some f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . questioned  The  T h i s i s too cumber-  Moreover, Travers  (19 73)  the r e l i a b i l i t y o f instruments used by Katz  Prescott  pres-  (1969)  (19 67).  Teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n studies i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d education Much of the e x i s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h f i e l d of e a r l y c h i l d h o o d  education  i n the  f o l l o w s the elementary  s c h o o l model of t e a c h e r - c l a s s i n t e r a c t i o n .  However, r e c e n t  i n t e r a c t i o n s t u d i e s are based upon t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . For example, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) s t i m u l a t e d much i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e i r own  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Pygmalion i n the Classroom.  In t h e i r  study, primary grade teachers were g i v e n i n t e l l i g e n c e  scores  20  f o r t h e i r students.  Some scores were higher than the c h i l d r e n ' s  a c t u a l t e s t r e s u l t s and the teachers were t o l d these c h i l d r e n were h i g h a c h i e v e r s .  Some scores were lower  than the c h i l d r e n ' s  t e s t r e s u l t s and they were d e s c r i b e d as low a c h i e v e r s . a time, the c h i l d r e n were t e s t e d .  After  The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t  the c h i l d r e n l a b e l e d as high a c h i e v e r s i n c r e a s e d i n a c h i e v e ment t o match the t e a c h e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n .  Children labelled  as low a c h i e v e r s a l s o matched the teacher's e x p e c t a t i o n . Rosenthal  and Jacobson l a b e l l e d t h i s phenomenon t h e " s e l f  f u l f i l l i n g prophecy."  They thought  i t was d e t r i m e n t a l t o  the c h i l d r e n o f whom the teacher expected  little.  There has been much c r i t i c i s m o f the Pygmalion r e s e a r c h o f Rosenthal Thorndike  (19 68)  and Jacobson.  suggest  used i n the Rosenthal  Researchers  t h a t the procedures  such as  and methodology  and Jacobson study a r e "so d e f e c t i v e  t e c h n i c a l l y t h a t one can o n l y r e g r e t t h a t i t ever got beyond the eyes o f the o r i g i n a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s " p.708) .  (Thorndike, 19 68,  He s':4a-tes3 t h e r e s u l t s a r e f a u l t y and throw doubt upon ;  the teacher e f f e c t s Rosenthal and Jacobson c l a i m e d .  However,  the Pygmalion r e s e a r c h seems t o have a f f e c t e d and i n s p i r e d many s t u d i e s .  C e r t a i n l y the r e s u l t s o f the l a t t e r study throw  l i g h t upon the present problem i n v e s t i g a t e d . Yarrow, Waxier, and S c o t t (19 71) c h i l d r e n i n a study o f teacher n u r t u r e .  The a d u l t c a r e g i v e r s  were t r a i n e d t o c r e a t e high o r low n u r t u r e . high^nur t3ire wa%- ^ % m \ h r 4 n a ? ? ^ vJ  involved pre-school  The response t o snurirlure the  response was  minimal.  The teachers were not e q u a l l y n u r t u r i n g  to  a l l c h i l d r e n r e c e i v i n g h i g h n u r t u r e nor e q u a l l y u n n u r t u r i n g  to  a l l children receiving l i t t l e  w i t h c h i l d r e n was  nurture.  Their interaction  c o n d i t i o n e d g r e a t l y by the behaviour of the  children. Willis  (1972) asked f i v e primary teachers to rank  t h e i r primary grade students from most e f f i c i e n t efficient for  (LE).  (ME)  to l e a s t  The top and bottom students were then  30 minutes over e i g h t days.  observed  The data showed t h a t teachers  ignored LE students more f r e q u e n t l y and p r o v i d e d them with fewer v e r b a l comments than the ME t h a t teachers who t h e i r behaviour  students.  Willis  concluded  make LE students f e e l the consequences of  e x t i n g u i s h the behaviour  need to develop f o r s o c i a l Garner and Bing  these students most  competence. (1971) examined the assumptions t h a t  t e a c h e r s do not g i v e equal a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i r p u p i l s , and t h a t such i n e q u a l i t y r e s u l t s from the t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the child's ability. five f i r s t  They s t u d i e d teacher-student i n t e r a c t i o n i n  year c l a s s e s a f t e r the teacher had f i l l e d  r a n k i n g s c a l e of student t r a i t s . a c t i o n was Garner  out a  Most o f the teacher  inter-  found to be w i t h b r i g h t , high a c h i e v i n g s t u d e n t s .  and Bing a l s o found t h a t the teacher-student  was  determined  was  little  almost  interaction  e n t i r e l y by the students and t h a t there  evidence o f teacher attempts  to r e c o g n i z e  individual  d i f f e r e n c e i n students. Ryan and A p p l e f o r d (19 77) d i d an o b s e r v a t i o n a l  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t e a c h e r - c h i l d of C a r l e t o n  University.  income and  physical attractive-  They found t h a t female c h i l d r e n  more i n s t r u c t i o n a l and  school  I n s t r u c t i o n a l , s o c i a l and d i s c i p l i n a r y  c o n t a c t s were r e l a t e d to sex, ness of the c h i l d .  i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the p l a y  s o c i a l c o n t a c t s but  c o n t a c t s than males, and  t h a t low  received  fewer d i s c i p l i n a r y  income c h i l d r e n  received  more d i s c i p l i n a r y and  fewer i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n t a c t s than middle  income c h i l d r e n .  r e s u l t s f o r p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s were  not  The  clear. Good and  Brophy (1973) asked f i r s t grade t e a c h e r s to  rank each c h i l d i n terms of expected achievement. instrument they developed i n 19 69  (Brophy and  found t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s were h i g h l y r e l a t e d to the  The  than t e a c h e r - c l a s s  the  to analyze  researcherisiGMteria interaction  (group) i n t e r a c t i o n ;  i n t e r a c t i o n system t h a t i s r e l i a b l e and  used i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h ;  interaction  instrument s e l e c t e d  (a) an instrument t h a t codes the t e a c h e r - c h i l d  an  the  teacher-child  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  i n t e r a c t i o n data of t h i s study met  (dyadic) r a t h e r  student  r e i n f o r c e d t h e i r behaviour  present study, a l s o based upon  with i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n .  they  c r i t i c i s m and much feedback.  i n t e r a c t i o n , analysedthe day  the  between teacher and  the  Teachers favoured students i n  the high achievement category and  The  Good 1969)  t e a c h e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s of  student's a b i l i t y to a c h i e v e .  by f r e q u e n t p r a i s e , l i t t l e  Using  v a l i d and  has  (b) been  (c) a system t h a t p r o v i d e s a  comprehensive a n a l y s i s of t e a c h e r - c h i l d  i n t e r a c t i o n and  contains  an uncomplicated coding system; -(c) a system t h a t i s based  upon sound t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; -(e) a system t h a t does not r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e coder t r a i n i n g ; t h a t may  and  (f) a system  be m o d i f i e d to meet the needs of a p a r t i c u l a r  The Brophy and Good Dyadic  study.  T e a c h e r - C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n System  these c r i t e r i a i,. w e l l .  (19 69) met  Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  I n t e r a c t i o n System  The Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System (19 69) was  designed  to study the i n t e r a c t i o n o f a  teacher w i t h an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d . all  I t p r o v i d e s a r e c o r d of  such dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n s between teacher and c h i l d  a l l o w s f o r the raw  scores of i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n to be con-  v e r t e d i n t o percentage  scores.  about q u a l i t y of c o n t a c t q u a n t i t y of c o n t a c t the c h i l d ) .  and  (how  This provides information the teacher i n t e r a c t s ) and  the  (frequency of teacher i n t e r a c t i o n with  Brophy and Good based t h e i r Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  System upon accumulative  t h e o r e t i c a l evidence  and  stated that  "large i n t r a c l a s s v a r i a t i o n s i n teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s are the norm r a t h e r than the e x c e p t i o n and do t r e a t c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e n t l y "  (19 69 p.43).  The Brophy and Good Dyadic System  (19 69)  Opportunities;  found  Teacher-Child I n t e r a c t i o n  i n c l u d e s three major c a t e g o r i e s : (2) C h i l d Created C o n t a c t s ; and  Created C o n t a c t s .  teachers  (1) Response (3) Teacher  A l l except the Reading Turns Category  i n the manual (1969)were, employed i n the present  The Reading Turns Category wa-s not a p p l i c a b l e to the age of c h i l d r e n observed  nor to the day care program.  as  study. level  The  61 codings, d i v i d e d among the three c a t e g o r i e s ,  were used to d e s c r i b e teacher response c r i t i c i s m , and feedback.  such as p r a i s e , n u r t u r e ,  An example of the coding sheet used  i n t h i s study i s presented  i n I l l u s t r a t i o n 1.  The codes are  described i n three categories:  (A)  Response o p p o r t u n i t y r e f e r s to the t e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n s ,  the c h i l d ' s response  and  the r e s u l t i n g teacher feedback.  The  t e a c h e r ' s questions are f u r t h e r subdivided i n t o what Good and Brophy r e f e r to as "type" and  (a)  "level."  The f o u r types of t e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n s i n c l u d e :  (1)  d i s c i p l i n e questions which compel the c h i l d ' s attention  (2)  d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s which ask a s p e c i f i c c h i l d a question  (3)  (column 7)  open questions which ask who respond  (4)  (column 6)  would l i k e to  (column 8)  c a l l out q u e s t i o n s which i n v i t e spontaneous response  (column 9)  CODING  ' spEET  Pog«  Coder Child  1  T  1213  14 1 5  b  tx  xt <  1 U bi C V, rt ct a XI 0 a  6  CHILD CREATED CONTACT Work IT  +• 10 part c -P w ci) rt rtn c 1- O rt CD " C t» J< t O rt »  Si  1,  3291 34 9S 24 25 26 27 26 29 90 'i1 ci  c  1  '  1  <  1  c  1  m rt t, JC  1  p  new quest]  O  8I  procass  1J3  +c s  1 choice : self  r£§p.  1 Drocess l l  Red  RESPONSE OPPORTUNITIES guest, level Terminal Feedback Answer  t, 36E 39 40 41  Procedure  to  9  TEACHER AFFORDED CONTACT  Lit*  gtg  Work  I  liJJJJJ  12 1 3  4 15  24 2526 27 a 29 sop  12 33  34 35  39 S9 40 Ik'  3  c  II1IIIIIIIIII  I®  o_  a1  111  11II  tBCQCBOPCSSIQI  0  - TJ  —r—  4—  b  >  -  UiJUJU.  Behar  a  EtncjcncDBijEn  dL  Procedure  '^59  [G3  64  5 66.  67 6 6 1 ^9. \  *  7 .  1 1 1 1 1 j I 1 II1 11 1 11 f111 1 11 1 II 1II 1 tEBIflBBBil  Illustration 1 M o d i f i e d Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  Coding Form IV)  The f o u r l e v e l s o f teacher's q u e s t i o n s i n c l u d e : (1)  process q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e a c o g n i t i v e answer and understanding  (2)  (why o r how  questions)  (column 12)  product q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e one word answer (who, what, where, when) (column 13)  (3)  c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s which r e q u i r e one out o f a p o s s i b l e two answers  (4)  (yes, no)  (column 14)  s e l f r e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n s which r e f e r to f e e l i n g s and experiences  (column 15)  The f o u r l e v e l s o f c h i l d ' s answers i n c l u d e : (1)  c o r r e c t answer (column  18)  (2)  p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t answer (column 18)  (3)  i n c o r r e c t answer  (4)  no response (column  (column  20)  21)  The two l e v e l s o f teacher feedback i n c l u d e : (1)  t e r m i n a l feedback which i s p r a i s e (column 24), affirmation ambiguous  (column 25), no feedback (column 26),  (column 27), expand  (column 29), p r o c e s s  (column 30), g i v e s answer  (column 31), ask other (column 33), negate  (column 28), extend  (column 32), c a l l out  (column 34) and  criticism  (column 35). (2)  s u s t a i n i n g feedback which i s nurture repetition  (column 36),  (column 39), r e p h r a s i n g (column 40),  and new q u e s t i o n (column 41). R e c i t a t i o n r e f e r s to the c h i l d ' s responses i n terms of s e l f r e f e r e n c e o r work r e c i t a t i o n as demanded by the  teacher.  The s e l f r e f e r e n c e d r e c i t a t i o n occurs when  the teacher c a l l s upon a c h i l d t o p r e s e n t an e x p l a n a t i o n or d e s c r i p t i o n  r e l a t i n g the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t ,  i m a g i n a t i o n , made-up s t o r y o r song.  experience,  The work r e c i t a t i o n  occurs when the teacher c a l l s upon the c h i l d to r e c a l l a s t o r y or sequence o f an experience  i n order t o demon-  s t r a t e some knowledge or s k i l l .  (B)  C h i l d c r e a t e d c o n t a c t r e f e r s to the c h i l d  initiating  the c o n t a c t with the teacher i n the work o r procedure (a)  The work category  category.  (column 45-51) i n c l u d e s a l l  a c t i v i t i e s with m a t e r i a l s and equipment s e t out by the teacher (b)  The procedure  ( p a i n t i n g , b l o c k s , woodwork). category  (columns 54-59) i n c l u d e s  a l l p e r s o n a l needs and i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d . The  teacher's feedback to c h i l d c r e a t e d c o n t a c t s  i s recorded as p r a i s e , negative feedback,  process, p o s i t i v e  feedback,  c r i t i c i s m , nurture and zero  feedback.  (C)  Teacher A f f o r t e d  Contact r e f e r s t o a l l c o n t a c t s  i n i t i a t e d by the teacher.. (a)  The work category  (columns 63-69) r e l a t e s to the  teacher c l a r i f y i n g , h e l p i n g , or t a l k i n g to the c h i l d about h i s work. (b)  The procedure  category  (column 72-77) r e l a t e s  to a l l the p e r s o n a l needs and i n t e r e s t s o f the  child.  The Teacher's  procedure  category  feedback to the work and  i s recorded e x a c t l y l i k e  the c h i l d c r e a t e d c o d i n g s . (c)  The behaviour  category r e f e r s to c o n t a c t s made  by the teacher i n order t o g i v e the c h i l d mation about h i s behaviour. response  -The  to the c h i l d ' s behaviour  infor-  teacher's i s recorded  as p r a i s e , warning, c r i t i c i s m , r e s t r i c t i o n nurture  (column 80-84).  and  Praise i s given for  a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour,  warning i s g i v e n f o r i n -  a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour,  critisism  expresses  anger, f r u s t r a t i o n and e x a s p e r a t i o n , i s a t e a c h e r ' s response behaviour, repeated  restriction  to r e s t r i c t i n a p p r o p r i a t e  and nurture i s p r o v i d e d to encourage behaviour.  I t should be noted t h a t c e r t a i n m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the Brophy-Good system proved  to be necessary  i n terms of  a d d i t i o n a l coding, d e l e t i o n o f coding and an expansion coding.  of  Brophy and Good themselves had s t a t e d , "the system  should not be c o n s i d e r e d as a c l o s e d system as d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h questions may  r e q u i r e the coding of d i f f e r e n t  v a r i a b l e s ; t h e r e f o r e , the system should be m o d i f i e d " p.4), and  (1969,  "the system should not be conceived as a f i n i s h e d  c l o s e d system to be used without m o d i f i c a t i o n s " ( 1 9 6 9 , p.41). With t h i s i n mind the coding sheet was f o l l o w i n g ways:  P o s i t i v e feedback,  modified' i n the  Negative  feedback  and  Nurture were added t o the c a t e g o r i e s of S u s t a i n i n g C h i l d Created Work, C h i l d Created Procedure, Work, Teacher Created Procedure was  added to the behaviour  d e s c r i b e d by Good and Brophy  Teacher Created  and Behaviour.  category.  feedback,  Restriction  P o s t i v e feedback i s  (1969, p.23)  as "the  teacher  [providing] immediate feedback t o the c h i l d and  [indicating]  that h i s response  feedback  i s correct"  (p.23).  Negative  occurs when the t e a c h e r p r o v i d e s impersonal the c h i l d ' s i n c o r r e c t The who  feedback r e g a r d i n g  response.  coding "nurture" i s taken from P r e s c o t t (1976)  used i t i n the e v a l u a t i o n of a day care environment.  P r e s c o t t d e f i n e s n u r t u r e as "a teacher a c t i v i t y which g i v e s the c h i l d c o n f i d e n c e , p l e a s u r e , a f f e c t i o n , comfort nurturant help"  (p.12).  and  The coding " r e s t r i c t i o n " was  borrowed from P r e s c o t t (1976) and d e f i n e d :  "Conflict  where c h i l d does not accept t e a c h e r ' s goals and moves to o b s t r u c t c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s "  (p.13).  also exists  teacher  [sic]  A further  d e s c r i p t i o n of the Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n Measure i s found i n Appendix E. Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System Employed i n Research The Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System has been w i d e l y used by the authors as w e l l as by many other researchers.  S e v e r a l such s t u d i e s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d  i n order t o support the s e l e c t i o n of the system f o r t h i s p r e s e n t study.  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t u d i e s as r e l a t e d t o  methodology d e c i s i o n s w i l l a l s o be d i s c u s s e d .  A r e p l i c a t i o n of the Silberman study examined d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher behaviour was  performed  by Brophy and Good (19 72).  (1969), which  towards c h i l d r e n , They i n v e s t i g a t e d  t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o the a t t i t u d e s of teachers to students on attachment, concern, and r e j e c t i o n v a r i a b l e s . Brophy-Good Dyadic  Data were c o l l e c t e d u s i n g the  I n t e r a c t i o n System. -The  r e p l i c a t i o n used grade one  Brophy-Good  students r a t h e r than grade nine  students as Silberman had done. instrumentation.  indifference  They a l s o used t h e i r  T h e i r data confirmed Silberman's  t h a t teachers do indeed behave d i f f e r e n t l y with  own  findings  students  they conceive as d i f f e r e n t . Brophy and Good classrooms  to f i n d out how  performance e x p e c t a t i o n s .  (1970) i n v e s t i g a t e d f o u r grade  one  teachers communicate d i f f e r e n t i a l The t e a c h e r s were asked t o rank  the c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r c l a s s e s i n order o f achievement. C r i t e r i a were d e l i b e r a t e l y kept vague to encourage teachers to use s u b j e c t i v e judgements. - The rank s c a l e was  used  to  measure teacher e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r each c h i l d ' s performance. Three c h i l d r e n designated as high a c h i e v e r s and three d e s i g nated as low a c h i e v e r s were s e l e c t e d from each of f o u r c l a s s rooms f o r i n t e r a c t i o n a l study.  Those students ranked  as h i g h  i n achievement r e c e i v e d more teacher support; the d i f f e r e n c e between the high and teacher was  the low a c h i e v e r s ' i n t e r a c t i o n with the  i n q u a l i t y r a t h e r than i n q u a n t i t y ; the teachers  i n t e r a c t e d with more c r i t i c i s m and showed more d i s a p p r o v a l  of  boys t h a n of g i r l s ; , and  lowiaehieversiireceiyedsmore-.vGriticism  l e s s p r a i s e , l e s s feedback, a n d from the teacher t h a n data confirmed  less i n d i v i d u a l  attention  those r a t e d as high a c h i e v e r s .  The  the Silberman hypothesis t h a t a teacher's  e x p e c t a t i o n s of c h i l d performance a c t s as a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy.  The f l e x i b i l i t y  demonstrated when used Jones (19 71) a high s c h o o l . groups:  o f the Brophy-Good System  was  f o r coding the d a t a . s t u d i e d 16 female student teachers i n  The student teachers were grouped i n t o f o u r  h i g h achievement i n t r o v e r t s , high achievement e x t r o -  v e r t s , low achievement i n t r o v e r t s , and low achievement e x t r o verts .  High school students were matched with each student  teacher group.  Each student teacher was  whoarated &hemsel>vesnoncalself  assigned e i g h t students  description  scale.  Assuming t h a t s i m i l a r i t y breeds a t t r a c t i o n , Jones hypothesized t h a t the student teachers would i n t e r a c t more f r e q u e n t l y and more p o s i t i v e l y w i t h students whom they perc e i v e d as being s i m i l a r to themselves.  -Jones focused upon  a f f e c t i v e aspects of the t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n , as w e l l as upon c o g n i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n exchange.  He found t h a t high  achievement o r i e n t e d teachers used d i r e c t q u e s t i o n i n g , initiated  more c o n t a c t s and p r o v i d e d a b e t t e r l e a r n i n g  environment than the low achievement o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s . High achievement o r i e n t e d teachers a l s o were l e s s l i k e l y  to  ask a low achievement i n t r o v e r t e d student an a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n a f t e r the f i r s t c o n t a c t . - I t would appear t h a t the  h i g h achievement o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s ' method of d e a l i n g w i t h low achievement i n t r o v e r t e d students was student u n t i l he made a response. him,  but nothing e l s e .  System was  The  to  fiurthert-ques tion t  that  teacher then p r a i s e d  The Good and Brophy Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  a b l e to t e s t Jones'  hypothesis.  Good, Sykes and Brophy  (1972) s t u d i e d teacher  student i n t e r a c t i o n i n 16 c l a s s e s i n f o u r j u n i o r high s c h o o l s . The  sample i n c l u d e d 16 teachers composed of f o u r male and  four female mathematics t e a c h e r s , and s o c i a l studies teachers.  f o u r male and f o u r female  Using the Good-Brophy Dyadic  a c t i o n System, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s found,  through  the  Inter-  flexible  codings i n the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e domain, t h a t students who  were expected  to do extremely w e l l i n s u b j e c t areas  i n i t i a t e d more comments and q u e s t i o n s , r e c e i v e d more  response  o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and g e n e r a l l y i n i t i a t e d more c o n t a c t s of a l l kinds w i t h the t e a c h e r .  The  same students r e c e i v e d more  p r a i s e than c r i t i c i s m as compared w i t h those expected low a c h i e v e r s .  to be  Most of the q u a l i t a t i v e group d i f f e r e n c e  found i n the o r i g i n a l f i r s t grade study were r e p l i c a t e d a t t h i s Gabbert  (Good and Brophy,  1969)  level.  (1973) c l a s s i f i e d  student teachers as high  or low on an achievement o r i e n t a t i o n s c a l e . teachers i n a s s i g n e d elementary  Observing  school classrooms,  student  Gabbert  found, u s i n g the Good and Brophy T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n , t h a t those student teachers high on achievement o r i e n t a t i o n asked questions t h a t were more d i r e c t and more product o r i e n t e d .  I n c o r r e c t answers r e s u l t e d i n r e j e c t i o n  o f cliil-dxeiarby ^.t^e'^s tude"ih-t="teaeh%r:;' "' - -Those student ;  teachers  ,  low on achievement o r i e n t a t i o n e l i c i t e d more c o r r e c t answers from the students and accepted J e t e r and Davis  the c h i l d r e n .  (1974) d i d a q u a s i r e p l i c a t i o n of  the Brophy and Good study of 1970.  Teachers  were asked  to  rank t h e i r students on achievement, whereupon the three h i g h e s t and study.  the three lowest students were s e l e c t e d f o r the  S u b s t i t u t e s were i d e n t i f i e d i n case the s e l e c t e d  students were absent. expected  Q u a l i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s showed t h a t the  h i g h , a c h i e v e r s got more feedback to t h e i r answers  and t h a t teachers stayed longer w i t h the high a c h i e v e r s a f t e r they f a i l e d to answer i n i t i a l  questions.  T h i s study  replicated  the f i n d i n g s i n the c o g n i t i v e area of Brophy and Good (1970) even though the students were from heterogeneous f o u r t h grade, middle  c l a s s , white s c h o o l s .  Good and Brophy toward two  (19 75)  s t u d i e d teacher  behaviour  d i f f e r e n t groups o f grade one c h i l d r e n :  low  i n t e r a c t o r s with the teacher and h i g h i n t e r a c t o r s with teacher.  Data were c o l l e c t e d before treatment  treatment  u s i n g the Brophy-Good Dyadic  and  the  after  I n t e r a c t i o n System.  The teachers were g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r  interactions  w i t h the c h i l d r e n a f t e r the f i r s t  analyses  were completed. behaviour  The  toward and  interactional  second data r e v e a l e d t h a t teacher i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n  changed d r a s t i c a l l y i n both q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y a f t e r teacher r e c e i v e d the i n t e r a c t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n .  the  The most  n o t a b l e changes were t h a t teachers stayed with c h i l d r e n  who  experienced i n i t i a l  f a i l u r e i n a task, c a l l e d on them more  o f t e n , i n i t i a t e d more c o n t a c t s w i t h them, and warned them about t h e i r unacceptable them.  The  behaviour,, r a t h e r than  study demonstrated  t h a t feedback  f o r teachers  about t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n e f f e c t e d and q u a n t i t a t i v e change i n t e a c h e r - c h i l d The Texas Teacher  criticising  qualitative  interaction.  E f f e c t i v e n e s s P r o j e c t (1973)  used the Brophy-Good System with c a t e g o r i e s expanded to i n c l u d e classroom management v a r i a b l e s to r e c o r d teacher i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n .  T h i s p r o j e c t was  a two  year  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher e f f e c t i v e n s s i n grade two and classrooms. high SES  I t was  three  found t h a t the most e f f e c t i v e teacher i n  s c h o o l s taught w i t h h i g h e x p e c t a t i o n s , pushed  students t o a c h i e v e more and taught i n t r a d i t i o n a l ways. E f f e c t i v e teachers i n low SES  s c h o o l s taught w i t h more  p a t i e n c e , good encouragement, developed  personal r e l a t i o n -  s h i p s w i t h the c h i l d r e n and were l e s s s a t i s f i e d with  tradi-  tional materials. The above s t u d i e s p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g methodolo g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o present  the  study. The Good:-andpBrophy7((il9 70)5.research dnfdif£eirentiated  t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n i.ne'oiC:p)D3^t:'eia the method of  selecting  c h i l d r e n from e i t h e r end of the r a t i n g continuum.  They  found t h a t the teacher made a s u b j e c t i v e judgement and r a t e d the c h i l d on a s c a l e .  C h i l d r e n on e i t h e r end of the s c a l e  were s e l e c t e d as s u b j e c t s .  For the p r e s e n t study, the  day  care s u p e r v i s o r completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e on each c h i l d . q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q u i r e d the day of each c h i l d ' s behaviour.  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  A f t e r s c o r i n g the  Th  perception  questionnaire  f o u r c h i l d r e n a t each end o f the r a t i n g s c a l e were s e l e c t e d as s u b j e c t s . In another Good and Brophy study method i n which the teacher was b e i n g observed.  This present  (1974) d e l i n e a t e d  not o v e r l y concerned about  study  f o l l o w e d t h e i r method by  e x p l a i n i n g t o the t e a c h e r t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n process observed i n c l u d e d both teacher and the day  being  c h i l d , even though only  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h each c h i l d  was  analysed. Jones (1971) d e l e t e d a coding category  i n the R e c i t a t i o n  from the Good-Brophy Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System.  found Reading Turns i n a p p l i c a b l e to the high s c h o o l i n h i s study.  subjects  He a l s o added s e v e r a l behaviour codings  the Teacher-Afforded  c o n t a c t category.  a l s o d i d not use Reading Turns codings, s e v e r a l Behaviour  This present  He  to  study  and a l s o added  codings.  In a l l o f the s t u d i e s reviewed, the problems i n v e s t i g a t e d were r e l a t e d t o academic achievement. though t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was behaviour,  Even  concerned with i n t e r p e r s o n a l  the review of s t u d i e s u s i n g the Brophy and Good  Teacher-Child  Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n system p r o v i d e d  i n f o r m a t i o n about the u s e a b i l i t y of the  supporting  instrument.  CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY In t h i s p r e s e n t study o f a day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h three and f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n i n ;the day care s e t t i n g , the data were c o l l e c t e d by v i d e o tape r e c o r d i n g and coded u s i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Good and Brophy T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  I n t e r a c t i o n (1969).  Analyses were performed i n o r d e r t o  f i n d i f the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r w i t h male and female c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h those c h i l d r e n n o t so p e r c e i v e d . Before the r e s e a r c h problem was i n v e s t i g a t e d , a p i l o t study was conducted  t o determine the f e a s i b i l i t y o f the data  c o l l e c t i o n and coding procedures. study w i l l be d e s c r i b e d f i r s t , procedure  The methodology o f t h i s p i l o t  f o l l o w e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the  f o l l o w e d t o c o l l e c t , score and analyse the data and  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the primary  study.  Pilot  Study  In order t o o b t a i n v a l i d data, i t was necessary the data c o l l e c t i o n procedures  to test  and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n i n a p i l o t  study, which was performed i n a day care centre c l o s e t o a l a r g e metropolitan area.  The c e n t r e met a l l t h e p r o v i n c i a l government  r e g u l a t i o n s as d i d the c e n t r e s i n t h e primary c o l l e c t i o n procedure  study.  The data  was m o d i f i e d f o r purposes o f t h i s study t o  a l l o w f o r c l e a r r e c o r d i n g o f the dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between the day care s u p e r v i s e r and each c h i l d .  The i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n was a l s o  m o d i f i e d so t h a t i t would b e t t e r correspond environment.  t o t h e day care  A more complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m o d i f i e d  ment i s found i n Chapter I I .  instru-  37 Data C o l l e c t i o n Methods o f o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h have i n the p a s t mainly c o n s i s t e d o f d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n .  In t h i s study the  r e a l i z a t i o n o f t o t a l o b s e r v a t i o n and a c c u r a t e r e c o r d i n g posed a major d i f f i c u l t y .  Development and v a r i a t i o n s of o b s e r v a t i o n -  a l methods and r e c o r d i n g s a r e r e p o r t e d a t l e n g t h by Medley and Mitzel  (1963). To determine the e x i s t i n g s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , the  i n v e s t i g a t o r must a f f e c t the s e t t i n g as l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e i n a natural f i e l d  study.  A s u i t a b l e o b s e r v a t i o n a l method  should a l l o w o b s e r v a t i o n o f behaviours an accurate r e c o r d o f them without  and the o b t a i n i n g o f  d i s t u r b i n g or i n f l u e n c i n g  the n a t u r a l s e t t i n g . The use o f video r e c o r d i n g as an o b s e r v a t i o n a l medium permits maximum r e c o r d i n g of behaviour with minimum i n t r u s i o n i n t o the s e t t i n g .  Subsequent repeated  viewings o f  ithe tapes provide u n l i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r accurate  and  T h i s method was  f o r maximum i n t e r - c o d e r agreement.  adopted f o r the present  coding  study.  A s i n g l e video camera was mounted on a movable i n a s e l e c t e d spot i n the room.  tripod  The spot was chosen so t h a t , u s i -  ng a wide angle l e n s , over t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f the room c o u l d be covered.  Since the audio  equipment i n the camera was not s u i t -  a b l e f o r f e e d i n g the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s v o i c e i n t o the tape r e c o r d e r , a h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e m i n i a t u r e F.M. b a t t e r y microphone was c l i p p e d to the s u p e r v i s o r ' s l a p e l .  Thus, the camera was f o c -  used upon the day care s u p e r v i s o r so t h a t both p i c t u r e and sound  of  the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n  recorded w i t h reasonable f i d e l i t y on a h a l f - i n c h tape. t a p i n g the observed  i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h i s manner  c r i t e r i a p o i n t e d out by Kounin  was  Video-  fulfilled  (19 67).  .... an o b s e r v a t i o n a l medium should be p a s s i v e and r e c e p t i v e r a t h e r than c r i t i c a l , should a l l o w a l l events to come through without d i s t o r t i o n o r s e l e c t i o n , should be f r e e o f a w i l l of i t s own and should n e i t h e r r e s i s t nor i n v i t e o c c u r r e n c e s onto i t s r e c o r d . (p.87) An audio and T.V. monitor  p l a c e d i n an area away from the  c h i l d r e n ' s a c t i v i t y p e r i o d i c a l l y monitored The v i d e o tapes produced  the tape r e c o r d i n g s .  i n the p i l o t study p r o v i d e d  the i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h data t o t r a i n the coders to use the Good and Brophy T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  I n t e r a c t i o n System (1969) .  As a r e s u l t , the c o d i n g sheet as developed  by Good and Brophy  was m o d i f i e d f o r use i n the study.  Coding  procedures Six  coders were t r a i n e d by the r e s e a r c h e r t o use the  Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  I n t e r a c t i o n System.  Because  the coders were students n e a r i n g completion o f the c e r t i f i c a t e programme i n E a r l y Childhood Education,. C o n t i n u i n g Education, U.B.C, they were g i v e n three u n i t s o f course c r e d i t f o r part i c i p a t i n g i n the t r a i n i n g procedure  and coding of d a t a . A l l  the coders had a t l e a s t three years o f experience i n a day-care c e n t r e o r nursery s c h o o l . The t r a i n i n g procedure  f o l l o w e d the steps o u t l i n e d  i n the Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic (1969).  I n t e r a c t i o n Manual  A d d i t i o n a l time o f a v a r i e d amount was spent by  each coder between work s e s s i o n s to complete assignments and to become knowledgeable about the i n t e r a c t i o n system.  After  becoming f a m i l i a r with the coding l a b e l s and usage, the coders were r e q u i r e d to w r i t e examples of codings such as forms of c r i t i c i s m , p r a i s e , n u r t u r e , p o s i t i v e feedback, back, b e h a v i o u r a l , warning, and contact..  negative f e e d -  The group d i s c u s s e d  these examples to c o n s o l i d a t e c o n c e p t i o n o f the c o d i n g s . The coders were then shown f i v e minute p o r t i o n s of the p i l o t study video tape and r e q u i r e d t o code the d i r e c t l y on the coding form. were d i s c u s s e d . video tape was  interaction  A f t e r each p e r i o d , the codings  I f there were d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n the coding, the  r e p l a y e d u n t i l there was  and understanding.  a unanimous agreement  The coding p e r i o d s g r a d u a l l y became longer  u n t i l the group c o u l d code a h a l f hour tape a t one o b s e r v a t i o n a l session.  The t r a i n i n g was  accomplished  i n f i v e weeks.  Coder/Re searcher agreement Once the coders had become e f f i c i e n t with the coding procedure,  i n t e r - c o d e r agreement was  investigated.  The r e s e a r c h e r and coders, working  independently,  coded a h a l f hour tape never p r e v i o u s l y observed study f o r a measure.  Brophy and Good  from the p i l o t  (1969) recommended t h a t  the p e r c e n t agreements between d i f f e r e n t coders a t t a i n a l e v e l of .80.  In t h i s study, the agreement was  coder and the r e s e a r c h e r .  minimal  taken f o r each  40 The percent agreement between each coder and the r e s e a r c h e r was then c a l c u l a t e d a s : number o f agreements number of agreements + number o f disagreements (Good and Brophy, 1969, p.103).  + number o f omissions  The denominator r e p r e s e n t s the  t o t a l number o f codings while o b s e r v i n g the h a l f - h o u r tape. As seen from Table I, the percent agreement between the r e s e a r c h e r and each coder v a r i e d from 82.6 t o 9 2.6. i n s t a n c e s , the p e r c e n t was above the minimal  In a l l  acceptable l e v e l  of .80. Table 1.  Coder/Researcher  Percent Agreement  P i l o t Study  Coder  1 '  2  3  4  5  6  Agreements  44  46  44  48  43  45  Total  52  52  52  52  52  52  86.6  88 .4  84.6  92.6  82.6  86.5  codings  Percent  Primary  Study  Population Setting.  T h i s study concerned  day care c e n t r e s i n  two suburbs ( p o p u l a t i o n i n each approximately  500,0 00) o f a l a r g e  m e t r o p o l i t a n area i n the p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia Both m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c o n t a i n a v a r i e t y o f socio-economic and have a m u l t i - c u l t u r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n throughout  (B.C.). levels  the community.  Group day care f o r c h i l d r e n i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s c l a s s i f e d as either  (1) n o n - p r o f i t o r (2) p r i v a t e .  day care f a c i l i t i e s a r e funded  Because n o n - p r o f i t group  by the M i n i s t r y o f Human Resources  i n the Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, and a r e r e q u i r e d to operate under the standards  s e t o u t by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s  L i c e n s i n g Board, M i n i s t r y o f H e a l t h , they have common c h a r a c t e r istics.  Because of these s i m i l a r i t i e s , t h i s study was r e s t r i c t e d  to  n o n - p r o f i t group day care f a c i l i t i e s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n  of  the s e l e c t e d M u n i c i p a l Day Care Information O f f i c e .  n o n - p r o f i t day care c e n t r e s observed  The.  were operated by parent o r  community boards r e g i s t e r e d under the S o c i e t i e s A c t of B.C. A l l had r e c e i v e d government funding, such as c a p i t a l grant ($20,000); equipment grant  funds  ($2,500); and seed money ($2,500).  These c e n t r e s r e c e i v e d t h i s funding between January  1973 and  December 1974. The  f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e common t o the day  care c e n t r e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study:  (1) care i s p r o v i d e d t o  c h i l d r e n from s i x t o t e n hours per day, Monday through F r i d a y ; (2) the c e n t r e s adhere to the R e g u l a t i o n s A c t o f the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board, M i n i s t r y o f H e a l t h . establishes:  child-adult ratio,  This  space, age o f c h i l d r e n i n  group, number o f c h i l d r e n i n group, number of q u a l i f i e d a d u l t s i n group  (Act enclosed i n Appendix A);  (3) c h i l d r e n o f f a m i l i e s  s u b s i d i z e d by the M i n i s t r y o f Human Resources a t t e n d each day care;  (4) a l l c e n t r e s a r e regarded  normal growth and development;  as p r o v i d i n g programs f o r  (5) 2 5 c h i l d r e n were e n r o l l e d  i n each c e n t r e and (6)  there a r e more f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n  than t h r e e year o l d s i n each c e n t r e . Day care s u p e r v i s o r .  The day care s u p e r v i s o r i n  each c e n t r e was a q u a l i f i e d female s t a f f person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the c e n t r e and the c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d ; the s u p e r v i s o r i s q u a l i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the Regulations A c t , Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board, M i n i s t r y o f H e a l t h ; although  t r a i n i n g i s not s t a n d a r d i z e d  (see Appendix A ) . A l l  of the day care s u p e r v i s o r s had two o r more years o f experience as s t a f f members i n a day c a r e c e n t r e . In each c e n t r e , there were two a d d i t i o n a l female s t a f f , the a c t u a l number- being determined to each day care worker.  by the r a t i o o f e i g h t c h i l d r e n  The two a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f ' w e r e p a i d  a s s i s t a n t s u p e r v i s o r s and were q u a l i f i e d o r i n the process o f obtaining licence  qualifications.  Children.  Three and f o u r year o l d male and female  c h i l d r e n were s e l e c t e d as s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s study because they a r e i n the day care program f u l l  time.*  The ages o f the c h i l d r e n  ranged between three years f o u r months t o f o u r years e i g h t months. The average l e n g t h o f attendance  was approximately  seven months.  There were more f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n i n each day care c e n t r e but the number o f boys and g i r l s were c o n s t a n t .  Each c e n t r e  c o n t a i n e d c h i l d r e n from v a r i o u s c u l t u r a l backgrounds.  Sample s e l e c t i o n  procedure  Two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which are g e o g r a p h i c a l l y c l o s e to  * F i v e year o l d c h i l d r e n a t t e n d k i n d e r g a r t e n i n the elementary s c h o o l f o r h a l f a day and a t t e n d the day care c e n t r e f o r h a l f a day  a l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n c e n t r e and which share standards  were s e l e c t e d as the sample base.  s i m i l a r day care After discussing  the study p r o p o s a l with the e d u c a t i o n a l c o n s u l t a n t s i n the two Day Care Information o f f i c e s , v e r b a l and w r i t t e n support and c o o p e r a t i o n were r e c e i v e d . In Area I, the r e s e a r c h e r met with the day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s a t t h e i r r e g u l a r monthly meeting t o i n t r o d u c e the proposed study.  The purpose was e x p l a i n e d i n terms of o b s e r v i n g  the i n t e r a c t i o n of day care s u p e r v i s o r s and c h i l d r e n i n n a t u r a l day care s e t t i n g s employing a v i d e o tape r e c o r d e r . agreed  I t was a l s o  t h a t the f i n d i n g s o f the study would be shared with the  c e n t r e s and Day Care Information O f f i c e .  F o l l o w i n g t h i s meet-  i n g , a l e t t e r was sent to each c e n t r e i n t h a t area t o i n v i t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study and t o get permission i n d i v i d u a l day care Board of D i r e c t o r s . i s provided  from each  A copy of the l e t t e r  i n Appendix B.  In Area I I , the e d u c a t i o n a l c o n s u l t a n t i n the Day Care Information of seven c e n t r e s .  O f f i c e p r o v i d e d the r e s e a r c h e r with the names These c e n t r e s were v i s i t e d by the r e s e a r c h e r ,  who e x p l a i n e d the proposed study t o each s u p e r v i s o r .  Then, a  l e t t e r of i n v i t a t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study was sent to each of the c e n t r e s v i s i t e d , r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s s i o n from each day care c e n t r e ' s Board of D i r e c t o r s . In response to the l e t t e r o f i n v i t a t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study,  seven c e n t r e s out o f 25 i n each geographic  i n d i c a t e d t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e .  area  V i s i t s t o each  44  of these c e n t r e s were arranged to d i s c u s s with the s u p e r v i s o r some o f the p r o c e d u r a l  details.  I t a l s o was e x p l a i n e d  that  the v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f three and four year o l d c h i l d r e n with the s u p e r v i s o r would be examined, but t h a t because o f l i m i t e d funds not a l l the c h i l d r e n would be observed. During t h i s v i s i t , a questionnaire  the s u p e r v i s o r was asked t o complete  on every three and f o u r year o l d e n r o l l e d .  This  1  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed t o i d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n c o n s i d e r e d by the day care s u p e r v i s o r as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t o r behavioura l l y adapted.  Before  the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was adopted, the  i n v e s t i g a t o r discussed a d r a f t with  s i x day care  i n the f i e l d not i n v o l v e d i n the study.  supervisors  These d i s c u s s i o n s  enabled the development o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which s a t i s f i e d the needs o f the study.  Relevant suggestions  s u p e r v i s o r s were i n c o r p o r a t e d  i n the f i n a l form, a copy o f  which appears i n i l l u s t r a t i o n 2. p l e t e d independently and  o f the day c a r e  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was com-  by each day care s u p e r v i s o r f o r each  four year o l d c h i l d  i n the c e n t r e and r e t u r n e d  three  to the  investigator. The  s c o r i n g o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e proceeded i n the  f o l l o w i n g way: Question 1:  Please c i r c l e as many a d j e c t i v e s as can be a p p l i e d to d e s c r i b e the c h i l d most o f the time. The  adjectives: i n this-question f e l l  two  categories:  behaviourally  or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted.  into  different  45  (-) B e h a v i o u r a l l y D i f f e r e n t Apathetic  Total  (-)  (BP)  (+) B e h a v i o u r a l l y Adapted (BA) curious  anxious  happy  frustrated  accepting  aggressive  affectionate  needs guidance  friendly  needs support  cooperative (+)  STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE Name of C h i l d  Centre  B i r t h date  How long have you worked with t h i s c h i l d  Please c i r c l e as many a d j e c t i v e s as apply to d e s c r i b e t h i s c h i l d most o f the time. apathetic  accepting  aggressive  curious  frustrated  needs  guidance  happy  affectionate  needs  support  anxious  friendly  cooperative  Please d e s c r i b e t h i s c h i l d w i t h any other a d d i t i o n a l a d j e c t ives that are s u i t a b l e .  3.  D i d anyone ever comment to you about t h i s c h i l d ' s Yes Please i n d i c a t e who.  behaviour?  No (nurse, parent, e t c . )  What d i d they say?  Do you p e r c e i v e t h i s c h i l d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n the s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l - i n t e l l e c t u a l areas from the o t h e r c h i l d r e n i n the group? Yes  No  Please d e s c r i b e how.  5.  Do you spend more time w i t h t h i s c h i l d than w i t h other children? Yes  No  Please i n d i c a t e when.  Illustration 2  Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  47  The  score i s o b t a i n e d by adding the negative  to the p o s i t i v e t o t a l . (+) s c o r e .  The r e s u l t i s then a  For example:  total (-)  a day care s u p e r v i s o r  c i r c l e d f o u r a d j e c t i v e s i n the b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t category  (-)  b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted are added -4 +2 = -2. as  Question I I .  and two a d j e c t i v e s i n the category  (+).  The  totals  Question I i s then scored  -2.  Please d e s c r i b e the c h i l d w i t h any  a d d i t i o n a l a d j e c t i v e s t h a t are  other  suitable.  Some of the a d j e c t i v e s added by the day  care  s u p e r v i s o r were bossy, b r i g h t , spaced out, backward . The i n v e s t i g a t o r p l a c e d the a d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s i n e i t h e r of the two c a t e g o r i e s : b e h a v i o u r a l l y different  (-)  or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted  (+).  score i s o b t a i n e d by adding the negative t o t a l to the p o s i t i v e weighted i s then a (-) or a (+) number.  total.  The  weighted  The  result  For example:  if  a day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r has added three p o s i t i v e a d j e c t i v e s and one n e g a t i v e a d j e c t i v e , the score would be +3 + -1 =• +2. Question I I I .  Did anyone ever comment t o you about t h i s  c h i l d ' s behaviour?  What d i d they  say?  I f the answer i s Yes, and n e g a t i v e remarks are  or  made, then one p o i n t f o r BD (-). I f answer i s Yes  and p o s i t i v e remarks are made, then one p o i n t  f o r BA (+). I f answer i s No, then one p o i n t f o r BA  (+) .  Question IV.  Do you p e r c e i v e  t h i s c h i l d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t i n s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l - i n t e l l e c t u a l areas from the other c h i l d r e n i n the group? I f answer i s Yes then -5 p o i n t . I f answer i s No then +5 p o i n t . The  + p o i n t s and the - p o i n t s f o r the f i v e  questions  were t o t a l l e d . -The negative and  p o s i t i v e s u b t o t a l s were added t o p r o v i d e a positive  (+) o r negative  (-) s c o r e .  I f the t o t a l  were p o s i t i v e , the c h i l d was c l a s s i f i e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted.  I f the t o t a l were  negative,  the c h i l d was c l a s s i f i e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y different. Sample A two stage s e l e c t i o n procedure was used i n the s e l e c t i o n o f day care c e n t r e s and c h i l d r e n f o r the sample. Day  Care Centres and S u p e r v i s o r s .  The f i r s t  stage  of the s e l e c t i o n procedure c o n s i s t e d o f s c o r i n g the data on each q u e s t i o n n a i r e two  categories:  i n order  to c l a s s i f y the c h i l d r e n i n t o  those who were p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t and those who were p e r c e i v e d adapted by the day care s u p e r v i s o r .  as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  -Those day care  supervisors  having a t l e a s t four and  not more than s i x b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r c e n t r e s were c o n s i d e r e d f o r the study.  For the s t a t i s t i c a l  analyses  i t was  each day care c e n t r e s a t i s f y t h i s c r i t e r i a . day care s u p e r v i s o r s corresponded Fourteen  necessary The  that  s e l e c t i o n of  with the s e l e c t i o n of c e n t r e s .  c e n t r e s expressed  t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to  p a r t i c i p a t e ; out o f t h i s number e i g h t c e n t r e s were e l i m i n a t e d . F i v e c e n t r e s d i d not have the r e q u i r e d number of b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n , and  two  c e n t r e s had more than the r e q u i r e d  number of b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n . six  The  remaining  s u p e r v i s o r s i n s i x c e n t r e s were s e l e c t e d f o r the Children.  procedures,  two  In the second stage of the  boys and  two  study.  selection  g i r l s r e c e i v i n g the h i g h e s t  minus s c o r e s on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e of each c e n t r e were s e l e c t e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n ; and boys and  two  the  two  g i r l s r e c e i v i n g the. h i g h e s t p l u s scores were  s e l e c t e d as the b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  The  final  sample of c h i l d r e n with t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e scores i s p r o v i d e d i n Table The  2.  final  sample c o n s i s t e d o f s i x c e n t r e s  and  50  T a b l e 2.  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Age S c o r e s f o r Sample Children  and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  BD Male BD Female BA Male BA Female Age B e h a v i o u r Age B e h a v i o u r Age B e h a v i o u r Age B e h a v i o u : Center 1  4 3  -11 - 7  4 4  -10 - 7  4 3  15 12  4 4  17 10  Center 2  4 3  - 9 -13  4 4  -11 -10  4 4  9 12  3 4  13 11  Center  3  3 4  - 9 - 8  3 4  - 8 -12  3 3  12 13  4 3  11 11  Cente r 4  4 4  -15 -13  4 4  -16 -14  3 4  13 16  4 4  14 13  Center 5  4 3  -12 -13  4 3  -15 -10  4 3  13 11  3 4  12 15  4  -8 -11  3 4  -9 -10  4 3  13 11  3 4  11 13  Center 6  3  51  48 c h i l d r e n ; 12 g i r l s and  12 b o y s - s e l e c t e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t ; and 12 g i r l s and  12 boys s e l e c t e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y  adapted.  Data c o l l e c t i o n A f t e r the c h i l d r e n and c e n t r e s were s e l e c t e d , o b s e r v a t i o n s were taped, u s i n g the same procedures d e s c r i b e d f o r the p i l o t study.  Observations were taped on three  c o n s e c u t i v e mornings i n each c e n t r e , from  8:30  to 12:30  p.m.,  thus p r o v i d i n g a t o t a l of 72 hours of i n t e r a c t i o n d a t a . During v i d e o t a p i n g the normal d y s f u n c t i o n o f equipment was  experienced.  In one  b a t t e r y needed to be r e p l a c e d and r e c o r d e r was was  postponed  exchanged.  i n s t a n c e the microphone i n the o t h e r , the tape  In each case the video tape s e s s i o n  u n t i l the f o l l o w i n g morning.  No changes were  made i n the day care programme and the o n l y new  equipment  i n the room was  Some c h i l d r e n  the v i d e o r e c o r d e r and camera.  n o t i c e d the camera almost a t once, and the more c u r i o u s came to i n v e s t i g a t e and examine the equipment more c l o s e l y . calm acceptance  and the minimal  comment o f the  seemed to s a t i s f y the c h i l d r e n ' s c u r i o s i t y . or two  The  photographer  W i t h i n a moment  the c h i l d r e n seemed t o have f o r g o t t e n the camera  completely.  In any case, i f they continued to be aware of  the camera or of being observed, evidence of concern or  they gave no  f uneasiness.  distinguishable  Each day care  super-  v i s o r commented about the i n i t i a l d i s c o m f o r t with the l a p e l  microphone but as they became more i n v o l v e d with the c h i l d r e n they f o r g o t -their uneasiness w i t h the video tape equipment.  Coding  procedure The video tape data <of each c e n t r e was  one coder randomly a s s i g n e d to each c e n t r e .  coded by  Two  randomly  s e l e c t e d tapes from each c e n t r e were a l s o coded by i n v e s t i g a t o r and used as a r e l i a b i l i t y measure. agreement (see p.40)  was  coding and each coder.  the  The  percent  o b t a i n e d between the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s Table 3 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the  r e l i a b i l i t y measure.  Table 3. Coder  I n t e r - c o d e r Biercen€ ^^reJ§mg&€npr4marymsmMy ;  :  1  2  3  -i  4  :?,  5  6  Tape I  86.5  87 .3  87.2  86.6  88 .5  87.2  Tape I I  83.3  85.9  83.9  84.5  84.7  84.6  In Each case the percent agreement exceeded the minimum v a l u e of  .80 recommended by Good and Brophy (19 69).  Design The  study used a 6 x 2 x 2  gender) f u l l y c r o s s e d f a c t o r a l s u b j e c t s i n each c e l l . design.  (centre-by-behaviour-by-  d e s i g n with the same number of  I l l u s t r a t i o n 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the  BD  BA  M  2  2  2V  2  2  2  F  2  2  2  2  2  2  M  2  2  2  2  2  2  F  2  2  2  2  2  2  I l l u s t r a t i o n 3.  F u l l y Crossed F a c t o r a l  Design  Data analyses For each c h i l d the frequency f o r each code I l l u s t r a t i o n 1) was  tabulated.  (see  These data served as the  b a s i c i n p u t f o r subsequent data a n a l y s e s .  As suggested  by  Good and Brophy (19 69), codes were combined to c o n s t r u c t variables.  T h i r t y - t h r e e v a r i a b l e s were c o n s t r u c t e d to meet  the i n t e r e s t s of t h i s study.  For example, v a r i a b l e I  was  c o n s t r u c t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l of the code f r e q u e n c i e s i n the c h i l d c r e a t e d category by the sum  of the code frequen-  c i e s i n the c h i l d c r e a t e d category p l u s the teacher c r e a t e d category.  The name and d e f i n i t i o n f o r each of the 3 3  c o n s t r u c t e d v a r i a b l e s are summarised i n Table For purposes  o f t h i s study the 33 v a r i a b l e s were  grouped i n t o nine c l u s t e r s . geographic  4.  Four day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s i n a  area separate from the r e s e a r c h l o c a t i o n and  i n v e s t i g a t o r independently grouped the 33 v a r i a b l e s .  the  Five  s e t s of v a r i a b l e cards were prepared and d i s t r i b u t e d t o the day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s f o r c l u s t e r i n g . -They were i n d i v i d u a l l y  54 Table  4.  Formation o f V a r i a b l e s  Variable  Name  Proportion  child  created  Definition contacts  P r o p o r t i o n c h i l d c r e a t e d work c h i l d created contacts Proportion  praise i n total  Proportion  nurture  Proportion  criticism  contacts i n  contacts  in total  contacts  i n total  contacts  codes codes  45-5 9 2-84  45-51; 63-69 45-59 24  f  50,  45, 54, 63, 72, 80 2-84 58, 68, 76, 84 2-84  35 , 49, 51, 67, 75, 82 2-84  6  P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t s  45,  47, 50 45-51  7  P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n c h i l d crated procedure contacts  54,  55, 58 54-59  8  Proportion negative c r e a t e d work  in child  48,  49, 51 45-51  9  P r o p o r t i o n n e g a t i v e feedback i n c h i l d created procedure contacts  56,  57, 59 54-59  feedback  10  Proportion praise i n c h i l d contacts  c r e a t e d work  45 45-51  11  Proportion praise i n c h i l d procedure contacts  created  54 54-59  12  P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t  53, 65, 68 63-69  13  P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback created procedure contact  i n teacher  72, 73, 76 72-77  14  P r o p o r t i o n n e g a t i v e feedback i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t  66, 67, 69 6 3-69  15  P r o p o r t i o n n e g a t i v e feedback created procedure contact  i n teacher  74, 75, 77 72-77  16  Proportion praise i n teacher work c o n t a c t  created  (continued  , on n e x t page)  63 6 3-69  55 Table  4.  (continued) .  Variable 17  Name  Definition  Proportion praise i n teacher procedure contact teacher created  created 72 72-77  18  Proportion in teacher  c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t s contact  19  P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e and n u r t u r e behaviour contact  20  Proportion warning, c r i t i c i s m , i n behaviour  21  Proportion i n type  direct  22  Proportion  call  23  Proportion  process  questions  i n level  12 12-15  24  Proportion product  questions  i n level  13 12-15  25  Proportion  26  P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e as s e c o n d r e s p o n s e i n c h i l d created contact  45, 54 45-59  27  Proportion in teacher  6 3, 72 6 3-77  28  P r o p o r t i o n c r i t i c i s m as s e c o n d r e s p o n s e in c h i l d created contact  49, 5 7 45-59  29  Proportion i n teacher  6 7, 75 6 3-6 7  30  P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e and n u r t u r e response i n b e h a v i o u r contact  31  P r o p o r t i o n warning, c r i t i c i s m , r e d i r e c t i o n as s e c o n d r e s p o n s e i n b e h a v i o u r c o n t a c t  in redirection  response o p p o r t u n i t y  out opportunity  terminal  i n type  feedback i n feedback  p r a i s e as s e c o n d r e s p o n s e created contact  c r i t i c i s m as s e c o n d r e s p o n s e created contact  (concluded  as s e c o n d  on n e x t page)  63-69 72-77; 63-69; 80-84 80-84 80-84 81, 82, 83 80-84 7 6-9 9 6-9  24-35 38-41  80, 84 80-84 81, 82, 83 80-84  56  Table  4  Variable  (concluded)  Name  Definition  32  P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n c h i l d and t e a c h e r c r e a t e d c o n t a c t s  63, 65, 68, 72, 73, 76 45-59 ; 6 3-77  33  P r o p o r t i o n n e g a t i v e feedback i n c h i l d and t e a c h e r c r e a t e d c o n t a c t s  48, 49 , 51 , 57, 59 65, 66, 67, 69,74,75,77 45-59 ; 6 3-71  57  requested t o group the v a r i a b l e cards i n t o c l u s t e r s which would r e f l e c t t h e i r own p r a c t i c e i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n . The  judges unanimously but independently agreed to group-the  33 v a r i a b l e s i n t o nine c l u s t e r s .  Table 5 p r e s e n t s the nine  p l u s t e r s together w i t h the member v a r i a b l e s . S t a 11s t i c a1 analyses ' Analyses of v a r i a n c e s were used to t e s t the nine h y p o t h e s i s corresponding t o the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n of t h i s study  (see Chapter  1).  P r i o r t o these a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e ,  the p r o p o r t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n Table 4 were transformed the a r c s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  using  The a r c s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s  used with dependent v a r i a b l e s expressed as a p r o p o r t i o n , thereby b e t t e r s a t i s f y i n g the demands u n d e r l y i n g the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e ( K i r k , 1968, p.66). The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were conducted stages.  i n two  Because systematic d i f f e r e n c e s among the day care  c e n t r e s might mask the major d i f f e r e n c e s o f i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s study, d i f f e r e n c e s among c e n t r e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o each o f the v a r i a b l e s d e f i n e d were i n v e s t i g a t e d , employing (centre-by-behaviour-by  sex) a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s confirmed  a 6 x 2 x 2 (MANOVA). differences  among c e n t r e s . F o l l o w i n g Brophy and Good (1969), the s c o r e s were then s t a n d a r d i z e d t o mean zero, and standard d e v i a t i o n one, w i t h i n each c e n t r e .  T h i s enabled the simultaneous  g a t i o n of two f a c t o r s :  investi-  behaviour and sex, w i t h the t h i r d  factor, centres, controlled.  58 Table 5.  C l u s t e r Formation  Cluster No I  Name Total  Variables No  Support  3  praise i n t o t a l contact  4  nurture i n t o t a l contact  32 II  III  IV  Support i n C h i l d Created Contact  Support i n Teacher Created Contact  T o t a l Non Support  Name  p o s i t i v e feedback i n t o t a l c o n t a c t  6  p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d c r e a t e d work  7  p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d c r e a t e d procedural  10  p r i a s e c h i l d c r e a t e d work  26  p r a i s e as 2nd response created  12  p o s i t i v e feedback c r e a t e d work  13  p o s i t i v e feedback teacher c r e a t e d procedure  16  p r a i s e teacher c r e a t e d work  17  p r a i s e teacher c r e a t e d  procedure  27  p r a i s e as 2nd response created  teacher  child  teacher  5  criticism  8  n e g a t i v e feedback c h i l d c r e a t e d work  t o t a l contact  14  negative feedback crearted work  15  negative feedback teacher c r e a t e d procedure  28  c r i t i c i s m on 2nd response created  teacher  child  • 29 -.-cr-iticism as :2nd-_responseteacher c r e a t e d 33 V  Non Support C h i l d Created  8  negative feedback i n t o t a l c o n t a c t negative feedback c r e a t e d work  (continued next page)  Table 5  59  (concluded) Cluster  No  Name  V  (continued)  VI  Non Support: Teacher C r e a t e d  VII  Praise: C h i l d Created  VIII Praise: Teacher Created  IX  Response ~v.Opportunities  Variables No 9  Name n e g a t i v e feedback procedure  created  28  criticism created  14  negative feedback teacher c r e a t e d work  15  negative feedback teacher c r e a t e d procedure  20  r e d i r e c t i o n i n behaviour  29  c r i t i c i s m as 2nd response teacher c r e a t e d  31  r e d i r e c t i o n and .2nd response in behaviour  10  p r a i s e i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work  11  praise i n child procedure  26  p r a i s e 2nd response c h i l d  30  p r a i s e 2nd response behaviour contact  16  p r a i s e t e a c h e r c r e a t e d work  17  p r a i s e teacher c r e a t e d procedure  19  p r a i s e behaviour c o n t a c t  27  p r a i s e 2nd response i n teacher created  21,  direct  22  c a l l o u t response  23  process q u e s t i o n response.  24  product q u e s t i o n response  25  terminal  2nd response  child  created  response  feedback  created  The  univariate analyses revealed  t h a t there was  no evidence of i n t e r a c t i o n f o r v a r i a b l e s 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21,  22, 23, 24, 25, 30 31; t h a t i s , each c h i l d  received  a zero frequency.  These v a r i a b l e s were d e l e t e d  from  further analyses.  The remaining v a r i a b l e s i n each c l u s t e r  were then analyzed u s i n g a 2 x 2 (sex-by-behaviour) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of The  variance.  s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were performed using the  computer programme U n i v a r i a t e  1  and M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of  V a r i a n c e , Covariance and Regression Services)  (International Education  maintained by the E d u c a t i o n Research  Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  Services  CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND  SUMMARY  Introduction As  s t a t e d i n the opening chapter,  t h i s study was  b a s i c a l l y exploratory  i n nature.  day  s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s with c h i l d r e n  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  perceived  The purpose was t o i d e n t i f y  as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and t o compare these  i n t e r a c t i o n s with c h i l d r e n not so p e r c e i v e d .  D i f f e r e n c e s were  i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r behaviour, gender and the i n t e r a c t i o n of each of 33 v a r i a b l e s . S i x day care c e n t r e s were s e l e c t e d f o r o b s e r v a t i o n by the use of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e designed to s e l e c t the c e n t r e s and c h i l d r e n .  As a r e s u l t , the s i x day care s u p e r v i s o r s and  48 c h i l d r e n , comprising and  of,. 24 b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t - c h i l d r e n  24 b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n , were s e l e c t e d f o r obser-  vation. girls.  The two groups contained The day care  supervisors  an equal number o f boys and i n t e r a c t i o n with the s e l e c t e d  c h i l d r e n was videotaped  i n the n a t u r a l day care s e t t i n g .  video  were subsequently coded with  and  tape o b s e r v a t i o n s  Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d  Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n System  The  the Brophy  (19 69) .  A f t e r minor m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the codes, 61 codes were employed to d e s c r i b e the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r each c h i l d .  T h i r t y - t h r e e v a r i a b l e s were c o n s t r u c t e d  b i n i n g codes i n order problem.  with  by com-  t o meet the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs o f the  For purposes o f a n a l y s i s the 33 v a r i a b l e s were  grouped i n t o nine c l u s t e r s .  As a means to t e s t the hypotheses  expressed i n the n u l l form, a 2 x 2 (sex-by-behaviour) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was performed on the data cluster.  i n each  62 For purposes o f the present d i s c u s s i o n , the data r e s u l t s w i l l be summarized i n an order s i m i l a r to t h a t when a n a l y z i n g ....  \ su.'.'S w-l_ '.- -  the d a t a .  • ~ ; r . ^ /-"s. » c " ' .  _™a JT»'' j . ' .'3:  . c-;s^  c  followed  ~ ,.' -  ..j.  Results Preliminary  Analyses  A f t e r the nine c l u s t e r s were formed the f i r s t i n analyzing  step  each c l u s t e r i n v o l v e d computing the mean and  standard d e v i a t i o n f o r each member v a r i a b l e . this preliminary  a n a l y s i s a r e contained  t i o n of these d a t a r e v e a l e d  The r e s u l t s o f  i n Appendix C.  Inspec-  t h a t t h e coding f r e q u e n c i e s f o r  v a r i a b l e s 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31 were zero.  These 12 v a r i a b l e s a r e c o n t a i n e d  i n Cluster I Total  Support, C l u s t e r I I C h i l d Created Support, C l u s t e r I I I Teacher Created Support, C l u s t e r IV Teacher C r e a t e d Non Support, and C l u s t e r IX Response O p p o r t u n i t y . C l u s t e r I T o t a l Support subsumes C l u s t e r I I C h i l d Created Support and C l u s t e r I I I Teacher C r e a t e d Support. c l u s t e r s contain v a r i a b l e 7 c h i l d created  These  procedure p o s i t i v e  feedback; v a r i a b l e 11 p r a i s e c h i l d c r e a t e d ;  v a r i a b l e 19 p r a i s e  i n behaviour and v a r i a b l e 30, p r a i s e as second response i n behaviour. was zero,  The frequency o f occurrence f o r v a r i a b l e s 7 and 11 thus i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the day care  i n t e r a c t w i t h p o s i t i v e feedback to any c h i l d created  a contact  the f r e q u e n c i e s  supervisor  d i d not  i f the c h i l d  about h i s own needs o r i n t e r e s t s .  f o r v a r i a b l e s 19 and 30 were zero,  Similarly, thus  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the day p r a i s e as an  initial  r e q u i r i n g the day  care s u p e r v i s o r  d i d not respond w i t h  response or second response to any  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  interaction.  In C l u s t e r IV Teacher Created Non 9  child  Support, v a r i a b l e  ( c h i l d - c r e a t e d procedure negative feedback); v a r i a b l e  (behaviour r e s t r i c t i o n ) ; and  v a r i a b l e 31  as second response) were-not observed.  (behaviour r e s t r i c t i o n This i n d i c a t e s that  day  care s u p e r v i s o r  any  c h i l d c r e a t i n g a b e h a v i o u r a l problem.  reveal  t h a t the day  s t r i c t i o n as an  20  the  d i d not respond w i t h negative feedback to  care s u p e r v i s o r  initial  Variables  20 and  d i d not respond w i t h r e -  response- or a second response to  c h i l d r e q u i r i n g the day  31  care supervisor's  r e a c t i o n to  any  their  behaviour. Variable  21  ( d i r e c t response); v a r i a b l e 22  out response); v a r i a b l e 23 (product question) and Cluster  IX,  (process q u e s t i o n ) ;  v a r i a b l e 25  Response O p p o r t u n i t y .  (terminal The  observed which i n d i c a t e s t h a t the day ask any  c h i l d a question during  variable  The analyzed u s i n g of v a r i a n c e .  of  24  feedback) form  e n t i r e c l u s t e r was care supervisor  a, group a c t i v i t y .  C l u s t e r IX was.eliminated from f u r t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l  Multivariant Analysis  (call  As  did  not not  a result  analyses.  Clusters  remaining v a r i a b l e s i n each c l u s t e r were then a 2 x 2 (Sex-by-Behaviour) m u l t i v a r i a t e The  clusters including variables  d i f f e r e n c e between the compared groups were:  analyses  revealing  The  Cluster I  v a r i a b l e s 3, 4, 32  C l u s t e r II  v a r i a b l e s 5, 10,  Cluster III  v a r i a b l e s 12,  C l u s t e r IV  v a r i a b l e s 8, 14,  Cluster V  v a r i a b l e s 8, 28  C l u s t e r VI  v a r i a b l e s 14,  15 , 29  C l u s t e r VII  v a r i a b l e s 10,  26  Cluster VIII  v a r i a b l e s 16,  17 , 2 7  C l u s t e r IX  none  r e s u l t s o f these a n a l y s e s a r e r e p o r t e d  using  two t a b l e s .  The f i r s t t a b l e r e p o r t s  26  13 , 1 6 ,  17 , 27  15, 28, 29  f o r each c l u s t e r the mean, standard  d e v i a t i o n and sample s i z e f o r each o f the four groups o f children.  The m u l t i v a r i a t e F s t a t i s t i c and the corresponding  u n i v a r i a t e F r a t i o s f o r each member v a r i a b l e i n each c l u s t e r are presented i n the second t a b l e . -A b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n  pre-  cedes the two t a b l e s r e p o r t i n g the data r e s u l t s f o r each cluster.  C l u s t e r I;  T o t a l Support..  The c e l l mean,., standard  t i o n s and sample s i z e f o r C l u s t e r I are r e p o r t e d The  devia-  i n Table 6.  r e s u l t s o f the corresponding m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of  variance  are reported  i n Table 7.  The m u l t i v a r i a t e F r a t i o s i n Table 7 r e v e a l s  that  t o t a l support was s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.05 f o r the behaviour f a c t o r . The  u n i v a r i a t e F s t a t i s t i c s d i s c l o s e t h a t the day care super-  v i s o r ' s response was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between behavioura l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y (variable 4). Inspection  adapted, c h i l d r e n f o r nurture  of Table 6 r e v e a l s  that  behaviourally  d i f f e r e n t children received  proportionally  ( v a r i a b l e 4) than b e h a v i o u r a l l y  l e s s nurture  adapted c h i l d r e n .  For p r a i s e  ( v a r i a b l e 3) and p o s i t i v e feedback ( v a r i a b l e 32) the u n i v a r i a t e F s t a t i s t i c s show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  between groups.  S i m i l a r l y no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r gender or f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two f a c t o r s o f gender and behaviour.  66 Table  6.  Group  Cluster I. C e l l Means and S t a n d a r d Deviations f o r T o t a l Support  n  Variables 4  3 male  BD  12  male  BA  12  3.13% (5.0)  32  13.8% (10.4)  23.1% (9.5)  11.2 (11.5)  19.5 (14.7)  26.5 (10.6)  female  BD  12  3.9 (3.4)  22.4 (15. 3)  29.0 (8.0)  female  BA  12  7. 7 (13.0)  31.2 (22.6)  21.0 (9.2)  (Note  (  ) = standard deviation  Table  So u r c e  7.  Cluster I. Multivariate Analysis of Variance f o r T o t a l Support  Multivariate F df  Univariate df  Sex  2.37  (3,42)  1  Behaviour  3.69*  (3,42)  1  Sex x  0.82  (3,42)  1  behaviour  Within  Univariate 4 3  a  a  0.20  1.30  6.66  2 .98  7. 33*  0.20  0.52-  a  0.10'  44  p<.05 a.  F Statistic 32  The v a l u e f o r F r a t i o s l e s s t h a n one a r e n o t p r o v i d e d i n t h i s t a b l e and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t a b l e s f o r e a c h o f t h e r e m a i n i n g c l u s t e r s . . I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e mean and v a r i a b i l i t y of the v a r i a b l e s f o r which these v a l u e s o c c u r r e d r e v e a l e d t h a t i n most c a s e s t h e means t o be compared w e r e ' v e r y n e a r l y e q u a l , i n o t h e r s t h e l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y c o u p l e d w i t h t h e s m a l l sample s i z e h e l p e d to account f o r the v a l u e s .  2.22  67  Cluster  II  Support C h i l d C r e a t e d .  mean, standard d e v i a t i o n s II.  and c e l l  Table 8 r e p o r t s  cell  sample s i z e f o r C l u s t e r  The MANOVA summarized i n Table 9, C l u s t e r  I I was signir-  f i c a n t a t p<.05 f o r behaviour. : The u n i v a r i a t e F r a t i o s reveal  t h a t the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  behaviourally  i n t e r a c t i o n with  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t  to t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s with b e h a v i o u r a l l y for  variable  6, p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created  shown i n Table 8, b e h a v i o u r a l l y proportionally behaviourally  adapted  children work.  different children  l e s s p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created adapted c h i l d r e n .  Praise  received than  i n . c h i l d created  work ( v a r i a b l e 10) and p r a i s e as second response c h i l d ( v a r i a b l e 26) were not s i g n i f i c a n t . supervisor's the  As  created  S i m i l a r i l y the day care  response was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f o r gender or i n  i n t e r a c t i o n between gender and behaviour.  Table  8.  C l u s t e r I I . C e l l Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s For Support C h i l d Created  Group  n 6  Variables 10  26  male  BD  12  74. 8 (21.7)  .58 (1.4)  male  BA  12  74. 3 (28. 7)  2.2 (4.6)  1.1 (3.5)  .16 (.58)  female  BD  12  83.5 (19.1)  3. 3 (5.1)  1.2 (2.6)  female  BA  12  89.9 (14.7)  9.5 (17.1)  1.5 (4.8)  Note  (  ) = standard  Table  9.  deviation  Cluster I I . Multivariate Analysis of Variance f o r Support C h i l d Created  Multivariate F  df  Univariate  Univariate  df  6  F.  Statistic  10  26  Sex  2. 8  (4,41)  1  1. 86  2. 61  1.67  Behaviour  6. 42*  (4,41)  1  21. 38*  0. 51  0.57  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  0. 13  (4,41)  1  0. 37  0. 01  0.16  Within  44  69  C l u s t e r I I I Support Teacher Created c e l l means, standard d e v i a t i o n s 11  and  Table 10 r e p o r t s cell  summarizes the MANOVA f o r C l u s t e r I I I .  the  sample s i z e .  Table  The m u l t i v a r i a t e F  r a t i o s i n Table 11 r e v e a l t h a t C l u s t e r I I I was not s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.05.  However, the u n i v a r i a t e F s t a t i s t i c  p o s i t i v e feedback i n teacher c r e a t e d  contact  reveals  (variable  that 12)  was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t  and  behaviourally  adapted c h i l d r e n .  T h i s would i n d i c a t e by  the nature of the t e s t t h a t a probable Type I e r r o r occurred  f o r v a r i a b l e 12.  Thus, v a r i a b l e 12 w i l l  has  not  be  regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the behaviour v a r i a b l e i n the d i s c u s s i o n of these d a t a .  70 T a b l e 10.  Group  C l u s t e r I I I . C e l l Means a n d S t a n d a r d Deviations f o r Support Teacher Created  Variables  n 12  male  13  16  17  27  BD  12  78.6 (19.6)  20.0 (23.0)  2.8 (3.9)  male BA  12  84.6 (12.1)  15. 7 (15.9)  6.3 (13.7)  3.5 (9.4)  1.0 (2.1) .2 ( .87)  0 * (0)  female  BD  12  76.0 (27.1)  24.0 (23.22)  1. 7 (1.8)  .5 (1.5)  female  BA  12  92.0 (9.1)  23.0 (21.51)  1.9 (5.4)  .3 (1.2)  Note  (  0 (0)  ) = standard deviation  Table  11.  Cluster I I I . Multivariate Analysis o f Variance f o r Support Teacher Created  Source  Multivariate F df  Sex  0.,63  (5,,40)  1  Behaviour  1.,42  (5,,40)  1  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  0. 47  (5,,40)  1  Within  .5 (1.0)  Univariate df  44  .  U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c 12 13 16 17 27 0.02  .03  . 35 2.14 1.25  4.44*1.92 1.62 0  .01 2.28  . 36  .20  .51  .20  71  C l u s t e r IV  T o t a l Non Support.  The mean, standard d e v i a t i o n s  and c e l l sample s i z e f o r C l u s t e r IV a r e r e p o r t e d i n Table 12. The corresponding MANOVA summary  i s summarized i n Table 13.  The m u l t i v a r i a t e F r a t i o s i n Table 13 r e v e a l t h a t C l u s t e r IV was s i g n i f i c a n t  (p<.05) f o r behaviour.  The corresponding  u n i v a r i a t e F s t a t i s t i c s show t h a t negative feedback c r e a t e d work ( v a r i a b l e 8 ) , n e g a t i v e feedback  i n child  i n teacher c r e a t e d  work ( v a r i a b l e 14), and c r i t i c i s m as a second response created  i n child  ( v a r i a b l e 28) were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted supervisor.  c h i l d r e n by the day c a r e  The c e l l means i n Table 12 r e v e a l t h a t behaviour-  a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more n e g a t i v e feedback  i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work, negative feedback  c r e a t e d work, and c r i t i c i s m as a second response c r e a t e d than d i d b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted F s t a t i s t i c s f o r n e g a t i v e feedback  in child  children.  teacher c r e a t e d  and c r i t i c i s m as second response-teacher significant.  i n teacher  The u n i v a r i a t e procedure  c r e a t e d were not  Again, the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s response  was  not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between g i r l s and boys, o r i n the i n t e r a c t i o n between behaviour and gender.  72 Table  12.  C l u s t e r IV. C e l l Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r T o t a l Non S u p p o r t  Group  n 8  Variables 15 28  14  29  male  BD  12  24. 8 (22.0)  21.1 (25.5)  12.1 (25.5)  2.8 (5.3)  3.1 (6.4)  male  BA  12  21.5 (28. 7)  8.7 (11.5)  1.4 (2.3)  .9 (3.2)  .5 (1.1)  12  15. 8 (19.5)  20.4 (23.6)  3.5  1.2 (2.1)  2.3 (3.3)  9.4 (14.3)  5.1 (9.4)  female  female  Note  BD  BA  12  ( ) = standard  Table  13.  Source  Multivariate  Univariate  0.0 ( .30)  F. 15  df  8 1.94  (5 ,40)  1  Behaviour  3. 86*  (5 ,40)  1  . 88  (5 ,40)  1 44  of  Univariate  df  1. 76  * p<.05  0.0 0.0  C l u s t e r IV. Multivariate Analysis V a r i a n c e f o r T o t a l Non S u p p o r t  Sex  Within  2.3' (5.0)  deviation  F  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  ,(6.4)  14 09  1.67  13.59*12. 80* 1.60 .51  39  Statistic 28 4. 27 4. 66*  .53 1. 98  29  73  Cluster V  Non Support C h i l d C r e a t e d .  The a n a l y s i s of  v a r i a n c e summary i s presented i n Table 15, and Table 14 cont a i n s the c e l l means, standard d e v i a t i o n s and c e l l for  C l u s t e r V.  sample  Table 15 r e v e a l s t h a t non support c h i l d  i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.05 f o r behaviour.  size  created  The u n i v a r i a t e F  s t a t i s t i c s r e v e a l t h a t n e g a t i v e feedback c h i l d c r e a t e d work ( v a r i a b l e 8 ) , and c r i t i c i s m as a second response  ( v a r i a b l e 28)  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the behaviour f a c t o r .  As  shown i n Table 14, b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more n e g a t i v e feedback i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work ( v a r i a b l e 8) and c r i t i c i s m as second response than d i d b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  The day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s  response was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f o r gender o r i n the i n t e r a c t i o n between behaviour and gender.  74 Table  14.  C l u s t e r V. C e l l Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r Non S u p p o r t C h i l d C r e a t e d  Group  n  Variables 8  male  28  BD  12  24. 8 (22.0)  2.8 :(5.3)  male\BA  12  21.5)' (28.7)  .9 (3.2)  female  BD  12  15. 8 (19.5)  1.2 (2.1)  female  BA  12  9.4 (14.3)  0 (0)  Note  ( ) = standard deviation  T a b l e 15.  Source  C l u s t e r V. Multivariate Analysis of V a r i a n c e f o r Non S u p p o r t C h i l d C r e a t e d  Multivariate F  Univariate  Univariate  df  8  28  8  4.27  2.09  (2 ,43)  1  Behaviour  6.72*  (2,43)  1  13.6*  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  1.01  (2 ,43)  1  1.52  * p<.05  Statistic  df  Sex  Within  F.  44 .  4.66* 1.98  <  C l u s t e r V I Non Support Teacher Created. standard 16.  d e v i a t i o n s and c e l l  The c e l l means,  sample s i z e are r e p o r t e d i n Table  The MANOVA summary i s r e p o r t e d  i n Table 17.  V a r i a b l e 14  c o n t r i b u t e d t o the s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i v a r i a t e F, observed f o r behaviour.  The c e l l means i n Table 16 r e v e a l t h a t b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more teacher negative  created  feedback work than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  The day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s responses d i d not d i f f e r between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n on negative  feedback teacher c r e a t e d procedure ( v a r i a b l e 15) and  c r i t i c i s m as second response i n teacher c r e a t e d  ( v a r i a b l e 29).  The response o f t h e day care s u p e r v i s o r was a l s o not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between boys and g i r l s or the i n t e r a c t i o n between behaviour and gender.  75  76 Table  16.  C l u s t e r VI. C e l l Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r Non S u p p o r t T e a c h e r Cre a t e d  Group  Variables  n . 14  15  29  BD  12  21.1 (17.3)  12.1 (25.5)  3.0 (6.4)  male,BA  12  8.7 (11.5)  1.4 (2.3)  .5 (1.1)  3.5 (6.4)  2.5 (3.3)  male  female  BD  12  20.4 (23.6)  female  BA  12  5.1 (9.4)  Note  ( ) = standard  Table  17.  Source  2.3 . (5.0)  0.0 ( .30)  deviation  C l u s t e r VI. M u l t i v a r i a t e Analysis o f V a r i a n c e f o r Non S u p p o r t T e a c h e r C r e a t e d  Multivariate  Univariate  Univariate  F. S t a t i s t i c  • F  df  Sex  1.18  (3,42)  1  .09  1.67  Behaviour  4.25*  (3,42)  1  12.2*  1.61  .25  (3,42)  1  . 39  .53  Sex x b e h a v i o u r Within  * p<.05  df  44  14  15  29 1.64 . 38 .06  77  Cluster VII  Praise C h i l d Created.  -Table 18 r e p o r t s the  c e l l means, standard d e v i a t i o n and c e l l . s a m p l e Cluster VII.  size f o r  The corresponding m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s a r e  presented i n Table 19. -The m u l t i v a r i a t e F r a t i o s i n Table 19 r e v e a l t h a t C l u s t e r V I I P r a i s e C h i l d Created i s not s i g n i f i c a n t a t p .05. <  The day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r ' s  response between the  groups was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f o r p r a i s e c h i l d c r e a t e d work ( v a r i a b l e 10) o r p r a i s e as a second response i n c h i l d ( v a r i a b l e 26) .  created  78 Table  18.  C l u s t e r VII C e l l Means a n d S t a n d a r d Deviations for Praise C h i l d Created  Group  n  Variables 10  male  BD  12  male.BA  1  2  26  .5 (1.8) )  .1 (.58)  2.2 (4.6)  1.1 (3.5)  female  BD  12  3. 3 (5.1)  1.2 (2.6)  female  BA  12  9.5 (17.2)  1.5 (4.9)  Note  ( ) = standard  Table  19.  Source  deviation  Cluster VII. Multivariate Analysis Variance f o r Praise C h i l d Created  Multivariate F df  Univariate df  of  Univariate 10  F.  Statistic 26  Sex  1.64  (2,43)  1  2.60  1.67  Behaviour  0.41  (2,4 3)  1  0.51  0.57  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  0. 79  (2,43)  1  0.01  0.16  Within  44  79  Cluster VIII  P r a i s e Teacher C r e a t e d .  the c e l l means, standard d e v i a t i o n s Cluster VIII.  Table 20 r e p o r t s  and c e l l  The corresponding m u l t i v a r i a t e  summary i s presented i n Table 21.  sample s i z e f o r analysis  The m u l t i v a r i a t e F v a l u e s  r e v e a l t h a t C l u s t e r V I I I P r a i s e Teacher Created i s not s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.05.  The day care s u p e r v i s o r  does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e  her response between compared groups on p r a i s e teacher work ( v a r i a b l e 16), p r a i s e teacher c r e a t e d 17), 27) .  created  procedure  (variable  and p r a i s e as a second response teacher c r e a t e d  (variable  80 Table  20.  Cluster VIII. C e l l Means and S t a n d a r d Deviations f o r Praise Child Created  Group  n  Variables 16  17  27  male  BD  12  2.8 (4.0)  0.0 (0)  .5 (1.0)  male  BA  12  6.3 (3.7)  3.5 (9.5)  1.0 (2.1)  female  BD  12  1.7 (1.9)  .5 (1.5)  .2 (.87)  female  BA  12  1.9 (5.4)  0.0 (1.1)  0.0 (0)  Note  (  ) = standard  Table  21.  Source  Sex  deviations  Cluster VIII. Multivariate Analysis Variance f o r Praise C h i l d Created  Multivariate F df 1.09  Univariate  (3,42)  1  of  U n i v a r i a t e F. 16 17 . 35  2.13  Statistic 27  1.25  Behaviour  . 86  (3,42)  1  1.62  . 361  .20  Sex x b e h a v i o u r  . 80  (3,42)  1  1.28  .51  .20  Within  44  I n s p e c t i o n of Tables 7, 9, 11,  13,  15,  17,  19,  r e v e a l s t h a t a c r o s s the e i g h t c l u s t e r s there were no c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between boys and g i r l s and between the two  i n the  f a c t o r s of behaviour and gender.  can be concluded  21  signifi-  interaction Thus, i t  t h a t those d i f f e r e n c e s - observed between  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n are p e r v a s i v e a c r o s s gender and. t h a t gender i s not a d e t e r miner of the day  c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e p t i o n toward c h i l d r e n . 1  From the f o r e g o i n g r e s u l t s - the-hypothesis  t h a t the  day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t w i t h  behaviour-  a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n when compared to i n t e r a c t i o n b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n i s supported a b l e s and  clusters.  The day  for several v a r i -  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n i s  d i f f e r e n t between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and adapted c h i l d r e n f o r t o t a l support, t o t a l non  support,  c h i l d created. provided  non  with  support  support  behaviourally  child  created,,  teacher c r e a t e d and  non  In a l l work s i t u a t i o n s the day care  l e s s p o s i t i v e feedback and more negative  support  supervisor  feedback to  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n than t o b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  Nurture responses p r o v i d e d by the day  care  s u p e r v i s o r to b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n were l e s s than those provided b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n , and as a second response was  criticism  provided more to b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n when they  i n i t i a t e d the c o n t a c t than to  b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n . The  c o n c l u s i o n s and  i m p l i c a t i o n s d e r i v e d from the  above r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter  V.  CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS  The major purpose of t h i s study was t o determine any observable d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n t e r a c t i o n o f a day care s u p e r v i s o r w i t h three and f o u r year o l d c h i l d r e n perc e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t when compared to the s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n not p e r c e i v e d i n t h i s manner.  The i n t e r a c t i o n s o f s i x day care s u p e r v i s o r s  w i t h 48 s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n i n s i x n o n - p r o f i t day c a r e c e n t r e s i n two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o f a l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n area i n B r i t i s h Columbia were examined.  A two-stage s e l e c t i o n procedure was  implemented t o s e l e c t t h e ' c e n t r e s and c h i l d r e n . s u p e r v i s o r completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e designed  The day care  to identify  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n , for  each three and four year o l d c h i l d .  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e  s c o r e s were used f i r s t t o i d e n t i f y the s i x c e n t r e s f o r the study,  then t o s e l e c t from each c e n t r e e i g h t c h i l d r e n ,  two  most b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t boys, two most b e h a v i o u r a l l y different girls,  two most b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted boys and two  most b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted  girls.  Each day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h the e i g h t s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n were video taped on three  consecutive  mornings from 8:30 a.m. t o 12:30 p.m. i n the n a t u r a l day care setting. System  The Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  (19 69) was used t o code the recorded  observations.  83  A f t e r minor m o d i f i c a t i o n of the Brophy and Good instrument,  61  codes were used to d e s c r i b e the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r w i t h the s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n . to code the video  taped o b s e r v a t i o n s .  S i x coders were t r a i n e d -The mean i n t e r - c o d e r  r e l i a b i l i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d a t over 80% as r e q u i r e d by Brophy and Good (19 69)  f o r t h e p i l o t study and f o r the f u l l  By grouping codes, .33 v a r i a b l e s - w e r e  study.  c o n s t r u c t e d and  then grouped i n t o nine c l u s t e r s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the major c l a s s e s o f s u p e r v i s o r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s found i n day care centres.  P r e l i m i n a r y data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d d i f f e r e n c e s among  c e n t r e s , thus the data were s t a n d a r d i z e d d e v i a t i o n one) w i t h i n c e n t r e s .  (mean zero,  standard  Each c l u s t e r was then  analyzed  u s i n g a 2-x-2 (behaviour-by-gender) m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of variance. The (1)  findings revealed  that  though i t was assumed t h a t the day care  supervisor  would i n t e r a c t with both groups o f c h i l d r e n i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s , some i n t e r a c t i o n s d i d not occur; (2)  f o r some c l u s t e r s the day care  supervisors*  inter- -  a c t i o n s were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n ; (3)  f o r the remaining c l u s t e r s the day care  supervisors  i n t e r a c t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted children;  84  (4)  the sex o f the c h i l d was not a f a c t o r i n the day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s , nor was the i n t e r a c t i o n between the behaviour  and the gender o f the c h i l d  s i g n i f i c a n t i n any i n t e r a c t i o n .  CONCLUSIONS Two major headings s e l e c t e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n were nondifferentiated  i n t e r a c t i o n s and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n s o f  day care s u p e r v i s o r s with b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and behavioura l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  Non-differentiated Interaction W i t h i n the l i m i t s o f the.data f i v e f i n d i n g s are pertinent. (1)  No frequency was recorded f o r p o s i t i v e feedback, t i v e feedback o r p r a i s e when a c h i l d  nega-  i n i t i a t e d a contact  to meet h i s p e r s o n a l needs or i n t e r e s t s .  One can o n l y  wonder i f the c h i l d r e n were n o t i n i t i a t o r s i n t h i s area of c o n t a c t because o f i n e x p e r i e n c e o r former  experience,  or i f the day care s u p e r v i s o r d i d not i n t e r a c t w i t h c h i l d r e n i n t h i s area o f c o n t a c t because i t was deemed to be (2)  unimportant.  No day care s u p e r v i s o r s were observed any c h i l d i n the response noted  to i n t e r a c t with  o p p o r t u n i t y category  (which  i n t e r a c t i o n s i n l a r g e o r small group a c t i v i t i e s  such as c i r c l e time o r s t o r y time) d u r i n g which the  85  day care s u p e r v i s o r questions and the c h i l d r e n are provided an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r answers and d i s c u s s i o n . I f the response  o p p o r t u n i t y category i s assumed to  r e f l e c t d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t t e a c h i n g techniques, r e s u l t s tend to suggest  these  i n a p p r o p r i a t e p l a n n i n g f o r and  t e a c h i n g of group a c t i v i t i e s . -  T h i s would e l i m i n a t e  any p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n i n t h i s a r e a . (3)  No r e s t r i c t i o n s of the c h i l d r e n ' s unacceptable were observed.  behaviour  Here a g a i n there seem to be l i n k s with  i n a p p r o p r i a t e t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e , which d i d not employ p o s i t i v e techniques  i n order t o maximize a c h i l d ' s  a c c e p t a b l e behaviour, of i n t e r a c t i o n a l (4T);  or with i n s u f f i c i e n t knowledge  process.  S i m i l a r or n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d responses were noted f o r b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n i n i n t e r a c t i o n s c r e a t e d by the s u p e r v i s o r r e q u i r i n g her s u p p o r t i v e response,  such as p o s i t i v e  feedback and p r a i s e i n work and procedure While the responses  activities.  to the two groups was u n d i f f e r e n -  t i a t e d , the day care s u p e r v i s o r provided v e r y  low  f r e q u e n c i e s of p r a i s e i n t e r a c t i o n to a l l c h i l d r e n . (5)  the sex of the c h i l d was  not found to a f f e c t  interaction,  with the day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r . - T h i s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  response might be due of day  to the i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s  care s u p e r v i s o r s of a g r e a t many workshops and  i n - s e r v i c e s e s s i o n s given by i n s t i t u t i o n s and t i o n s conscious or,the  of the sex r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g of children;'  f a c t t h a t three and  have not r e c o g n i z e d and  organiza-  four year o l d c h i l d r e n s t i l l  sex d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  activities,  t h e r e f o r e the g i r l s and boys i n t e r a c t w i t h the  care s u p e r v i s o r s i m i l a r l y ; o r , t h a t the day v i s o r p e r c e i v e s c h i l d r e n of t h i s age sexless.  as  care  day  super-  essentially  However i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t  s u p e r v i s o r s c o u l d d i f f e r e n t i a t e some of t h e i r  the  inter-  a c t i o n s with c h i l d r e n on the behaviour v a r i a b l e but probably  d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e on the sex v a r i a b l e .  Although the i n v e s t i g a t o r had assumed t h a t a b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d c o u l d r e q u i r e more of the care  s u p e r v i s o r s a t t e n t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e , t h e r e f o r e f o r c i n g  the day  care  s u p e r v i s o r to i n t e r a c t with observable  between the two  groups, the data d i d not support  F u r t h e r , because the i n v e s t i g a t o r accepted White  day  (1971) t h a t success  is.vital  t h i s assumption  the a s s e r t i o n s o f  to the growth and p o s i t i v e  feedback c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as success, t h a t day  difference  the data i n d i c a t i n g  care s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h i s study provided  neither  q u a l i t y nor q u a n t i t y of p r a i s e or p o s i t i v e feedback to  the  satisfy  i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s suggest t h a t f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s required.  Differentiated Interaction Within  the l i m i t s of the data,  two f i n d i n g s were  pertinent. (1)  Less supportive  i n t e r a c t i o n was provided  t o young c h i l d r e n  p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t by the day care s u p e r v i s o r than t o c h i l d r e n not p e r c e i v e d The  i n t h i s manner.  significant attributes differentiating  behaviourally  d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n i n T o t a l Support ( C l u s t e r I) was the nurture and p o s i t i v e feedback response o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r .  Behaviourally  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n were found to r e c e i v e l e s s nurture than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n .  However i t was a l s o  e v i d e n t t h a t both b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d l i t t l e n u r t u r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n (Table 6) from the day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r .  When e i t h e r the  c h i l d o r the s u p e r v i s o r c r e a t e d an i n t e r a c t i o n a l work contact, c h i l d r e n perceived  t o be b e h a v i o u r a l l y  different  r e c e i v e d l e s s p o s i t i v e feedback from the day care s u p e r v i s o r than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n . The  f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t even, though b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e l e s s p o s i t i v e feedback i n work c o n t a c t s  than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n , the  amount o f p o s i t i v e feedback g i v e n t o any c h i l d i s very low  (Tables 10 and 11) i n comparison t o the t o t a l  interactions. (2)  Besides  receiving less total  feedback, nurture)  support  (praise, p o s i t i v e  from the day care s u p e r v i s o r , the  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d more .negative feedback and  c r i t i c i s m as second response from the  day  care s u p e r v i s o r than b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n . In work c o n t a c t s  the day  care  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more negative  s u p e r v i s o r responded  feedback to b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t than to b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n . c o n t a c t s appeared to be the category  Work  y i e l d i n g the  g r e a t e s t number o f responses from the s u p e r v i s o r . work category  with  (The  focuses upon the s u p e r v i s o r ' s d i r e c t e d  a c t i v i t i e s / m a t e r i a l and  equipment f o r the c h i l d . )  C e r t a i n assumptions a r i s i n g from the above f i n d i n g s concerning (a)  The  day  care s u p e r v i s o r s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n a r e :  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d ' s development o f  f u t u r e competencies i s l e s s l i k e l y to occur  than t h a t  of a b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted c h i l d because the d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e c e i v e s l e s s nurture supervisor.  Bandura  (1963), White  behaviourally  from the day  (1978) and  care  Skeels  (1966) have emphasized t h a t the the nurture provided  by  the long term c a r i n g a d u l t i s most i n f l u e n t i a l upon the pre-school and (b)  c h i l d ' s development of f u t u r e competency  intellect'.  Because c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r e a r l y years need p o s i t i v e feedback from the a d u l t s i n t h e i r environment i n order to i n t e r n a l i z e t h e i r own (Bronfrenbrener,  1971)  developing  i t may  s e l f image/  be reasonably  assumed  from the data o f t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n who back and more negative contacts  from the day  study t h a t behaviour-  receive l e s s p o s i t i v e feed-  feedback and care  c r i t i c i s m i n work  s u p e r v i s o r are not r e c e i v i n g  the q u a l i t y of i n t e r a c t i o n r e q u i r e d to develop a p o s i t i v e self (c)  concept.  In order  to account f o r the low frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n  i n a l l c l u s t e r s i t may of the day (who and  be assumed t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n  care s u p e r v i s o r with the s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n ,  were s e l e c t e d extremes of b e h a v i o u r a l l y  different  b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted) r e f l e c t unconscious avoidance  of these c h i l d r e n .  I t may  w e l l be t h a t more s u p e r v i s o r s  i n t e r a c t i o n s occur with the bulk of the c h i l d r e n i n the middle of the behaviour continuum who i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the  Within t h i s exploratory ..The  are l e s s d i f f i c u l t  supervisor.  the l i m i t s o f the data,  the c o n c l u s i o n s  of  study are summarized as f o l l o w s .  day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s d i d p e r c e i v e t h r e e and  f o u r year o l d  c h i l d r e n as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted...The  day  care s u p e r v i s o r s d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r  a c t i o n s between male and ..The  day  inter-  female c h i l d r e n .  care s u p e r v i s o r s d i d not i n t e r a c t with any  child,  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted, i n group situations.  90  .. The day care s u p e r v i s o r s d i d not r e s t r i c t  unacceptable  behaviour f o r e i t h e r group. ..The  day care s u p e r v i s o r s d i d not i n t e r a c t with any  child,  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted, when the child  i n i t i a t e d a c o n t a c t to meet h i s p e r s o n a l needs or  ..The  day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s  between b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and c h i l d r e n on support ..The  day  and  interests.  b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted  non-support c l u s t e r s .  care s u p e r v i s o r s provided  l e s s nurture and p o s i t i v e  feedback to b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n than to  behaviour-  a l l y adapted c h i l d r e n . .'.The day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s p r o v i d e d more c r i t i c i s m  to  behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children. ..The low  day  care s u p e r v i s o r s d i d p r o v i d e u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d but  frequency  p r a i s e to a l l c h i l d r e n .  Limitations Although the r e s u l t s of the study provided u s e f u l information that implies further research, c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s need to be  recognized. An  sample.  important  l i m i t a t i o n was  the small and  restricted  Only s i x day care s u p e r v i s o r s were observed i n t h e i r  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h 48 c h i l d r e n .  The  small sample may  r e s t r i c t e d the i n f o r m a t i o n the•Brophy and Good  have  Teacher-Child  Dyadic  Interation  (1969) was  capable o f p r o v i d i n g .  A larger  sample i n v o l v i n g more day c a r e c e n t r e s and c h i l d r e n might have p r o v i d e d data w i t h more v a r i e t y and p o s s i b l y more i n those c a t e g o r i e s where no i n t e r a c t i o n was Another l i m i t a t i o n was the c o l l e c t i o n of d a t a .  recorded.  the time span a l l o t t e d f o r  Observations were made on three con-  s e c u t i v e mornings from 8:30 72 hours of v i d e o tape.  a.m.  to 12:30  p.m.  to p r o v i d e  Data c o l l e c t e d over a longer p e r i o d  might have p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n to q u e s t i o n s not for this  responses  formulated  study.  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Day Care P r a c t i c e  Implications f o r supervisors Developmental r e s e a r c h e r s such as Sears, McCoby and Levin  (1957), and Bandura  (1969) suggest t h a t every  r e q u i r e s much support, n u r t u r e , p o s i t i v e feedback from the c o n s t a n t c a r e g i v e r .  child  and p r a i s e  The f i n d i n g s of t h i s  study  i n d i c a t e t h a t day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t are l e s s s u p p o r t i v e ( p o s i t i v e feedback,  p r a i s e , nurture) than with c h i l d r e n not  p e r c e i v e d i n t h i s manner.  Furthermore  t h i s study  supports  research discussed e a r l i e r  (Jacobs, 19 68; Brophy, 1968)  p o i n t s out t h a t teachers a c t upon, t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n .  that  through  The f i n d i n g s imply t h a t  there i s a g r e a t need f o r day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s t o become more  aware o f how they do o r do not i n t e r a c t with c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r care.  However d i f f i c u l t i t may be f o r s u p e r v i s o r s t o assess  t h e i r own i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h c h i l d r e n , they need t o l e a r n how to monitor t h e i r own behaviour o r feedback i f they a r e t o improve the p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n the day care environment.  Implications f o r evaluation , C l e a r l y , the v a l u e o f process e v a l u a t i o n l i e s not o n l y i n the p r o v i s i o n o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l data which i s r e l a t e d to  the products  opportunity  o f e d u c a t i o n a l experiences,  b u t a l s o i n the  f o r f o s t e r i n g teacher-awareness.  M o f f e t t and  Ryan (1975) have demonstrated t h a t teachers a r e very o f t e n unaware o f responding  d i f f e r e n t l y to d i f f e r e n t children.  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s t e a c h i n g  i n v o l v e s r a p i d l y paced sequences  of i n t e r a c t i o n and i t i s understandably care s u p e r v i s o r s t o keep up with, own behaviour.  Day  d i f f i c u l t f o r the day  l e t alone to monitor t h e i r  However, the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study  suggest  t h a t there a r e many s i t u a t i o n s i n which c h i l d r e n would b e n e f i t if  the s u p e r v i s o r s had i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s  with c h i l d r e n .  Former r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t teachers can  p r e d i c t f a i r l y a c c u r a t e l y when asked about student  ability,  but a r e r e l a t i v e l y unaware o f t h e i r p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s with  students  (Baker, 1972), e s p e c i a l l y i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  among c h i l d r e n .  I f one assumes t h a t day care  supervisors  are unaware o f t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d c a l l o u s n e s s , i n d i f f e r e n c e or l a c k o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s not the major cause o f i n appropriate  i n t e r a c t i o n s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t much i n a p p r o p r i a t e  93  i n t e r a c t i o n can be m o d i f i e d by making the day care aware what he/she i s doing. supports  t h i s idea  supervisor  Present, l i t e r a t u r e s t r o n g l y  ( W h i t h a l l 1956;  McNeil 1971).  Survey data  show t h a t e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r y e v a l u a t i v e methods are s o r e l y needed.  Most day  care s u p e r v i s o r s and  teachers are r a r e l y or  never observed or g i v e n f a c t u a l feedback by a d v i s o r y consultants day  (Day Care Information  1975;  McNeil 1971).  Furthermore  care s u p e r v i s o r s tend to r e j e c t the c o n s u l t a n t ' s  feedback  as o f t e n they do not agree w i t h or are u n f a m i l i a r with  the  v a l u e s or c r i t e r i a t h a t the e v a l u a t i o n i s based upon,(McNeil 1971) . Good and Brophy (19 74) of a teacher's  p o i n t out t h a t the  evaluator  i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n should be a  person to the teacher, o f f e r i n g meaningful feedback r a t i o n a l suggestions  f o r change.  Systematic  resource and  e v a l u a t i o n of a  day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with c h i l d r e n c o u l d  be  implemented w i t h i n the framework of s u p e r v i s o r y s e r v i c e s of the Area Day  Care Information  O f f i c e , thereby  providing  day  care s u p e r v i s o r s w i t h u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n from o b j e c t i v e observ a t i o n about a p p r o p r i a t e and  inappropriate i n t e r a c t i o n with  individual children.  Implications for c h i l d r e n Day  care s u p e r v i s o r s knowledgeable about t h e i r  i n t e r a c t i o n s with c h i l d r e n c o u l d become more aware of and f o r e able to modify t h e i r responses to c h i l d r e n .  there-  They would  be able to provide c h i l d r e n optimal o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r acceptable b e h a v i o u r a l  responses by v i r t u e of t h e i r own  supportive  interaction.  For i n s t a n c e , i n one  of the day care c e n t r e s ,  Robbie, p e r c e i v e d as a b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h i l d by  the  day care s u p e r v i s o r , c o n t i n u a l l y r e c e i v e d negative  feedback  and c r i t i c i s m f o r h i s behaviour.  supervisor  become more aware o f her  Had  the day care  i n t e r a c t i o n s with Robbie by  viewing  a video tape or by feedback based upon o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n she c o u l d have m o d i f i e d Robbie's unacceptable  them i n such ways as to r e s t r i c t  behaviour by p r o v i d i n g him with  a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a t c o u l d be supported,  p r a i s e d and  acceptable  nurtured.  I f the a d u l t s u p e r v i s o r s e t s up supportive  inter-  a c t i o n s as w e l l as an a p p r o p r i a t e p h y s i c a l environment, the behaviour of young c h i l d r e n c o u l d b e t t e r be supported. r e s u l t , day  As a  care s u p e r v i s o r s might have fewer c h i l d r e n per-  c e i v e d as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r day c a r e . o n l y w i l l the day  care s u p e r v i s o r be s e t t i n g a  Not  behavioural  p a t t e r n and model f o r young c h i l d r e n , she/he w i l l a l s o be v i d i n g i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t encourages i n t e l l e c t u a l , emotional  human competence The  present  social  pro-  and  (Bruner, .1971; White 1975) .  study the day care s u p e r v i s o r s  perceived  young c h i l d r e n as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t or b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted w i t h i n the group, the q u e s t i o n  inevitably arises  whether the same day care s u p e r v i s o r would d i f f e r e n t i a t e among young c h i l d r e n on other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l s o , thereby c r e a t i n g such l a b e l s as h i g h a c h i e v e r s , low a c h i e v e r s ,  intellectually  competent, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y incompetent; e m o t i o n a l l y w e l l or e m o t i o n a l l y unwell.  With the i n f o r m a t i o n provided by  the  95  present  study and  II),  one  support o f r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h  (see- Chapter  can conclude t h a t day care s u p e r v i s o r s do  c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e n t l y and  perceive  i n t e r a c t with them a c c o r d i n g to  perceptions.  Thus, the day  behaviour and  e x p e c t a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n may  care s u p e r v i s o r ' s t e a c h i n g  a f f e c t i n g the young c h i l d ' s behaviour and  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g day The  v  care  be changed,  those  style, thereby  learning potential.  supervisors  f i n d i n g s of t h i s study  imply t h a t day  care  s u p e r v i s o r s e i t h e r l a c k knowledge about,the i n t e r a c t i o n a l process between a d u l t and c h i l d or have the knowledge but cannot implement i t i n p r a c t i c e . i n day  care with optimal  In order to provide a l l c h i l d r e n  o p p o r t u n i t i e s to develop a wide range  of r e q u i r e d competencies i t i s necessary  to c o n s i d e r  the  a d d i t i o n of an i n t e r a c t i o n a l knowledge base i n day care v i s o r s ' t r a i n i n g programs.  P r e s e n t l y the v a r i o u s  programs emphasize methods courses development.  super-  training  and a b a s i c course- i n c h i l d  Knowledge of i n t e r a c t i o n a l process  integrated  w i t h knowledge of c h i l d development c o u l d g r e a t l y enhance the day  to day  i n t e r a c t i o n s of s u p e r v i s o r s with each c h i l d . The  f o l l o w i n g example serves to i l l u s t r a t e the l a c k  of such knowledge, as w e l l as i t s n o n - i n t e g r a t i o n with development understanding.  child  The day care s u p e r v i s o r , Mrs.  X>  p e r c e i v e d four year o l d Sarah as b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t , d e s c r i b i n g her as rude and a l i a r . ' next to Sarah d u r i n g snack.  One  morning Mrs.. X s a t  Sarah i n i t i a t e d the  interaction  by i n f o r m i n g Mrs. X about h e r s e l f . trainer?" small." too!"  Mrs. X r e p l i e d ,  "Do you know I'm a whale  "Oh no you a r e not, you're too  "Oh no," r e p l i e d Sarah,  "I am, and I t r a i n  Mrs. X turned so t h a t her back almost  retorted,  "You can't, you a r e too l i t t l e . "  sharks  faced Sarah and "Oh yes I can,  I'm b i g , 'cause I'm g e t t i n g a d o l p h i n and I'm going t o t r a i n him t o o l " was the r e p l y . - Mrs. X immediately and s a i d ,  "Those a r e l i e s ,  t h i n g s - ever?"  Sarah.  l e f t the t a b l e  Can't you t e l l me t r u e  Sarah was q u i e t f o r a moment, then s a i d , "I  know something t h a t you don't know." i r r i t a t e d and d i d not r e p l y .  Mrs. X looked  Sarah continued,  whale d o c t o r s a r e whales don't you? know, whale d o c t o r s a r e people!"  extremely  "You t h i n k  W e l l , they a r e n ' t you  Mrs. X went t o the o t h e r  s i d e o f the room and began a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h another Had  t h i s day care s u p e r v i s o r /  child.  some knowledge  about the i n t e r a c t i o n process and i n t e g r a t e d i t w i t h her understandings o f c h i l d development, her i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the c h i l d might have been more a c c e p t i n g and s u p p o r t i v e .  Many s i m i l a r  s i t u a t i o n s were recorded d u r i n g the course o f t h e study  pro-  v i d i n g strong support f o r i n c o r p o r a t i n g knowledge about t e a c h e r c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i n a t r a i n i n g program.  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research T h i s e x p l o r a t o r y study h e l d i n n a t u r a l day care s e t t i n g s tends to r a i s e more q u e s t i o n s than i t answers. ever, because i t i s a f i e l d  How-  study i t does throw some l i g h t on  97  v a r i a b l e s , processes and  i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t deserve  careful  attention i n future research. In g e n e r a l , the data from t h i s study f i r m l y  supports  the view t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher i n t e r a c t i o n i s r e a l but i s by no means u n i v e r s a l .  A p a r a l l e l i n v e s t i g a t i o n to t h i s  study  might e l e c t to use a v a r i e t y of methods f o r a s s e s s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s developmental  s t a t u s , p o s s i b l y thereby more a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n i n g  the v a l i d i t y of the day care s u p e r v i s o r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of individual children.  Matching t h i s assessment to the day  care  s u p e r v i s o r s ' i n t e r a c t i o n s with the c h i l d a l s o might p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about the needs of i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n and i n which the s u p e r v i s o r meets these needs, through  the  way  i n t e r a c t i o n analyses.  In p r e v i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i n v o l v i n g young c h i l d r e n and teachers  (Katz, 19 69; P r e s c o t t , 1969;  Richenberg-  Hackett 19 62), the f i n d i n g s provided i n f o r m a t i o n about the "average"  teacher i n t e r a c t i o n with a group of c h i l d r e n .  these f i n d i n g s c o u l d not r e f l e c t the way  the day care s u p e r v i s o r  a c t u a l l y i n t e r a c t s with i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n . day care s u p e r v i s o r who  However,  For example:  the  p r o v i d e s nurture i n g e n e r a l to a group  of c h i l d r e n might simultaneously, p r o v i d e negative feedback to or c r i t i c i s m of i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n .  S i m i l a r l y the  t e a c h e r - c l a s s o b s e r v a t i o n system, nurture may a measure.  typical  average h i g h on  However, the average nurture p r o v i d e d to the group  by the s u p e r v i s o r i n a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y s the s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n and degree of n u r t u r e as experienced by individual child.  an  The outcome of t h i s study suggests  o b s e r v a t i o n of dyadic day care s u p e r v i s o r - c h i l d  that  interaction  might be expanded to study r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the c h i l d and the day care s u p e r v i s o r . In o b s e r v i n g d i f f e r e n t day care s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with young c h i l d r e n there appeared to be  distinct  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the e f f e c t of such i n t e r a c t i o n upon c h i l d r e n ' s d e s i r a b l e behaviour.  I t might be f r u i t f u l  to study  e f f e c t i v e kinds of t h i n g s day care s u p e r v i s o r s do, of  the interaction  the day care s u p e r v i s o r w i t h c h i l d r e n and the consequences  upon the c h i l d r e n ' s s o c i a l , emotional ment.  F u r t h e r understanding  and  intellectual  develop  of the day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r ' s  i n t e r a c t i o n with p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n and the e f f e c t o f t h e i r specific crucial  i n t e r a c t i o n s upon c h i l d r e n ' s development seems to be to q u a l i t y day care programs. The  i n t e r a c t i o n s of each day care s u p e r v i s o r i n t h i s  study with e i g h t c h i l d r e n who behaviour  r e p r e s e n t e d the extremes i n  measured a t a. v e r y low frequency.  Might i t be t h a t  the day care s u p e r v i s o r i n t e r a c t e d with g r e a t e r frequency c h i l d r e n found  with  i n the middle of the two extreme c a t e g o r i e s ?  In o t h e r words does the day c a r e . s u p e r v i s o r a n t i c i p a t e more difficult  i n t e r a c t i o n with  the .behaviour  extremes thus  p r e f e r r i n g not to i n t e r a c t w i t h them but r a t h e r with m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d r e n found continuum?  i n the middle  of the  the  behaviour  T h i s q u e s t i o n would r e q u i r e extended r e s e a r c h of  the present problem p o s s i b l y u s i n g the same data base. Because a f i r m understanding  of dyadic  between the day care s u p e r v i s o r and each c h i l d  interactions  is vital,  i t is  99  necessary to develop an instrument which can be used f o r the purposes  of e v a l u a t i n g such i n t e r a c t i o n .  T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  Interaction  The Brophy-Good  (19 69) measure was  employed i n t h i s study as a r e s e a r c h instrument.  successfully  However  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might develop an instrument capable of e f f e c t i v e l y p r o v i d i n g an o b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of a day s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n , ~.or modifying Brophy-Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  care  the  I n t e r a c t i o n System so t h a t  i n t e r a c t i o n can be coded by observers as they occur i n the n a t u r a l day c a r e s e t t i n g without the use of a video tape r e c o r d e r . Another aspect o f t h i s study, which might w e l l be the s u b j e c t of a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , i s the v a l u e of v i d e o r e c o r d i n g and playback as a method f o r changing  tape  the day  care  s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n with young c h i l d r e n .  The  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the s u p e r v i s o r to view h e r s e l f or h i m s e l f i n i n t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d r e n can be a most powerful a i d t o improvement. questions;  A r e s e a r c h study needs to address the f o l l o w i n g What would happen.if  the day care s u p e r v i s o r s were  informed of t h e i r behaviour by viewing the video tape suggestions f o r change were made?  and  Can day care s u p e r v i s o r s  change u n d e s i r a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s with i n d i v i d u a l a f t e r they have become f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d ?  How  children  would t h i s  a f f e c t the c h i l d r e n i f the day care s u p e r v i s o r s i n t e r a c t i o n d i d change?  Systematic  taped data on how p r o v i d i n g feedback  study i s r e q u i r e d by c o l l e c t i n g v i d e o  day c a r e s u p e r v i s o r s i n t e r a c t with c h i l d r e n , by o b s e r v i n g the v i d e o tape and  then  100  suggesting  change. I t i s hoped t h a t the strengths  of v i d e o tape observa-  t i o n s i n n a t u r a l day c a r e . s e t t i n g s and the instrument of the Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d w i l l be u t i l i z e d s tudy.  reliability  Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n  (1969)  i n f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h i s  101 Bibliography Anderson, H. The measurement o f domination and of s o c i a l l y i n t e g r a t i v e behaviour i n t e a c h e r s ' c o n t a c t s w i t h c h i l d r e n . In Amidon and Hough I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s , theory, r e s e a r c h and a p p l i c a t i o n . Addison-Wesley, 19 69. Baker, E. P a r e n t s , Teachers and Students as d a t a s o u r c e s . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l 1972 9 403-11. B a l e s , R. N.Y.  I n t e r a c t i o n Process A n a l y s e s . 1950.  Addison  Wesley,  Bandura, A. S o c i a l L e a r n i n g and P e r s o n a l i t y Development. R i n e h a r t and Winston, N.Y. 19 63. Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s of behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n . R i n e h a r t , N.Y. 19 69.  Holt,  Holt,  B e e l , R.G. Stimulus C o n t r o l o f parent or c a r e t a k e r behaviour from o f f s p r i n g . C h i l d Development 1972 p. 423-431. B i b e r , B. Promoting C o g n i t i v e Growth: a developmental p o i n t o f view. E d u c a t i o n i n Day Care Centre N.A.E.Y.C. Washington, 19 72. Bishop, M. Mother and c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n and the s o c i a l behaviour of c h i l d r e n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 65, 1951, p.1-35. Bloom, B. S t a b i l i t y and Change i n Human C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Wiley 19 64. Bronfenbrener, U. Who Cares f o r American's C h i l d r e n . C h i l d r e n , V o l . 26, No. 3, Jan. 1971,.157-63. Brophy, J . and E v e r t s o n , C. L e a r n i n g From Teaching: mental P e r s p e c t i v e , A l l y n & Bacon, 1976. Brophy, J . and Good, T. 1969 .  N.Y.  Young A Develop-  T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n Manual  Brophy, J . , and Good, T. T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 1970, p. 131-137. Brophy, J . , and Good, T. Teacher C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n : A Manual f o r Coding Classroom Behaviour Report, s e r i e s No. 27, The Research and Development Centre f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, A u s t i n , 1969. Brophy, J . and Good T. Teacher-Student R e l a t i o n s h i p : Consequences, H o l t R i n e h a r t , 1974.  Causes  and  102  Brophy, J . and W i l l i s , S. O r i g i n s o f teacher a t t i t u d e s towards young c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1974, p. 52-529. Bruner,  J . Poverty and Childhood.  M e r i l l Palmer Monographs, 1970.  Canada Day Care Information Department o f H e a l t h and Welfare, Ottawa 1976. Cazden, C. E d u c a t i o n i n Day Care C e n t r e s . Day Care and C h i l d Development C o u n c i l . Washington, 1972. C a l d w e l l , B. D e s c r i p t i v e E v a l u a t i o n s o f C h i l d Development and of Developmental S e t t i n g s . P e d i a t r i c s , V o l . 40, No. 1, 1967. Champney, E . V a r i a b l e s of Parent Behaviour. Psychology, 1941, p. 525-41. Dunkin and B i d d l e , M. and B i d d l e , B. H o l t , R i n e h a r t , 1974. D r e i k u r s , R. 1964.  C h i l d r e n The C h a l l e n g e .  J o u r n a l o f Abnormal  The study o f t e a c h i n g . Howthorn Book Inc.  E v e r s t o n , Brophy J . and Good, T. Communication o f teacher a t i o n s . Research and Development Centre f o r Teacher Education. F l a n d e r s , N. A n a l y z i n g Teacher Behaviour. Massachusetts, Addision-Wesley, 1970.  N.Y. expect-  Reading,  Gabbert, H. The i n f l u e n c e o f p u p i l socio-economic s t a t u s on teacher behaviour. U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas, A u s t i n , D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1973. Garner, J . and Bing, M. The E l u s i v e n e s s o f Pygmalion and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t e a c h e r - p u p i l c o n t a c t s . Interchange, 19 73b, p. 34-52. Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department o f Human Resources Annual Report, 1974, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Good, T. and Brophy, J . B e h a v i o u r a l e x p r e s s i o n o f teacher attitudes. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1972, p.63. Good, T. and Brophy, J . and B i d d l e , B. H o l t , R i n e h a r t , 1975.  Teachers make a d i f f e r e n c e .  Good, T., Sykes, J . and Brophy, J . E f f e c t s o f teacher sex, student sex and student achievement on classroom i n t e r a c t i o n . T e a c h e r - C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n , 1973.  103  Good, T. and Brophy, J . 1973.  Looking i n Classrooms.  Gordon, I . Human Development: Harper and Row, 1975.  A Transactional  Harper  Row,  Perspective.  Hargreaves, F. I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s and E d u c a t i o n 1972. Routledge and Kegan Paul L t d . , London. J e t e r , J . and Davis, 0. i n Teacher-Student R e l a t i o n s h i p s (Brophy, J . and Good, T.) 1974. H o l t R i n e h a r t and Winston, N.Y. Jones, S. The i n f l u e n c e o f t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n , a c h i e v e ment and s i m i l a r i t y o f t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t Dyadic classroom i n t e r a c t i o n , 1974. Dissertation Abstracts, University of Texas, A u s t i n . Katz, L. C h i l d r e n and Teachers i n two types o f h e a d s t a r t c l a s s e s . Young C h i l d r e n , 1969. K i r k , R. Statistics. Brooks/Cole P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1968, Wadsworth P u b l i s h e r s .  California  Kounin, J.S. "An A n a l y s i s of Teachers'^Managerial Techniques." Psychology i n the S c h o o l s . V o l . IV, No. 3, J u l y 1967, pp. 221-227. L u r i a , A. The Role of Speech i n the R e g u l a t i o n o f Normal and Abnormal Behaviour, L i v e r i g h t P u b l i s h i n g , N.Y. 1961. M c N e i l , J . Toward Accountable Teachers. and Winston, 1971.  N.Y.  Holt, Rinehart  M a t t i c k , I . , P e r k i n s , F. G u i d e l i n e s f o r observation,and a s s e s s ment. Day Care and C h i l d Development C o u n c i l o f America, 1972. Medley, D., M i t z e l , H. Measuring Classroom Behaviour by Systematic O b s e r v a t i o n i n Gage N. (ed.) Handbook o f Research on Teaching. Chicago, Rand McNally 1963. M o f f i t , A., Ryan, T. E v a l u a t i o n o f p r e - s c h o o l programs. Canadian P s y c h o l o g i s t 1974. -15, p. 205-19.  The  Moustakas, C. e t . al.. • An o b j e c t i v e method f o r the measurement and a n a l y s i s of c h i l d - a d u l t i n t e r a c t i o n . Child Development, V o l . 27, No. 2, 1956. P i a g e t , J . P l a y , Dreams and I m i t a t i o n i n C h i l d h o o d . W.W. Norton and Co., 1962.  N.Y.  104  P r e s c o t t , E. Day Care as a C h i l d Rearing Environment. National Assoc. f o r the E d u c a t i o n of Young C h i l d r e n , Washington, D.C. 1976. Richenberg-Hackett, W. P r a c t i c e s , a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s i n n u r s e r y group e d u c a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1962. Robinson, G. and McDermick, P. Report on the Survey of the day c a r e c h i l d w i t h s p e c i a l needs. -Children's H o s p i t a l , D i a g n o s t i c Centre, Vancouver, B.C. 19 73. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobs, L. R i n e h a r t , 19 68.  Pygmalion  i n the Classroom,  Holt,  Ryan and A p p l e f o r d . "An examination of S o c i a l Processes i n a P r e s c h o o l , unpublished manuscript. C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Ottawa, O n t a r i o . Schaefer, E. A circumplex model f o r maternal behaviour. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 1959, p. 226-235. Sears, P., McCoby, E., and L e v i n , H. Harper Row, N.Y. 1957.  P a t t e r n s of C h i l d R e a r i n g .  Silverman, M. Behaviour e x p r e s s i o n of t e a c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e s towards elementary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1969, 60. S k e e l s , H. A d u l t s t a t u s of c h i l d r e n with c o n s t r a s t i n g e a r l y l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s . Monographs of the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 1966, 33. Simon, A. and Boyer, E. M i r r o r s f o r Behaviour; an anthology of o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t s . Volumes A and B. Philadelphia: Research f o r B e t t e r Schools, Inc., 1970. Soar, R. Follow through model implementation i n Travers (ed.) Second Handbook o f Research on Teaching. Rand McNally, 1973. Spodek, B.  E a r l y Childhood E d u c a t i o n , P r e n t i c e H a l l , N.Y.,  1973.  Stubbs, M. and Delamont, S. E x p l o r a t i o n . i n Classroom O b s e r v a t i o n John Wiley and Sons, 1976. Thorndike, R.L. Review of Pygmalion i n the Classroom. Research J o u r n a l 5 (1968) p. 708-11. T r a v e r s , R. Second Handbook o f Research on Teaching. McNally, 1973.  American Rand  105  Vygotsky, L. 19 62.  Thought and Language  MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. ,  Vygotsky, L.  Texas Teacher E f f e c t i v e n e s s P r o j e c t .  1975.  White, B. An a n a l y s i s o f e x c e l l e n t E a r l y E d u c a t i o n a l Interchange, V o l . 2, No. 2, 1971. White, B.  Practices  Experience and Environment, P r e n t i c e H a l l , N.Y.  1978.  W i t h a l l , J . An o b j e c t i v e measurement of teacher's classroom interactions. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology 1956 47 pp. 203-212. W i l l i s , S. Formation o f teacher e x p e c t a t i o n s of student's academic performance. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . University of Texas;of A u s t i n , 1972. W i t h a l l , J . . ^The development o f t e c h n i q u e s - f o r the measurement o f s o c i a l emotional c l i m a t e i n classrooms. In Amidon and Hough. I n t e r a c t i o n analyses,, theory, r e s e a r c h and a p p l i c a t i o n . Addison-Wesley, 1967. Yarrow, M. and Waxier, S c o t t . C h i l d e f f e c t s on a d u l t behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 1971. pp.. 300-311.  Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n c i n g Board Standards PROCEDURES AND  STANDARDS TO FOLLOW  IN LICENSING SERVICES FOR  CHILDREN  INTERPRETATION The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s are used i n l i c e n s i n g for children.  services  Interim Permit: An i n t e r i m permit a l l o w s a f a c i l i t y to b e g i n o p e r a t i o n once s a t i s f a c t o r y r e p o r t s have been r e c e i v e d . I t may be i s s u e d f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding one y e a r . I t i s i s s u e d b e f o r e a l i c e n c e i s granted and a l l o w s time f o r assessment of the program. Licence; A l i c e n c e i s i s s u e d to an a p p l i c a n t by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board once the Board i s assured t h a t the program i s o p e r a t i n g s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . I t i s not t r a n s f e r a b l e from one l o c a t i o n to another, or from one person to a n o t h e r . A l i c e n c e remains v a l i d u n t i l suspended or s u r r e n d e r ed . Supervisor: " S u p e r v i s o r " means a person who has completed the minimum b a s i c t r a i n i n g f o r a p r e s c h o o l s u p e r v i s o r r e q u i r e d by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board and whose name appears on the Board's r e g i s t r y as h a v i n g approved s t a n d i n g . Assistant: " A s s i s t a n t " means a person who may not have completed the minimum t r a i n i n g requirements f o r a s u p e r v i s o r but has commenced t r a i n i n g or been granted p a r t i a l c r e d i t f o r previous t r a i n i n g . Such a person may r e c e i v e s p e c i a l p e r m i s s i o n from the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board to s u b s t i t u t e f o r the person i n charge i n the event o f the person i n charge b e i n g absent from the l i c e n c e d c e n t e r . Head S u p e r v i s o r : When e n r o l l m e n t i n a c e n t e r reaches s i x t y c h i l d r e n an a d d i t i o n a l s u p e r v i s o r must be employed who, i n a d d i t i o n to minimum t r a i n i n g requirements, has had s e v e r a l y e a r s o f p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e and has demonstrated s u p e r v i s o r y and administrative a b i l i t i e s . The head s u p e r v i s o r s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the c e n t e r .  107  (2) Responsible  Adult:  "Responsible a d u l t " means a person n i n e t e e n y e a r s o f age or over and approved by the l o c a l Department o f Human Resources s t a f f and the l o c a l P u b l i c H e a l t h s t a f f . II.  DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES  A. ALL DAY SERVICES F a m i l y Day Care F a m i l y Day Care s i m u l a t e s as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e the home environment i n p r o v i d i n g c a r e f o r c h i l d r e n . When a r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t c a r e s f o r more than two c h i l d r e n not r e l a t e d t o the person by b l o o d o r marriage, a l i c e n c e i s r e q u i r e d . The maximum number o f c h i l d r e n p e r m i t t e d i n a f a m i l y day c a r e home i s f i v e . T h i s number i n c l u d e s t h i s person's own p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Group Day Care Group Day Care p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l , e m o t i o n a l , p h y s i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth f o r c h i l d r e n i n a group s e t t i n g . A l l group c e n t e r s r e q u i r e a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the s u p e r v i s o r . A maximum o f t w e n t y - f i v e c h i l d r e n between t h r e e y e a r s and s c h o o l entrance age may be c a r e d f o r i n one group. Group c a r e programs f o r c h i l d r e n under t h r e e y e a r s o f age a r e p e r m i t t e d by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s ; B. HALF DAY SERVICES Nursery  School  Nursery School p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l , e m o t i o n a l , and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth f o r t h e c h i l d t h r e e years o f age t o s c h o o l age. A l l n u r s e r y s c h o o l s r e q u i r e a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the s u p e r v i s o r . Kindergarten K i n d e r g a r t e n p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l , e m o t i o n a l , p h y s i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth f o r c h i l d r e n e l i g i b l e t o e n t e r Grade 1 the f o l l o w i n g y e a r . A l l k i n d e r g a r t e n s r e q u i r e a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the s u p e r v i s o r . C. PART TIME SERVICES Child  Minding  C h i l d Minding p r o v i d e s s u p e r v i s e d group care f o r c h i l d r e n f o r no more than t h r e e hours, two days a week. The Board  (3) r e q u i r e s a s o c i a l recommendation f o r t h e person determine p e r s o n a l s u i t a b i l i t y . Out-of-School  i n charge t o  Care  O u t - o f - S c h o o l Care p r o v i d e s s u p e r v i s i o n and s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s f o r c h i l d r e n o f s c h o o l age. The Board r e q u i r e s a s o c i a l recommendation on t h e person i n charge t o determine p e r s o n a l s u i t a b i l i t y . D.  SPECIALIZED DAY CARE S p e c i a l i z e d Day Care p r o v i d e s a group e x p e r i e n c e f o r c h i l d r e n who e x h i b i t a p h y s i c a l handicap i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h development, an i d e n t i f i a b l e developmental l a g , o r b e h a v i o u r i n d i c a t i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n emotional and/or s o c i a l adjustment. The program s h o u l d p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p h y s i c a l , e m o t i o n a l , s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth as w e l l as s p e c i a l i z e d c a r e f o r s p e c i f i c needs.  III.  PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING The f o l l o w i n g procedures s h o u l d be c a r r i e d out i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a l i c e n c e f o r p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s to c h i l d r e n .  1.  A p p l i c a n t s may o b t a i n t h e packet o f l i c e n s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e p r o v i n c e ' s Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board from the l o c a l P u b l i c H e a l t h O f f i c e o r a Department o f Human Resources Day Care I n f o r m a t i o n Center o r a Department o f Human Resources Office.  2.  P l a n s s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d w i t h t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h s t a f f and Human Resources s t a f f who w i l l p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the requirements f o r t h e type o f c a r e t o be o f f e r e d .  3.  A p p l i c a n t s a r e s t r o n g l y a d v i s e d t o make s u r e t h a t t h e chosen l o c a t i o n meets l o c a l zoning by-laws b e f o r e committing themselves to f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s .  4.  The a p p l i c a n t submits t h e f o l l o w i n g to t h e l o c a l H e a l t h U n i t : (a) (b) (c)  5.  Completed a p p l i c a t i o n form C o n f i r m a t i o n o f m u n i c i p a l o r r e g i o n a l zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . Three c o p i e s o f t h e f l o o r p l a n . The f l o o r p l a n must i n c l u d e t h e s i z e o f areas o f use f o r p l a y , s l e e p , e t c . The type and number o f t o i l e t f i x t u r e s a r e t o be i n c l u d e d .  A q u a l i f i e d p r e - s c h o o l s u p e r v i s o r must be i n charge o f t h e Nursery S c h o o l , K i n d e r g a r t e n o r Group Day Care program. I f t h i s person has been engaged a t t h e time o f a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e name s h o u l d appear on the a p p l i c a t i o n form. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r must be c l e a r e d w i t h t h e Community Care, F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board,  (4) 1075  Quadra S t r e e t , P a r l i a m e n t B u i l d i n g s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. .  . When t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d , t h e l o c a l P u b l i c H e a l t h S t a f f or the l i c e n s i n g s t a f f i n V i c t o r i a w i l l request inspections to determine i f t h e b u i l d i n g which t h e a p p l i c a n t proposes t o use meets a p p l i c a b l e h e a l t h , f i r e , e l e c t r i c a l , plumbing and b u i l d i n g regulations. On r e c e i p t o f s a t i s f a c t o r y i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s an i n t e r i m permit may be i s s u e d . D u r i n g the p e r i o d t h a t t h i s permit i s v a l i d , a s o c i a l r e p o r t w i l l be r e q u e s t e d by t h e Board from the Department o f Human Resources o r an a l t e r n a t e d e s i g n a t e d agency. The Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board w i l l i s s u e a l i c e n c e when the r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e a l l t h e requirements have been met. STANDARDS FOR LICENSING The b u i l d i n g used by t h e f a c i l i t y must meet a l l a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l h e a l t h , f i r e , e l e c t r i c a l , plumbing, b u i l d i n g , and z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . Procedures to f o l l o w i n an emergency o r when one a d u l t i s a l o n e w i t h a group o f c h i l d r e n must be e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r t o t h e opening of t h e f a c i l i t y . The f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d s o f c a r e a r e expected t o be met i n f a c i l i t i e s p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s to c h i l d r e n . ALL  DAY SERVICES  F a m i l y Day Care Hours:  Maximum o f t e n hours p e r day. night .  No c h i l d may be kept o v e r -  Ages and Number o f C h i l d r e n : Only f i v e c h i l d r e n may be c a r e d f o r a t one time. T h i s i n c l u d e s t h e r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t ' s own p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . No more than two c h i l d r e n under t h e age o f two may be c a r e d f o r a t one time. Staff Qualifications:  Responsible  adult.  S t a f f to C h i l d Ratio:  One a d u l t t o f i v e c h i l d r e n .  P h y s i c a l Standards: S l e e p i n g f a c i l i t i e s must be a v a i l a b l e f o r each child. There s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t space a v a i l a b l e f o r i n d i v i d u a l and group p l a y . Equipment: The p e r s o n i n charge must p r o v i d e p l a y equipment a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e ages o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n c a r e . The equipment must s t i m u l a t e h e a l t h y s o c i a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l , p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l growth. The equipment must be i n good r e p a i r and i n s u f f i c i e n t s u p p l y t o a l l o w f o r i n d i v i d u a l and group p l a y .  (5) Group Day  Care  Hours:  Maximum of t e n hours per day. overnight.  No  c h i l d may  be  kept  Ages:  Between t h r e e years and s c h o o l entrance age. Group c a r e programs f o r c h i l d r e n under t h r e e y e a r s of age a r e p e r m i t t e d by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s .  Number o f C h i l d r e n : Maximum o f t w e n t y - f i v e c h i l d r e n per group. No more than s e v e n t y - f i v e c h i l d r e n may be accommodated i n one c e n t e r . A v a i l a b l e space determines the maximum number i n a s p e c i f i c group o r c e n t e r . Staff Qualifications:  S u p e r v i s o r and a s s i s t a n t s .  S t a f f to C h i l d R a t i o : A s u p e r v i s o r o r an a s s i s t a n t must be on the premises a t a l l times when c h i l d r e n a r e p r e s e n t . When the number o f c h i l d r e n exceeds e i g h t but does not exceed twenty, t h e r e s h o u l d be an a s s i s t a n t i n a d d i t i o n to the s u p e r v i s o r . When the number of c h i l d r e n exceeds twenty but does not exceed t w e n t y - f i v e t h e r e s h o u l d be two a s s i s t a n t s i n a d d i t i o n to the s u p e r v i s o r . When the enrollment i n a c e n t e r reaches s i x t y a head s u p e r v i s o r i s r e q u i r e d . Absence of Person-In-Charge: In the absence o f the s u p e r v i s o r i n charge d u r i n g o p e r a t i n g hours arrangements s h a l l be made f o r an a s s i s t a n t to be l e f t i n charge. For absences of over one week, q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the temporary s u p e r v i s o r - i n - c h a r g e must be c l e a r e d w i t h the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board. P h y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y square f e e t of f l o o r space per c h i l d e x c l u s i v e of h a l l w a y s , b u i l t - i n s t o r a g e and f i x t u r e s , and bathrooms. There must be i n d i v i d u a l s l e e p i n g arrangements a v a i l a b l e f o r each c h i l d , i . e . c o t o r t h r e e i n c h foam matt r e s s w i t h a washable cover and washable warm bed c o v e r s . One t o i l e t an one hand-basin f o r every t e n c h i l d r e n . A fenced outdoor p l a y a r e a s h o u l d be e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e . Equipment: For suggested g u i d e l i n e s p l e a s e r e f e r to Brochure #5, Equipment f o r C h i l d r e n , Day Care f o r C h i l d r e n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. HALF DAY Nursery Hours:  SERVICES School Maximum of t h r e e hours per  Ages o f C h i l d r e n :  day.  Between t h r e e y e a r s and s c h o o l entrance  age.  (6) Number of Children: Maximum of twenty-five children i n one group. No more than seventy-five children may be accommodated i n one center. Available space determines the maximum number permitted i n a s p e c i f i c group or center. Staff Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s :  Supervisor and assistant  Staff to Child Ratio: One supervisor f o r f i f t e e n children. When the number of children exceeds f i f t e e n an assistant must be present. When the enrollment i n a center reaches sixty a head supervisor i s required. Physical Standards: Thirty square feet of f l o o r space per c h i l d exclusive of hallways, b u i l t - i n storage and f i x t u r e s , and bathrooms. One t o i l e t and one handbasin f o r every f i f t e e n children. Outdoor play space should be r e a d i l y accessible. Equipment: For suggested guidelines please refer to Brochure #5, Equipment f o r Children, Day Care f o r Children i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Kindergarten Hours: Maximum of three hours per day. Ages of Children:  Between f i v e years and school entrance age.  Number of Children: Maximum of t h i r t y children i n one group. No more than seventy-five children may be accommodated i n one center. Available space determines the maximum number permitted i n one s p e c i f i c group or center. Staff Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s :  Supervisor and assistant..  Staff to Child Ratio: One supervisor f o r twenty children. When the number of children exceeds twenty an assistant must be present. When the enrollment i n a center reaches s i x t y , a head supervisor i s required. Physical Standards: Thirty square feet of f l o o r space per c h i l d exclusive of hallways, b u i l t - i n storage and fixtures and bathrooms. One t o i l e t and one handbasin f o r every f i f t e e n children. Outdoor play space should be r e a d i l y accessible. Equipment: For suggested guidelines please refer to Brochure #5, Equipment f o r Children, Day Care f o r Children i n B r i t i s h Columbia. PART-TIME SERVICES Child Minding Hours: A c h i l d may be kept no longer than three hours per day and no more than two days per week. Ages of Children:  A c h i l d must be two years of age.  112. (7) Number o f C h i l d r e n : Maximum o f twenty c h i l d r e n i n one group. No more than s e v e n t y - f i v e c h i l d r e n may be accommodated i n one c e n t e r . A v a i l a b l e space determines the maximum number p e r m i t t e d i n a s p e c i f i c group o r c e n t e r . Staff Qualifications:  Responsible  adult.  S t a f f t o C h i l d R a t i o : One r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t f o r every t e n c h i l d r e n . Where c h i l d r e n under t h r e e y e a r s o f age a r e c a r e d f o r , one a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n f o r every t e n c h i l d r e n . P h y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y square f e e t o f f l o o r space p e r c h i l d e x c l u s i v e o f h a l l w a y s , b u i l t - i n s t o r a g e and f i x t u r e s , and bathrooms. One t o i l e t and one handbasin f o r every f i f t e e n children. Equipment: F o r suggested g u i d e l i n e s p l e a s e r e f e r t o Brochure #5, Equipment f o r C h i l d r e n , Day Care f o r C h i l d r e n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. O u t - o f - S c h o o l Care Hours: Maximum o f f o u r hours a day d u r i n g s c h o o l term and a maximum o f t e n hours a day d u r i n g s c h o o l c l o s u r e t o meet f a m i l y need. No c h i l d may be kept o v e r n i g h t . Ages o f C h i l d r e n :  S c h o o l age.  Number o f C h i l d r e n : Maximum o f f o r t y c h i l d r e n p e r group. When the groups c o n t a i n c h i l d r e n i n grades I and I I , t h e group s i z e s h o u l d n o t exceed twenty c h i l d r e n . Staff Qualifications:  Responsible  adult.  S t a f f to C h i l d Ratio: Each group s h a l l have a r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t as the p e r s o n i n charge. When t h e group exceeds twenty c h i l d r e n a second r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n should be a v a i l a b l e f o r supervision. I n a c e n t e r w i t h two groups, one o f t h e r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t s s h a l l a l s o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c e n t e r . In a c e n t e r w i t h t h r e e o r more groups t h e r e s h a l l be a r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t i n charge o f t h e c e n t e r i n a d d i t i o n t o a r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t i n charge o f each group. P h y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y square f e e t o f f l o o r space p e r c h i l d e x c l u s i v e o f h a l l w a y s , b u i l t - i n s t o r a g e and f i x t u r e s , and bathrooms. Outdoor p l a y a r e a s h o u l d be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e . Equipment: P l a y equipment a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e ages o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n c a r e s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d . The equipment s h o u l d be i n good r e p a i r and s u f f i c i e n t s u p p l y f o r t h e number o f c h i l d r e n i n attendance;  113  (8) D.  SPECIALIZED DAY CARE A wide v a r i e t y o f programs may be o f f e r e d as s p e c i a l i z e d group day care. The s t a n d a r d s f o r these programs a r e determined on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s by t h e Board i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h those o f f e r i n g the program and acknowledged a u t h o r i t i e s i n the area o f c a r e g i v e n through t h e program. S t a f f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , s t a f f r a t i o , p h y s i c a l standards and equipment r e q u i r e d a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e needs o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n care. Hours o f o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e r v i c e and numbers and ages o f the c h i l d r e n c a r e d f o r depend on the type o f program offered.  V.  INSPECTION R e g u l a r i n s p e c t i o n s w i l l be made by a c c r e d i t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board t o ensure t h a t r e g u l a t i o n s made under t h e Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g A c t and o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e A c t s a r e f o l l o w e d .  Approved by t h e Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board December 19, 1974  Community Care F a c i l i t i e s L i c e n s i n g Board H e a l t h Department Parliament B u i l d i n g s V i c t o r i a , B. C.  Letter of Inquiry  January 25,1977,  Dea,j? It was -my pleasure to meet many of the day care supervisors at a meeting on January 20 i n the Day Care Information Services North Shore Office. If you r e a c a l l 1 outlined a study project that I am proposing to do within the North Shore day care centres.  Should you be interested i n  taking part i n the project, I would be happy to meet with you at your centre to provide you with more d e t a i l s and information. Should your centre be w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n this project I would be most appreciative to know of your decision by February 12. c a l l me at  at any time.  Sincerely,  Hannah Polowy  Please  Appendix C  Non Computable V a r i a b l e s  Variable 7  X  sd 9  X  sd 11  X  sd 19  X  sd 20  X  sd 21  X  sd 22  X  sd 23  X  sd 24  X  sd 25  X  sd 30  X  sd 31  X  sd  bdm  bdf  bam  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  Note: bdm = b e h a v i o u r a l l y bdf behaviourally bam = b e h a v i o u r a l l y baf = b e h a v i o u r a l l y  d i f f e r e n t male d i f f e r e n t female adapted male adapted female  .  baf  116  APPENDIX D DEFINITION OF TERMS Behaviourally  different  B e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted Behaviour  contacts  The d e s c r i p t i o n i s d e f i n e d by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (p.45) which was developed to i d e n t i f y b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t and b e h a v i o u r a l l y adapted children. A category i n the Brophy and Good T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n (1969 p.5) d e s c r i b i n g i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the teacher p r o v i d e s the c h i l d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s behaviour.  Criticism  Negative teacher e v a l u a t i v e r e a c t i o n s t h a t go beyond the l e v e l of simple n e g a t i o n by e x p r e s s i n g anger or p e r s o n a l c r i t i c i s m of a c h i l d , i n a d d i t i o n to i n d i c a t i n g the i n c o r r e c t n e s s of h i s response (Brophy and Good 19 69 p.25).  Interaction  Observable p a t t e r n s of a c t i o n between teacher and c h i l d (Flanders 1970).  Negative  Simple negation 1969 p.25) .  Non  feedback  support  (Brophy and Good  C o n s i s t s of c r i t i c i s m and negative feedback i n t e r a c t i o n s o f the day care s u p e r v i s o r i n the work and procedure category as c r e a t e d by c h i l d or t e a c h e r . ;  Perception P o s i t i v e feedback  D e f i n e d by Hargreaves (1972)p.3 of dissertation. Simple a f f i r m a t i o n (Brophy and Good 1969, p.25).  Nurture  A day care s u p e r v i s o r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n a l response g i v i n g the c h i l d c o n f i d e n c e , encouragement, comfort and help ( P r e s c o t t , 1972, p.12).  Praise  The t e a c h e r ' s e v a l u a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s which go beyond the l e v e l of simple a f f i r m a t i o n or p o s i t i v e feedback by v e r b a l l y complimenting the c h i l d and/or by accompanying v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f p o s i t i v e feedback,-,  117  with expressions or gestures connoting excitment o r warmth B(Brophy and Good, 1969 p.23). Procedure  contacts  I n t e r a c t i o n i n which the t e a c h e r c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s concerned w i t h the c h i l d ' s i n d i v i d u a l needs and i n t e r e s t s (Brophy and Good" 1969, p.5).  Response o p p o r t u n i t y  I n t e r a c t i o n i n which the c h i l d p u b l i c l y attempts t o respond t o a, q u e s t i o n posed by the teacher w i t h i n any group s i t u a t i o n ( s t o r y time, d i s c u s s i o n time, small group a c t i v i t y ) (Brophy and Good 19 69, p . 5 ) .  Restriction  C o n f l i c t e x i s t s when c h i l d does, not a c c e p t - t e a c h e r s goals and teacher moves t o o b s t r u c t c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s . Teacher behaviour makes i t c l e a r t o a c h i l d without damaging h i s s e l f esteem t h a t there a r e l i m i t s which must be r e s p e c t e d ( P r e s c o t t 1972, p . 4 ) . 1  Support  Consists of nurture, p o s i t i v e back and p r a i s e .  Work c o n t a c t s  I n t e r a c t i o n i n which the t e a c h e r c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s concerned with those areas which are d e l i b e r a t e l y planned by the teacher (equipment, materials, a c t i v i t i e s ) .  feed-  APPENDIX E TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC INTERACTION: A MANUAL FOR  CODING CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR  Jere E. Brophy Thomas L. Good INTRODUCTION  T h i s manual p r e s e n t s the r a t i o n a l e and  coding  system used by the authors t o study dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between t e a c h e r s and c h i l d r e n i n classrooms.  Emphasis i s s t r e s s e d  on the word d y a d i c , s i n c e the manual a p p l i e s o n l y t o those classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s i n which the t e a c h e r i s d e a l i n g w i t h a single, individual child.  There are two major d i f f e r e n c e s  between the p r e s e n t system and other systems i n common use: (a) i t i s not a u n i v e r s a l system t h a t attempts classroom behavior —  t o code a l l  e x p o s i t o r y l e c t u r i n g and o t h e r s i t u a -  t i o n s i n which the teacher i s a d d r e s s i n g h i m s e l f t o the e n t i r e c l a s s as a group are omitted e n t i r e l y ;  (b) the t e a c h e r '  i n t e r a c t i o n s i n h i s c l a s s are recorded and analyzed s e p a r a t e l y f o r each i n d i v i d u a l student, so t h a t the student r a t h e r than the c l a s s i s t r e a t e d as  the u n i t of a n a l y s i s .  Except f o r  the o b s e r v a t i o n aspect o f behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n s t u d i e s , classroom r e s e a r c h on t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n has  tended  119  t o t r e a t the c l a s s as a u n i t , i g n o r i n g differences  i n teacher^child  contact patterns.  authors have argued a t l e n g t h 1969)  intra-class individual  elsewhere  The p r e s e n t  (Good and Brophy,  that t h i s methodology i s not always a p p r o p r i a t e f o r  the k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s which have been i n v e s t i g a t e d In a d d i t i o n , that  i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y inapplicable to studies  focus on i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ,  studies  with i t .  including  o f communication o f d i f f e r e n t i a l performance expect-  a t i o n s by t e a c h e r s .  The coding system t o be p r e s e n t e d was  developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the l a t t e r r e s e a r c h purpose, although i t i s a p p l i c a b l e  t o a much wider range o f s t u d i e s  of t e a c h e r s ' and p u p i l s ' classroom b e h a v i o r . In s t r e s s i n g the need t o s h i f t from the c l a s s t o the  i n d i v i d u a l student as the b a s i c u n i t o f a n a l y s i s i n  classroom o b s e r v a t i o n s t u d i e s , two  Good and Brophy  (1969) q u e s t i o n  t a c i t assumptions made a t l e a s t i m p l i c i t l y by i n v e s t i -  g a t o r s who study t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s  w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n and  coding systems u s i n g the c l a s s as a u n i t . assumptions are:  These two  (a) i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n  the way the teacher i n t e r a c t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n a r e o f l i t t l e o r not importance r e l a t i v e t o i n t e r - c l a s s among t e a c h e r s : are p r o p e r l y  differences  (b) the teacher behavior v a r i a b l e s  involved  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as i n t e r a c t i o n s between the  teacher and the c l a s s as opposed t o i n t e r a c t i o n s between t e a c h e r and i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n .  The f i r s t assumption i s  120  c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n by a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e o f classroom  o b s e r v a t i o n s t u d i e s which shows t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s  between sex, SES, r a c i a l , and other groups are r e g u l a r l y found when i n v e s t i g a t o r s look f o r them and t h a t l a r g e i n t r a - c l a s s v a r i a b i l i t y on the measures taken exception.  i s the r u l e r a t h e r than the  Given the l a r g e i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n a  c l a s s , t h e second assumption may a l s o be questioned, it  since  f o l l o w s t h a t the t e a c h e r ' s average score on t r a d i t i o n a l l y  s t u d i e d v a r i a b l e s such as warmth o r i n d i r e c t n e s s may not a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t the way he a c t u a l l y t r e a t s the m a j o r i t y o f the students  i n h i s classroom.  F o r example, the teacher who  i s n e u t r a l toward the m a j o r i t y o f h i s students but warm and rewarding  towards a subgroup might appear moderate t o h i g h  on a measure o f teacher warmth d e r i v e d from a t y p i c a l v a t i o n system u s i n g the c l a s s as the u n i t .  obser-  In such a bimodal  s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e i s no " t y p i c a l " or "average" teacher warmth; i n e f f e c t , the m a j o r i t y o f the c h i l d r e n are e x p e r i e n c i n g low teacher warmth.  Use o f an averaged frequency  score i n a c c u r a t e l y  p o r t r a y s both the t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l behavior and the degree o f t e a c h e r warmth experienced  by i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s .  In view o f the p r e c e d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , we  conclude  t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n o f dyadic t e a c h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s the method o f c h o i c e not only i n r e s e a r c h concerning  individual  d i f f e r e n c e s among the c h i l d r e n i n a c l a s s , but a l s o i n r e s e a r c h on teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s , which f r e q u e n t l y has been approached through systems u s i n g the c l a s s as the u n i t .  Teacher warmth,  121  teacher i n d i r e c t n e s s , and  o t h e r teacher v a r i a b l e s which have  u s u a l l y been s t u d i e d w i t h the  l a t t e r methods are  which have u s u a l l y been s t u d i e d w i t h the  variables  l a t t e r methods are  v a r i a b l e s of teacher behavior which are u s u a l l y d i r e c t e d  to  i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n r a t h e r than t o the c l a s s as a group. are,  i n e f f e c t , v a r i a b l e s of dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n and  conceptualized  as such.  The  should  i n s t u d i e s of t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s  such v a r i a b l e s may  be  than a r e s u l t o f  weakness i n the v a r i a b l e s themselves as p r e d i c a t o r s A change i n r e s e a r c h  a t i n g the  and  d e s i g n from the c l a s s t o  more powerful s t a t i s t i c a l l y f o r  involve  coding e v e r y t h i n g  dyadic contacts:  t h a t goes on  i n the classroom, i t to the c l a s s of  every i n t e r a c t i o n between the teacher  an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d i s coded.  In a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l  system i n v o l v e p r e s e r v a t i o n  of t e a c h e r - c h i l d . i n t e r a c t i o n , r e a c t i o n are not  feature  evalu-  system to be presented below does not  does attempt u n i v e r s a l i t y w i t h r e f e r e n c e  of the  appropri-  importance of these teacher b e h a v i o r s . Although the  and  of student  i n d i v i d u a l as the u n i t of a n a l y s i s would be more  ate c o n c e p t u a l l y  using  a r e s u l t of f a i l u r e to take i n t o account  i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n rather  the  be  r e l a t i v e l y weak e f f e c t s t h a t  have been r e p o r t e d  performance.  They  of the  i s e s p e c i a l l y important f o r s t u d y i n g  of e f f e c t s due  nature  initiation  l o s t i n the coding p r o c e s s .  t i o n of performance e x p e c t a t i o n s ,  aspects  sequential  so t h a t c y c l e s o f  and  the  since i t allows  This communicaseparation  p r i m a r i l y to the t e a c h e r from e f f e c t s  due  primarily  t o the c h i l d .  The s y s t e m a l s o a l l o w s f o r t h e  c o n v e r s i o n o f raw c o d e s f r o m centage in  scores which n e u t r a l i z e  the absolute  they  the i n d i v i d u a l  have w i t h  particular  the effects  children  into  per-  of differences  frequencies of various types o f i n t e r a c t i o n s their  children  teacher.  Teachers'  interactions  o r s u b g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n may  compared d i r e c t l y w i t h  interaction  with  t h e n be  i n equivalent  situations  with other  i n d i v i d u a l s o r g r o u p s . • I n t h i s way,  quality  of contact  (what t h e t e a c h e r d o e s when engaged i n c e r t a i n  kinds of interactions with the child)  and q u a l i t y  (the sheer  kinds of interactions)  frequency  of the d i f f e r e n t  may be s t u d i e d s e p a r a t e l y a n d e v a l u a t e d . the e n t i r e combining  t h e codes f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l behavior  p r e s e n t l y b e i n g used expectations  c a t e g o r i e s and c o d i n g  classroom  o f performance  i n the classroom  are presented  below.  The c o d i n g from  sheets used  Coding  of other behavior v a r i a b l e s ,  and/or p r a c t i c a l  from  Sheet)  Group C o d i n g  To  actually  being  i n t h e body o f  i n gathering data i n  t h i s manual a r e p r e s e n t e d  and R e c i t a t i o n  b u t were e x c l u d e d  behaviors  system a r e presented  (General C l a s s A c t i v i t i e s (Reading  procedures  communication  p r e s e n t a t i o n , only those  the manual.  members.  t o study  coded w i t h t h e p r e s e n t  the  data f o r  c l a s s t r e a t e d a s a g r o u p may a l s o be o b t a i n e d by  The  simplify  Finally,  of contact  a s A p p e n d i x One  and A p p e n d i x  Sheet).  Two  A discussion  which c o u l d have been s t u d i e d  the present research f o r t h e o r e t i c a l  reasons,  i s presented  i n Appendix  Three.  123  D i s c u s s i o n o f these v a r i a b l e s i s d e f e r r e d u n t i l the appendices  because they do not appear on the coding  shown i n Appendices One and Two. additional variables  sheets  I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f these  (or any others) would r e q u i r e r e d e s i g n i n g  of the coding sheets t o accommodate the new c a t e g o r i e s . Mention o f the m a t e r i a l i n Appendix Three i s made here a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the manual, however, because i t p o i n t s up an important  f a c t about the system t o be presented i n p a r t i c u l a r  and the n o t i o n o f coding d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom i n general:  The system t o be presented should not be con-  c e i v e d as a f i n i s h e d , c l o s e d system t o be used without m o d i f i cation.  D i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s may r e q u i r e the coding  of d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s and/or a d i f f e r e n t approach t o coding some o f the same v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n the f o l l o w i n g system.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054593/manifest

Comment

Related Items