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 i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH" CJOLDMBIA October, 1978 (c) Hannah S. Polowy, 19 78 In present ing th i s thes is in p a r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho lar l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representat ives . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of th is thes is for f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wri t ten permission. the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT DAY CARE SUPERVISORS 1 INTERACTIONS WITH THREE AND FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN PERCEIVED AS BEHAVIOURALLY DIFFERENT IN A NATURAL DAY CARE SETTING The major purpose of the study was to determine whether there are observable differences i n the interactions of day care supervisors with three and four year old children whom they perceive as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and with children who are not perceived i n t h i s manner. It was hypo-thesized that a day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n with three and four year o ld children perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t would be unlike that supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n with children who are not perceived i n t h i s manner. The interactions of s i x day care supervisors with 48 three and four year old children were recorded on video tape i n a natural day care setting. A questionnaire completed by the supervisors, was used to i d e n t i f y children they perceived to be behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted. As a r e s u l t , eight children from each center were selected; two g i r l s and two boys i d e n t i f i e d as behaviourally 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 behaviourally adapted. Video-taped observations were subsequently coded using the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System (1969). After minor modification of the codes, 61 codes were employed to describe the int e r a c t i o n of the day care supervisor with each c h i l d . Thirty-three variables were selected by combining codes; the variables were grouped into nine clusters for analysis. The nine clusters are: Total support, c h i l d created support, teacher created support, t o t a l non-support, c h i l d created non-support, teacher created non-support, c h i l d created praise, teacher created praise, and response opportunities. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis. The r e s u l t s revealed that some interactions had not been observed. Some clusters of interactions were not di f f e r e n t i a t e d between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviour-a l l y adapted children by the day care supervisor, and some clusters of interactions were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children by the day care supervisor. The sex of the c h i l d did not a f f e c t the day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d i n any way. The findings indicate that day care supervisors do respond d i f f e r e n t l y to young children whom they perceive to be behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and to those they perceive to be behaviourally adapted. Behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children receive less t o t a l support, and less nurture; they receive more t o t a l non-support and c r i t i c i s m than behaviourally adapted children. i v In general i t i s concluded that i f day care super-visors are given knowledge about the nature of t h e i r interactions with children they w i l l be able to enhance the q u a l i t y of care they provide each c h i l d and to provide optimal opportunities for acceptable behavioural responses by virt u e of t h e i r own supportive i n t e r a c t i o n with children. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i L i s t of Tables i v L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s v i Acknowledgement x i CHAPTER I PROBLEM 1 Introduction to the Problem 1 Statement of Problem 2 Significance of Problem 3 Summary 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7 Theoretical Considerations 7 Review of Interaction Analysis Systems 13 Parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n 13 Therapist-child i n t e r a c t i o n 15 Teacher-class i n t e r a c t i o n analyses 15 used i n early childhood settings Teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n studies 19 i n early childhood education Brophy and Good Teacher-Child 23 Dyadic Interaction System Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic 29 Interaction System employeed i n research CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 36 P i l o t Study 36 Data c o l l e c t i o n 37 Coding procedures 38 Inter-coder agreement 39 v i Table o f Contents - Continued Page Chapter I I I (continued) Primary "Sfcudyy 40 P o p u l a t i o n •... 40 S e t t i n g 4o Day care s u p e r v i s o r 42 C h i l d r e n 42 Sample s e l e c t i o n procedure 42 Sample 4 8 Day care c e n t r e s and s u p e r v i s o r s 4 8 C h i l d r e n 49 Data c o l l e c t i o n 51 Coding procedure 52. Design 52 Data a n a l y s e s 5 3. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s 57 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND SUMMARY I n t r o d u c t i o n R e s u l t s P r e l i m i n a r y Analyses M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of C l u s t e r s C l u s t e r I T o t a l Support C l u s t e r I I Support C h i l d Created C l u s t e r I I I Support Teacher Created C l u s t e r IV T o t a l Non Support C l u s t e r V Non Support C h i l d Created C l u s t e r VI Non Support Teacher Created C l u s t e r V II P r a i s e C h i l d C reated C l u s t e r V I I I P r a i s e Teacher Created 61 61 62 62 6 3 64 .67 69 71 - 73. 75 77 • 79 Table of Contents - continued Page CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 82 Conclusions 82 Non D i f f e r e n t i a t e d Interaction 84 Dif f e r e n t i a t e d Interaction 87 Limitations 90 Implications for Day Care Practice 91 Implications for supervisors 91 Implications for evaluation 92 Implications for children 9 3 Implications for t r a i n i n g day care 9 5 supervisors Implications for Further Research 9 6 Bibliography 101 Appendix A Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing 10 6 Board Standards Appendix B Letter of Inquiry 114 Appendix C Summary Table of Non Computable Variables 115 Appendix D D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 116 Appendix E Description of Brophy and Good Teacher-Child 118 Dyadic Interaction System Biographical Information 124 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Coder/Researcher Percent Agreement: P i l o t Study 40 2 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Questionnaire Scores 50 3 Inter Coder Percent Agreement Primary Study 52 4 Formation of Variables 54 5 Cluster Formation 58 6 Cluster I. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations for 66 Total Support 7 Cluster I. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for 66 Total Support 8 Cluster I I . C e l l Means and Standard Deviations for 68 Support Child Created 9 Cluster I I . Multivariate Analysis of Variance for 68 Support Child Created 10 Clutter I I I . C e l l Means and Standard Deviations 70 for Support Teacher Created 11 Cluster I I I . Multivariate Analysis of Variance 70 for Support Teacher Created 12 Cluster IV. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations for 72 Total Non Support 13 Cluster IV. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for 72 Total Non Support 14 Cluster V. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations for 74 Non Support Child Created 15 Cluster V. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for 74 Non Support C h i l d Created 16 Cluster VI. Cell.Means and Standard Deviations 76 for Non Support Teacher Created 17 Cluster VI. Multivariate Analysis of Variance 76 for Non Support Teacher Created ix Table L i s t of TABLES - Continued Page 18 Cluster VII. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations •• • - 7s: for Praise C h i l d Created 19 Cluster VII. Multivariate Analysis of Variance 78; for Praise Child Created 20 Cluster VIII. C e l l Means and Standard Deviations 80' for Praise Teacher Created 21 Cluster VIII. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of 8© Praise Teacher Created LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS I l l u s t r a t i o n Page Modified Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction Coding Form, 2 5 Study Questionnaire 45 W (<? F u l l y Crossed Factoral Design 53 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It i s the pleasant custom, when one f i n a l l y approaches the conclusion of a d i s s e r t a t i o n , to p u b l i c l y acknowledge friends and colleagues whose e f f o r t and presence provided the needed support, encouragement and cooperation. Dr. Peggy Koopman, my adviser, o r i g i n a l l y encouraged the researcher to investigate the day care environment for the p o s s i b i l i t y of 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 g r a t e f u l for her long continuous support and guidance. At each successive stage i n the research task the long hours of guidance of Dr. Todd Rogers made i t possible to move ahead on problems of organization, research design and s t a t i s t i c a l a nalysis. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y appreciative of the wise counsel which other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Norma Law, and Dr. Stanley Perkins, provided on the problems of study design, organization and wr i t i n g . The author wishes to express a special thanks to the six day care supervisors and the two Day Care Information O f f i c e s , who a l l must remain unidentified, but graciously and courageously provided the data for the study. I should l i k e to express appreciation to Jane A l l a n , Debbie Jones, Jean Jeffreys, Dale Martin and Allana M i l l e r who spent countless hours learning the coding system and coding hours of video tapes. v i i I am deeply indebted to the two photographers, Audrey Walmsley and Lerry Legebokoff who video taped many hours of in t e r a c t i o n . A very special thanks to Frank Ho for the computer processing of the data and inter p r e t a t i o n of vast amounts of computer p r i n t out sheets. I acknowledge with deep appreciation the sincere i n t e r e s t and moral support given by many of my friends and colleagues i n the f i e l d of early childhood education. In conclusion, I wish to express my boundless g r a t i -tude to my family; Ed my husband, Teresa and Garry my children, Rosalia my mother who gave so much confident encouragement i n the years throughout t h i s period of stress. Without t h i s , t h i s work would not have been accomplished. vix CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM Introduction to Problem From 1973 to 1975 the number of children between the ages of three to f i v e receiving day care services i n B r i t i s h Columbia increased more than four f o l d . In providing almost immediate day care for approximately 10,000 more children, these day care programs were developed and implemented without a corresponding evaluation of the various important components making up the day care environment. Since the rapid expansion of day care, many questions have been raised concerning the quality of experiences provided the children. The intention i n t h i s study i s to investigate the effects of the constant and intense 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 conclusion of, th e i r study of the day care children with special needs i n B r i t i s h Columbia (1973), Robinson and McDermick suggested investigation of the adult-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . They concluded that once a day care super-vi s o r has evaluated a c h i l d , whether r i g h t l y or wrongly, expectations about the teaching styles used with that c h i l d may be influenced by that [single] evaluation. Their study suggested that day care supervisors are l i k e l y to make decisions about in d i v i d u a l children on the basis 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 . The super-vi s o r usually labels children who make him f e e l comfortable as "hyper-active", "emotionally disturbed", " s o c i a l l y mal-adjusted", "language d e f i c i e n t " or developmentally lagging." The investigators implied that 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 supervisor as behaving d i f f e r e n t l y from the other children. This, i n turn, may a f f e c t the supervisor's i n t e r -action with that c h i l d . Even though the Robinson and McDermick study was medically based and remedially oriented, the global conclusions suggested that examination of a day care supervisor's i n t e r -action with i n d i v i d u a l children i s necessary to understand and better meet the needs of the c h i l d i n the day care environment. B e l l (1972) strongly states that the chil d ' s con-t r i b u t i o n to caretaker-child i n t e r a c t i o n cannot be ignored 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 child ' s r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n with the day care supervisor was de l i b e r a t e l y not included within the parameters of t h i s study even though i t i s recognized as important. The findings r e s u l t i n g from t h i s study could c e r t a i n l y i n i t i a t e subsequent research to address t h i s aspect of r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Statement of Problem The purpose of t h i s study was to determine by obser-vation whether a day-care supervisor interacted d i f f e r e n t l y 3 with children perceived as "behaviourally d i f f e r e n t " * than he did with the other children and whether the supervisor varied his/her i n t e r a c t i o n with g i r l s or boys. Significance of Problem To date, i n t e r a c t i o n a l research has been directed to teacher-pupil in t e r a c t i o n at the elementary and high school l e v e l (Travers, 1973). Lacking such research i n early c h i l d -hood education, the tendency has been either to extrapolate the findings about elementary schools into early childhood education, or to extend e x i s t i n g developmental theory into t r a i n i n g procedures for young children i n day care. But good teaching and qu a l i t y programmes for young children cannot be grounded i n such extrapolations and extensions. I t i s es s e n t i a l that early childhood educators 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 early childhood education research. E x i s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a l research with primary and secondary students indicates that the teacher's 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 his or her i n t e r a c t i o n with that c h i l d . Hargreaves (1972) describes the process: Teacher s e l e c t i v i t y [sic] perceives and interprets c h i l d behaviour and through repeated perceptions develops a con-ception of an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d who i s evaluated, categorized and l a b e l l e d . Response to the c h i l d i s i n the l i g h t of these evaluative labels. (p.161) It i s of the utmost'importance that early childhood educators have knowledge based upon research about the e f f e c t * See Appendix D for D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 4 of the day care supervisor's perceptions of the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d , upon t h e i r i nteraction with that c h i l d as described by Hargreaves. Information provided by such developmental theorists as Piaget (1962), Bandura (1961), White (1976) and Bruner (1970) indicate that adult response through in t e r a c t i o n with a c h i l d forms an important learning function for the c h i l d during the early pre-school years. This period between the ages of three to f i v e i s the t r a n s i t i o n between infancy and entrance to school. During t h i s period, the c h i l d refocusses h i s energy and learns to d i r e c t his behaviour into s o c i a l l y acceptable channels. This process seems to be f a c i l i t a t e d best by the consistent presence of a nurturing, supportive caregiver, the parent or another s i g n i f i c a n t adult i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e . Bruner (1970) states that without such learning, the c h i l d cannot act i n ways that are acceptable to society. As a r e s u l t , that c h i l d i s s o c i a l l y crippled and cannot devote his f u l l energy to the next stages of his development during his school years. From his own extensive research and observational investigation, Bronfenbrenner (1971) summarizes the develop-mental t h e o r e t i c a l considerations s i g n i f i c a n t to i n t e r a c t i o n a l research i n the f i e l d of early childhood education: 5 The young cannot p u l l themselves up by t h e i r own boot-straps. I t i s primarily through observing, playing and working with others, older and younger than him-s e l f , that a c h i l d discovers both what he can do, and who he csn become, that he develops both his a b i l i t y and his iden-t i t y . I t i s primarily through exposure [to] and inte r a c t i o n with adults and children of d i f f e r e n t ages that a c h i l d acquires new in t e r e s t s and s k i l l s , and learns the meaning of tolerance, co-operation and compassion... there i s but one caution to be born i n mind, the c r u c i a l factor, of course, i s not how much time i s spent with a c h i l d , but how the time i s spent. A c h i l d learns, he becomes human, primarily through p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i n challenging a c t i v i t y with those whom he loves and admires. It i s the example, challenge and reinforcement provided by people who care that enable a c h i l d to develop both his a b i l i t y and hi s i d e n t i t y . (p.54) Early childhood educators maintain that to understand the needs of young children and to develop a meaningful program for them, one ought to observe and study the behaviour of the c h i l d and teacher i n the natural setting. Kounin (1967) elaborated t h i s p osition i n his investigation at the primary school l e v e l : In the current stage of behavioural sciences, there i s room for researches conducted i n the s p i r i t of enquiry to see what can be learned rather than i n the s p i r i t of debate to see what hypo-thesis or theory can be tested. (p.123) The present sti The present study was i n i t i a t e d i n t h i s s p i r i t . Summary Child care, as provided by the day care centres has been conceived as meeting the needs of children's growth and development by enabling them to inter a c t with 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 enqiry i n order to gain information about a day care supervisor's int e r a c t i o n with three and four year old children who were perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t . The data were co l l e c t e d by using a video camera i n the natural day care s e t t i n g and coded with the Brophy and Good Dyadic Teacher-Child Inter-action System (1969). The findings r e s u l t i n g from the study could be useful to day care supervisors i n t h e i r attempt to meet better the needs of the young c h i l d i n a day care environment. The remainder of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s organized into four chapters. In.Chapter II,.the l i t e r a t u r e i s reviewed; i n Chapter I I I , the methodology i s described; i n Chapter IV, the data results are presented and discussed; and i n Chapter V, conclusions are drawn and implications are suggested. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of l i t e r a t u r e is..presented^ ihectthreethree separate sections: t h e o r e t i c a l considerations, i n t e r a c t i o n analysis systems and studies of teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . In t:at< fourth section, the in t e r a c t i o n analyses system selected for t h i s study i s described and a review of research employing the selected system i s presented. Theoretical Considerations The o v e r a l l development of children i n the i r pre-school years i s the basic concern of early childhood educators The concept of growth and development as based upon a series of developmental steps,^nutu*.iHgr'*anTd. supportive environment, has been outlined by researchers i n both c l i n i c a l and obser-vational studies. Bruner (1971) states that the strategy for learning i s innate. He suggests that before the new-born child ' s system can be activated, he must learn a series of primitive codes. The c h i l d learns them by int e r a c t i n g with a supportive adult who provides a model for behaviour and feedback i n terms of acceptance of the c h i l d . Bruner concludes that a ch i l d ' s attempts at learning may be stopped i f he i s denied the opportunity for int e r a c t i n g with a nurturing s i g n i f i c a n t adult 8 Bruner"s theory supports the assumption that the day care supervisor must provide young children with supportive nurture through continual and accepting i n t e r a c t i o n . The day care supervisor thus becomes one of the s i g n i f i c a n t adults i n the c h i l d ' s l i f e and activates basic s o c i a l and emotional learnings important at t h i s stage of development. Bandura (1963) demonstrated that children who i n t e r -act with warm, attentive adults display considerably more imitative behaviour than those childr e n who intera c t with adults who display cold distant r e l a t i o n s h i p s . He suggested that children display considerable s o c i a l learning of an incide n t a l imitative sort f a c i l i t a t e d by a nurturant adult. When interpreted f u n c t i o n a l l y , Bandura's investigation into the q u a l i t a t i v e development of behavioural s o c i a l structures implies that the day care supervisor who cares for the children up to ten hours a day provides a strong model for behaviour. The implication i s that the extent of the supervisor's influence depends upon the qual i t y of the adult c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Undoubtedly, the theories of Bruner,-Bandura ^ and a no' others have meaning for day care practice and es p e c i a l l y for the q u a l i t y of in t e r a c t i o n between the day care supervisors and young children. Young children cannot be expected to learn 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 unless the day care supervisor can provide the prerequisite interactions that Bruner and Bandura suggest are basic to learning. 9 Piaget (1961), i n his theory of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , des-cribes the young c h i l d ' s thoughts as egocentric because the c h i l d constructs r e a l i t y to sui t himself through symbolic play. In the process of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the c h i l d becomes more aware of his i n d i v i d u a l i t y at the same time, modelling himself af t e r others whom he observes. In e f f e c t , he i d e n t i f i e s himself with the s i g n i f i c a n t others (parents, caregivers) i n h i s environ-ment whom he may take as models for h i s behaviour. Also, he i s provided with information about h i s behaviour through the i r response. During t h i s time a young c h i l d ' s development i s almost completely dependent upon his transactions with the environment. He acquires concepts a c t i v e l y , not passively, through his actions and the feedback he receives i n his i n t e r -action with the care giving adult. .If„we -accepta-fiaget'i"s^theories as v a l i d , we .realize that before going to school, a c h i l d needs adults who are f r i e n d l y , nurturing, clear i n th e i r d i r e c t i o n s , and supportive of the rules that determine acceptable behaviour. In the in t e r a c t i o n a l process between the c h i l d and the adult, the c h i l d gains an understanding of who he i s , what he can do, and what i s expected of him. He learns by watching adults behave and act, 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 the experi-ences provided by the adult, and by r e l a t i n g to situations which e l i c i t adult attention, be i t po s i t i v e or negative. Other important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that children develop during the pre-school period are increased language s k i l l s , the observing and acting out of adult r o l e s , and greater know-ledge about what i s acceptable behaviour. Luria (1961) and 10 Vygotsky (19 62)., Soviet psychologists, f e e l strongly that the words used by adults during the i n t e r a c t i o n between a nurturing adult and c h i l d influence the c h i l d ' s behaviour. Their research notes the influence upon a young c h i l d ' s behaviour thro ugh1 swords spoken to him by ahe adult. AsAs %a c h i l d learns the words used by ahe adult, 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 his behaviour with the adult. Through verbal i n t e r a c t i o n a^.eh-ildlBeginsritot~ understand his own behaviour and the e f f e c t he has upon those with whom he i n t e r a c t s . The methodology a r i s i n g out of t h i s theory places great 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 has: upon!adults. Through int e r a c t i o n with -an- adult who provides nurture, en-couragement, instruction,. demonstration and behavioural examples, .1:4;. c h i l d very early learns the effects of h i s actions on others. The Soviet researchers indicate that verbal i n t e r -action between the nurturing adult and ;ae 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 others. The p a r a l l e l between mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n and day care supervisor-child i n t e r a c t i o n has been established by the research of White (19 71), who intended-;.to idehtijEytthe. techniques by which a mother influences her c h i l d ' s development and behaviour. White investigated how to structure experiences of children i n the f i r s t six years of l i f e so that optimal preparation for normal education may be accomplished. I n i t i a l l y , White c o l l e c t e d information about the competencies'of a six year old, but he found that most of the q u a l i t i e s that d i s -tinguish the outstanding six year old can be achieved i n a 11 large measure by the age of three and subsequent research con-centrated on the c h i l d below the age of three. White reports (1978) that the development of a c h i l d ' s capacity for learning and o v e r a l l "competence" i s obvious during the second year of l i f e and becomes substantiated by the age of three. He observe^'- that some children developed better than others because of the way the mother (care giver) responded to the emergence of locomotor a c t i v i t y i n 'he's?-child. White and his colleagues confirmed t h e i r observations by study-ing the home l i f e of ch-il'dreno . They found that the mother's d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t interactions with her c h i l d are the most powerful formative factors i n the development of a competent c h i l d . White describes the mother's inte r a c t i o n with her competent c h i l d as nurturing, permissive, indulgent, enthusi-a s t i c , t a l k a t i v e and suggestive. Gordon (1975) reports ir. a long term study on stimu-l a t i o n of young children that by increasing 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. Evaluation of the f i r s t two years of parent education indicated that at the end of the f i r s t year, children of mothers who entered the program early were developmentally superior to children whose mothers did not receive t r a i n i n g . A p o s i t i v e example of the long term effectiveness of nurture on young retarded children i s the c l a s s i c study of Skeels (1942) . Thirteen children approximately 18 months old who had been diagnosed as retarded were transferred from an unstimulating, overcrowded orphanage that allowed for l i t t l e 12 posit i v e human interaction to a r e s i d e n t i a l centre for mentally retarded adults. Older mentally retarded g i r l s served as foster mothers for these children. After a year and a half the children's i n t e l l i g e n c e score had gained an average of 27.5 points and they were then placed i n adoptive homes. In contrast, a control group of normal i n t e l l i g e n t children remain-ing i n the orphanage decreased i n i n t e l l i g e n c e about 20 points i n two and one-half years. Later Skeels (1960) did a follow-up study of the two groups. The control group continued to 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 s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y and schooling, the experimental children were functioning as middle c l a s s adults, while a l l of the children i n the control group had h i s t o r i e s of enrollment i n hospitals for the mentally retarded, poor employment habits, and s o c i a l adjustment d i f f i c u l t i e s . One notes from the Skeels' study that long range e f f e c t s of early and continuous intervention over many years were highly dependent upon the mother-surrogates i n t e r a c t i o n with the children. This i n t e r a c t i o n was highly supportive because the mother surrogates gave much time to tal k i n g to, playing with and stimulating the children. The r e s u l t s of th i s c l a s s i c study supports Bloom's (1964) findings and the implications of these studies should be incorporated into present day-care p r a c t i c e s . The research of Bruner, Bandura, Piaget, Luria., Vygotsky, White, Gordon and Skeels provide the developmental theory base for t h i s investigation. These theories suggest that i n order to activate the basic s o c i a l and emotional learnings impor-tant to the young c h i l d at t h i s stage of development, an adult must provide nurture, as defined by Bruner and Bandura; support, as described by Piaget; encouragement and instruc-t i o n , as suggested by Vygotsky; and enthusiasm, as described by Gordon and White. Literature Review of Interaction Analysis Systems I t appears to t h i s researcher, a f t e r considerable review of various i n t e r a c t i o n recording systems, that these various systems designed to analyze in t e r a c t i o n may be cate-gorized into four separate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : (a) parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n , (b) psychotherapist-child interaction,' (c) teacher-class i n t e r a c t i o n , and (d) teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . Each of these classes i s discussed i n turn with greater emphasis placed upon the teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n i n early childhood programs. Parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n The parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n research has had many years of development. The c l a s s i c studies of Champney (1939) and Bishop (1951) provided the i n i t i a l basis for further research. Champney (1939) selected variables i n h i s i n v e s t i -gation that were suitable for a quantitative analysis of parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n . Categories i n the system were based on the assumption that the c h i l d (1) "being the central source of stimulation and object of reaction" (Champney, p.527) and (2) "as receiver and integrator of s o c i a l s t i m u l i " (p.528) shaped parent behaviour. Seventy-five codes c l a s s i f i e d into ten groups describe behaviour of the parent. Seven groups represent psychological relationships between parent and c h i l d ; two groups deal with general parent behaviour; and one group i l l u s t r a t e s home behaviour. The rat i n g scale demanded that the scorer show a complex i n c i s i v e judgement which required extensive t r a i n i n g and practi c e . Bishop (19 51) developed a framework to observe parental behaviour based upon stimulus-response theory. The parental i n t e r a c t i o n was treated as the stimulus and the ch i l d ' s behaviour was defined as the response. In e f f e c t the Bishop category system measures the mother-child r e l a t i o n s h i p under experimental conditions i n order to describe the c r i t i c a l factors 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 essential to the personality development of the c h i l d . Eighteen variables were developed by Schaefer (1959) to describe the social-emotional interactions of mother and c h i l d i n the home as well as i n a research setting. The data were coll e c t e d by interviewing the parent and by an observation-recording system. The Headstart Programme i n the United States also gave r i s e to many parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n inventories (Caldwell (1967), White (1971) and Gordon (1976) ) which pro-vided information to help parents modify th e i r behaviour so that t h e i r children could achieve more and e a r l i e r cognitive s k i l l s . 15 Therapist-child i n t e r a c t i o n These int e r a c t i o n analysis systems are based on the role of the therapist. 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 that the one seeking help has problems, usually emotional problems, that do not permit him to function or i n t e r a c t i n an acceptable manner. I t i s assumed also that the therapist i s suited to a s s i s t the person requiring help. Because the developers 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 usually assume a problem e x i s t s , t h e i r categories are pathologically based. The therapist must l i s t e n , observe, and make statements of recognition. In the Moustakas-Sigel-Shalock System (1956) a single c h i l d i s observed i n t e r a c t i n g with toys or materials i n a c l i n i c a l playroom. The c h i l d ' s behaviour i s recorded every f i v e seconds on a scoring sheet containing over 150 variables. The Strupp system (19 60) analyses the i n t e r a c t i o n between the therapist and c h i l d , the therapist's response to the c h i l d , the c h i l d ' s i n t e r a c t i o n with the thera-p i s t , and the therapeutic climate. Teacher-class in t e r a c t i o n analyses Used i n early childhood settings At present, observation instruments are abundant for observing teacher-class interactions. Simon and Boyer (1970) have l i s t e d more than 100 observation recording systems. Subsequently, Travers (1973) and Stubbs and Delamont (1976) pointed out that recent classroom observation instruments have increased in sophistication, incorporating the ideas of e a r l i e r systems such as Anderson's (1946), Withall's (1949) and 16 Flanders' (1960). The teacher-class in t e r a c t i o n analyses systems reviewed here have the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : a l l have been used by t h e i r authors as well as by other researchers; a l l produce data with educational implication's; a l l have been developed for ana-lyz i n g teacher-class interactions; and a l l have been designed s p e c i f i c a l l y for teacher-group in t e r a c t i o n analyses i n early childhood education situations, such as nursery school, day care, kindergarten and f i r s t grade. Richenberg-Hackett (1962) developed a descriptive observation instrument to record the practices and attitudes of nursery school teachers. The data were co l l e c t e d with ten minute anectodal recordings during a four hour observation period. Then the data were divided into discernable units of action and categorized. The who-to-whom, and the a c t i v i t y was noted with each unit. An episode (unit) was recorded each time the teacher addressed a c h i l d , moved from one place to another or picked up a d i f f e r e n t piece of equipment. The data were c o l l e c t e d i n three major categories: (1) teacher approach, (2) motivating techniques and a c t i v i t i e s , and (3) lessons and values. This system focuses upon the int e r a c t i o n of the teacher with the children and the routines and a c t i v i t i e s that he uses to transmit attitudes and values that he considers important. The res u l t s suggest a re l a t i o n s h i p between a teacher's motivating techniques and the ch i l d ' s performance. Prescott (1967) designed an observation system that focused upon teacher behaviour i n a day care setting. A unit 17 of teacher a c t i v i t y was defined as "an act on the part of the teacher which involves discernable contact with an object or person" (Prescott, p.65). He added (1) encouragement, (2) verbal and non-verbal communication, and (3) guidance to the major categories of Richenberg and Hackett. In addition to the teacher's behaviour, he recorded the lessons taught and global i n d i c a t i o n of children's behaviour, as well as some of the organizational and st r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a day care centre. This system attempts to f i n d relationships between teacher behaviour, classroom organization, and c h i l d behaviour and achievement. Katz (19 69) developed a Teacher-Behaviour Survey Instrument and a Child Behaviour Survey Instrument to observe classroom int e r a c t i o n i n Headstart programmes. RaUsinged ahe»point sampling technique ,w.sheL. studied the behaviour of the s p e c i f i c c h i l d long enough to i d e n t i f y and check i t o f f i n the appropriate c e l l . The major dimensions i n the Katz system are (1) contact, (2) feeding, (3) teaching, (4) feedback, (5) control, (6) nurturance, and (7) dominant tone. A l l of these dimensions are subdivided into categories except for dominant tone, which was entered only once for each observation. The type of a c t i v i t y observed was also b r i e f l y recorded. Caldwell (19 69) developed the Approach System of Interactional Analysis to investigate the young c h i l d i n his home and^sehoo^envdronment'i pThisdprocedures for patter-nijignresponses of adults and children i n a pre-school environment involves breaking behaviour into short episodes: (1) who i s acting, (2) what i s the action, (3) to whom i s the behaviour directed, and (4) the category of behaviour. Data were co l l e c t e d i n the pre-school setting as well as i n the home to determine i f the behaviour i n the home setting d i f f e r e d from that of the pre-school. Both teacher and parental interaction with the c h i l d are observed and recorded i n terms of quality of response, attention given, information given, interference, nurture, granting of requests and non compliance. Several guides published on how to assess the learn-ing environment i n early childhood education programs have been published.*' (Spodek 1973; Biber 1971; and Gazden 1972). One of the most comprehensive for observaton and assessment i s that of Mattick and Perkins (1973) . With Wechsler's advice, a model was developed to r e f l e c t adequately the basic p r i n c i p l e s of c h i l d development and the s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of day care education. However, the authors have not yet devised a focused systematic way to measure the interaction between the day care supervisor and the children. After reviewing the various i n t e r a c t i o n a l systems the present writer decided that the parent-child and therapist-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n a l analysis systems were inappropriate for th 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 rather than i n early childhood education group settings. Extensive coder t r a i n i n g i s needed 19 to code interactions that were not necessarily v a l i d to the day care setting. The teacher-class i n t e r a c t i o n a l systems were unsuitable for the following reasons: The many variables within categories about teacher behaviour and c h i l d response as depicted i n Caldwell (19 69) are too complicated for the narrower d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s problem. The Richenberg-Hackett (19 62) i n t e r a c t i o n analyses i l l u s t r a t e the teacher-class focus which do not meet the needs of t h i s study. Much of the recording 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 for the pres-ent study ( i . e . , Prescott 1967). The i n t e r a c t i o n analysis system devised by Katz (19 69) 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 which requires two separate instruments. This i s too cumber-some for t h i s investigation. Moreover, Travers (19 73) questioned the r e l i a b i l i t y of instruments used by Katz (1969) and Prescott (19 67). Teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n studies i n early childhood education Much of the existing i n t e r a c t i o n a l research i n the f i e l d of early childhood education follows the elementary school model of teacher-class i n t e r a c t i o n . However, recent i n t e r a c t i o n studies are based upon teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . For example, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) stimulated much investigation of teacher-child interaction following t h e i r own investigation, Pygmalion i n the Classroom. In t h e i r study, primary grade teachers were given i n t e l l i g e n c e scores 20 for t h e i r students. Some scores were higher than the children's actual t e s t r e s u l t s and the teachers were to l d these children were high achievers. Some scores were lower than the children's te s t results and they were described as low achievers. After a time, the children were tested. The results indicate that the children labeled as high achievers increased i n achieve-ment to match the teacher's expectation. Children l a b e l l e d as low achievers also matched the teacher's expectation. Rosenthal and Jacobson l a b e l l e d t h i s phenomenon the " s e l f f u l f i l l i n g prophecy." They thought i t was detrimental to the children of whom the teacher expected l i t t l e . There has been much c r i t i c i s m of the Pygmalion research of Rosenthal and Jacobson. Researchers such as Thorndike (19 68) suggest that the procedures and methodology used i n the Rosenthal and Jacobson study are "so defective t e c h n i c a l l y that one can only regret that i t ever got beyond the eyes of the o r i g i n a l investigators" (Thorndike, 19 68, p.708) . He s':4a;-tes3 the re s u l t s are f a u l t y and throw doubt upon the teacher effects Rosenthal and Jacobson claimed. However, the Pygmalion research seems to have affected and inspired many studies. Certainly the re s u l t s of the l a t t e r study throw l i g h t upon the present problem investigated. Yarrow, Waxier, and Scott (19 71) involved pre-school children i n a study of teacher nurture. The adult caregivers were trained to create high or low nurture. The response to high^nur t3irevJwa%- ^ %m\h r4na??^ snurirlure the response was minimal. The teachers were not equally nurturing to a l l children receiving high nurture nor equally unnurturing to a l l children receiving l i t t l e nurture. Their interaction with children was conditioned greatly by the behaviour of the children. W i l l i s (1972) asked f i v e primary teachers to rank the i r primary grade students from most e f f i c i e n t (ME) to least e f f i c i e n t (LE). The top and bottom students were then observed for 30 minutes over eight days. The data showed that teachers ignored LE students more frequently and provided them with fewer verbal comments than the ME students. W i l l i s concluded that teachers who make LE students f e e l the consequences of the i r behaviour extinguish the behaviour these students most need to develop for s o c i a l competence. Garner and Bing (1971) examined the assumptions that teachers do not give equal attention to t h e i r pupils, and that such inequality r e s u l t s from the teacher's perception of the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y . They studied teacher-student interaction i n f i v e f i r s t year classes aft e r the teacher had f i l l e d out a ranking scale of student t r a i t s . Most of the teacher i n t e r -action was found to be with bright, high achieving students. Garner and Bing also found that the teacher-student interaction was determined almost e n t i r e l y by the students and that there was l i t t l e evidence of teacher attempts to recognize in d i v i d u a l difference i n students. Ryan and Appleford (19 77) did an observational i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher-child interactions i n the play school of Carleton University. Instructional, s o c i a l and d i s c i p l i n a r y contacts were related to sex, income and physical a t t r a c t i v e -ness of the c h i l d . They found that female children received more i n s t r u c t i o n a l and s o c i a l contacts but fewer d i s c i p l i n a r y contacts than males, and that low income children 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 contacts than middle income children. The r e s u l t s for physical attractiveness were not c l e a r . Good and Brophy (1973) asked f i r s t grade teachers to rank each c h i l d i n terms of expected achievement. Using the instrument they developed i n 19 69 (Brophy and Good 1969) they found that the i n t e r a c t i o n patterns between teacher and student were highly related to the teacher's expectations of the student's a b i l i t y to achieve. Teachers favoured students i n the high achievement category and reinforced t h e i r behaviour by frequent praise, l i t t l e c r i t i c i s m and much feedback. The present study, also based upon teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n , analysedthe day care supervisor's interaction with i n d i v i d u a l children. The instrument selected to analyze the interaction data of t h i s study met the r e s e a r c h e r i s i G M t e r i a (a) an instrument that codes the teacher-child interaction (dyadic) rather than teacher-class (group) in t e r a c t i o n ; (b) an interaction system that i s r e l i a b l e and v a l i d and has been used i n previous research; (c) a system that provides a comprehensive analysis of teacher-child interaction and contains an uncomplicated coding system; -(c) a system that i s based upon sound theoret i c a l considerations; -(e) a system that does not require extensive coder t r a i n i n g ; and (f) a system that may be modified to meet the needs of a p a r t i c u l a r study. The Brophy and Good Dyadic Teacher-Child Interaction System (19 69) met these c r i t e r i a i,. well. Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System The Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System (19 69) was designed to study the interaction of a teacher with an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d . I t provides a record of a l l such dyadic interactions between teacher and c h i l d and allows for the raw scores of i n d i v i d u a l children to be con-verted into percentage scores. This provides information about q u a l i t y of contact (how the teacher interacts) and the quantity of contact (frequency of teacher in t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d ) . Brophy and Good based th e i r Dyadic Interaction 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 patterns are the norm rather than the exception and teachers do treat children d i f f e r e n t l y " (19 69 p.43). The Brophy and Good Dyadic Teacher-Child Interaction System (19 69) includes three major categories: (1) Response Opportunities; (2) Child Created Contacts; and (3) Teacher Created Contacts. A l l except the Reading Turns Category as found i n the manual (1969)were, employed i n the present study. The Reading Turns Category wa-s not applicable to the age l e v e l of children observed nor to the day care program. The 61 codings, divided among the three categories, were used to describe teacher response such as praise, nurture, c r i t i c i s m , and feedback. 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 opportunity ref e r s to the teacher's questions, the c h i l d ' s response and the r e s u l t i n g teacher feedback. The teacher's questions are further subdivided into what Good and Brophy ref e r to as "type" and " l e v e l . " (a) The four types of teacher's questions include: (1) d i s c i p l i n e questions which compel the c h i l d ' s attention (column 6) (2) d i r e c t questions which ask a s p e c i f i c c h i l d a question (column 7) (3) open questions which ask who would l i k e to respond (column 8) (4) c a l l out questions which i n v i t e spontaneous response (column 9) CODING ' spEET Chi ld Coder P o g « RESPONSE OPPORTUNITIES Red r £ § p . 1J3 T tx UiJUJU. liJJJJJ guest, level 1 Drocess ll +-c s O 1 choice : self 1 12 13 14 15 b 12 1 3 4 15 Answer Terminal Feedback 8 I xt < U bi V, rt XI C 1 ct a 0 a procass 6 S i c CD t» J< rt » 'i ci I T +• 10 p a r t c -P w ci) rt r- tn 1- O rt " C 1, t O 24 25 26 27 26 29 90 1 32 91 34 9S c 1 ' 1 24 25 26 27 a 29 sop 12 33 34 35 < 1 1 E 1 c m rt t, JC p t, new quest] 36 39 40 41 dL 39 S9 40 Ik' CHILD CREATED CONTACT Work to 9 gtg Lit* EtncjcncDBijEn Procedure II 1 II II II II II a 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I 3 tBCQCBOPCSSIQI ' ^ 5 9 TEACHER AFFORDED CONTACT Work c Procedure a - TJ Behar0 I ® o_ -[G3 64 5 66. 67 6 6 1 ^9. \ — r — b > 4— * 7 . 1 1 1 1 1 j I 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 tEBIflBBBil I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 Modified Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction Coding Form IV) The four l e v e l s of teacher's questions include: (1) process questions which require a cognitive answer and understanding (why or how questions) (column 12) (2) product questions which require one word answer (who, what, where, when) (column 13) (3) choice questions which require one out of a possible two answers (yes, no) (column 14) (4) s e l f reference questions which refer to feelings and experiences (column 15) The four lev e l s of c h i l d ' s answers include: (1) correct answer (column 18) (2) p a r t i a l l y correct answer (column 18) (3) incorrect answer (column 20) (4) no response (column 21) The two leve l s of teacher feedback include: (1) terminal feedback which i s praise (column 24), affirmation (column 25), no feedback (column 26), ambiguous (column 27), expand (column 28), extend (column 29), process (column 30), gives answer (column 31), ask other (column 32), c a l l out (column 33), negate (column 34) and c r i t i c i s m (column 35). (2) sustaining feedback which i s nurture (column 36), r e p e t i t i o n (column 39), rephrasing (column 40), and new question (column 41). Recitation refers to the c h i l d ' s responses i n terms of s e l f reference or work r e c i t a t i o n as demanded by the teacher. The s e l f referenced 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 to present an explanation or description r e l a t i n g the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t , experience, imagination, made-up story or song. 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 story or sequence of an experience i n order to demon-strate some knowledge or s k i l l . (B) Child created contact refers to the c h i l d i n i t i a t i n g the contact with the teacher i n the work or procedure category. (a) The work category (column 45-51) includes a l l a c t i v i t i e s with materials and equipment set out by the teacher (painting, blocks, woodwork). (b) The procedure category (columns 54-59) includes a l l personal needs and interests of the c h i l d . The teacher's feedback to c h i l d created contacts i s recorded as praise, process, posi t i v e feedback, negative feedback, c r i t i c i s m , nurture and zero feedback. (C) Teacher Afforted Contact refers to a l l contacts i n i t i a t e d by the teacher.. (a) The work category (columns 63-69) relates to the teacher c l a r i f y i n g , helping, or talking to the c h i l d about his work. (b) The procedure category (column 72-77) rela t e s to a l l the personal needs and interests of the c h i l d . The Teacher's feedback to the work and procedure category i s recorded exactly l i k e the c h i l d created codings. (c) The behaviour category refers to contacts made by the teacher i n order to give the c h i l d i n f o r -mation about his behaviour. -The teacher's response to the c h i l d ' s behaviour i s recorded as praise, warning, c r i t i c i s m , r e s t r i c t i o n and nurture (column 80-84). Praise i s given for appropriate behaviour, warning i s given for i n -appropriate behaviour, c r i t i s i s m expresses anger, f r u s t r a t i o n and exasperation, r e s t r i c t i o n i s a teacher's response to r e s t r i c t inappropriate behaviour, and nurture i s provided to encourage repeated behaviour. It should be noted that c e r t a i n modifications of the Brophy-Good system proved to be necessary i n terms of additional coding, deletion of coding and an expansion of coding. Brophy and Good themselves had stated, "the system should not be considered as a closed system as d i f f e r e n t research questions may require the coding of d i f f e r e n t variables; therefore, the system should be modified" (1969, p.4), and "the system should not be conceived as a finished closed system to be used without modifications"(1969, p.41). With t h i s i n mind the coding sheet was modified' i n the following ways: Positive feedback, Negative feedback and Nurture were added to the categories of Sustaining feedback, Ch i l d Created Work, Child Created Procedure, Teacher Created Work, Teacher Created Procedure and Behaviour. R e s t r i c t i o n was added to the behaviour category. Postive feedback i s described by Good and Brophy (1969, p.23) as "the teacher [providing] immediate feedback to the c h i l d and [indicating] that his response i s correct" (p.23). Negative feedback occurs when the teacher provides impersonal feedback regarding the chil d ' s incorrect response. The coding "nurture" i s taken from Prescott (1976) who used i t i n the evaluation of a day care environment. Prescott defines nurture as "a teacher a c t i v i t y which gives the c h i l d confidence, pleasure, a f f e c t i o n , comfort and nurturant help" (p.12). The coding " r e s t r i c t i o n " was also borrowed from Prescott (1976) and defined: " C o n f l i c t exists where c h i l d does not accept teacher's goals and teacher moves to obstruct c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s " (p.13). [sic] A further description of the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Interaction Measure i s found i n Appendix E. Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System Employed i n Research The Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System has been widely used by the authors as well as by many other researchers. Several such studies w i l l be described i n order to support the selection of the system for t h i s present study. Interpretation of the studies as related to methodology decisions w i l l also be discussed. A r e p l i c a t i o n of the Silberman study (1969), which examined d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher behaviour towards children, was performed by Brophy and Good (19 72). They investigated teacher-student i n t e r a c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the attitudes of teachers to students on attachment, concern, indifference and r e j e c t i o n variables. Data were co l l e c t e d using the Brophy-Good Dyadic Interaction System. -The Brophy-Good r e p l i c a t i o n used grade one students rather than grade nine students as Silberman had done. They also used t h e i r own instrumentation. Their data confirmed Silberman's findings that teachers do indeed behave d i f f e r e n t l y with students they conceive as d i f f e r e n t . Brophy and Good (1970) investigated four grade one classrooms to f i n d out how teachers communicate d i f f e r e n t i a l performance expectations. The teachers were asked to rank the children i n t h e i r classes i n order of achievement. C r i t e r i a were de l i b e r a t e l y kept vague to encourage teachers to use subjective judgements. - The rank scale was used to measure teacher expectations for each c h i l d ' s performance. Three children designated as high achievers and three desig-nated as low achievers were selected from each of four c l a s s -rooms for i n t e r a c t i o n a l study. Those students ranked as high i n achievement received more teacher support; the difference between the high and the low achievers' interaction with the teacher was i n quality rather than i n quantity; the teachers interacted with more c r i t i c i s m and showed more disapproval of boys t h a n of g i r l s ; , and l o w i a e h i e v e r s i i r e c e i y e d s m o r e - . v G r i t i c i s m less praise, l e s s feedback, and less i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n from the teacher t h a n those rated as high achievers. The data confirmed the Silberman hypothesis that a teacher's expectations of c h i l d performance acts 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 of the Brophy-Good System was demonstrated when used for coding the data. Jones (19 71) studied 16 female student teachers i n a high school. The student teachers were grouped into four groups: high achievement in t r o v e r t s , high achievement extro-verts, low achievement in t r o v e r t s , and low achievement extro-verts . High school students were matched with each student teacher group. Each student teacher was assigned eight students whoarated &hemsel>vesnoncalself description scale. Assuming that s i m i l a r i t y breeds a t t r a c t i o n , Jones hypothesized that the student teachers would interact more frequently and more p o s i t i v e l y with students whom they per-ceived 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 teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n , as well as upon cognitive information exchange. He found that high achievement oriented teachers used d i r e c t questioning, i n i t i a t e d more contacts and provided a better learning environment than the low achievement oriented teachers. High achievement oriented teachers also were less l i k e l y to ask a low achievement introverted student an additional question aft e r the f i r s t contact. - I t would appear that the high achievement oriented teachers' method of dealing with low achievement introverted students was to fiurthert-questtion that student u n t i l he made a response. The teacher then praised him, but nothing else. The Good and Brophy Dyadic Interaction System was able to test Jones' hypothesis. Good, Sykes and Brophy (1972) studied teacher student in t e r a c t i o n i n 16 classes i n four junior high schools. The sample included 16 teachers composed of four male and four female mathematics teachers, and four male and four female s o c i a l studies teachers. Using the Good-Brophy Dyadic Inter-action System, the investigators found, through the f l e x i b l e codings i n the cognitive and a f f e c t i v e domain, that students who were expected to do extremely well i n subject areas i n i t i a t e d more comments and questions, received more response opportunities, and generally i n i t i a t e d more contacts of a l l kinds with the teacher. The same students received more praise than c r i t i c i s m as compared with those expected to be low achievers. Most of the q u a l i t a t i v e group difference found i n the o r i g i n a l f i r s t grade study (Good and Brophy, 1969) were repl i c a t e d at t h i s l e v e l . Gabbert (1973) c l a s s i f i e d student teachers as high or low on an achievement orientation scale. Observing student teachers i n assigned elementary school classrooms, Gabbert found, using the Good and Brophy Teacher-Child Dyadic Inter-action, that those student teachers high on achievement orientation asked questions that were more d i r e c t and more product oriented. Incorrect answers resulted 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 orientation e l i c i t e d more correct answers from the students and accepted the children. Jeter and Davis (1974) did a quasi r e p l i c a t i o n of the Brophy and Good study of 1970. Teachers were asked to rank th e i r students on achievement, whereupon the three highest and the three lowest students were selected for the study. Substitutes were i d e n t i f i e d i n case the selected students were absent. Qualitative findings showed that the expected high,achievers got more feedback to th e i r answers and that teachers stayed longer with the high achievers aft e r they f a i l e d to answer i n i t i a l questions. This study re p l i c a t e d the findings i n the cognitive area of Brophy and Good (1970) even though the students were from heterogeneous fourth grade, middle class, white schools. Good and Brophy (19 75) studied teacher behaviour toward two d i f f e r e n t groups of grade one children: low interactors with the teacher and high interactors with the teacher. Data were coll e c t e d before treatment and aft e r treatment using the Brophy-Good Dyadic Interaction System. The teachers were given information about t h e i r interactions with the children a f t e r the f i r s t i n t e r a c t i o n a l analyses were completed. The second data revealed that teacher behaviour toward and i n t e r a c t i o n with the selected children changed d r a s t i c a l l y i n both quantity and quality a f t e r the teacher received the i n t e r a c t i o n a l information. The most notable changes were that teachers stayed with children 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 often, i n i t i a t e d more contacts with them, and warned them about th e i r unacceptable behaviour,, rather than c r i t i c i s i n g them. The study demonstrated that feedback for teachers about th e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with children effected q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative change i n teacher-child interaction. The Texas Teacher Effectiveness Project (1973) used the Brophy-Good System with categories expanded to include classroom management variables to record teacher i n t e r a c t i o n with children. This project was a two year investigation of teacher effectivenss i n grade two and three classrooms. I t was found that the most e f f e c t i v e teacher i n high SES schools taught with high expectations, pushed students to achieve 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 schools taught with more patience, good encouragement, developed personal r e l a t i o n -ships with the children and were less s a t i s f i e d with t r a d i -t i o n a l materials. The above studies provided the following methodol-ogical considerations which were incorporated into the present study. The Good:-andpBrophy7((il9 70)5.research dnfdif£eirentiated teacher int e r a c t i o n i.ne'oiC:p)D3^t:'eia the method of selecting children from either end of the rating continuum. They found that the teacher made a subjective judgement and rated the c h i l d on a scale. Children on either end of the scale were selected as subjects. For the present study, the day care supervisor completed a questionnaire on each c h i l d . Th questionnaire required the day care supervisor's perception of each c h i l d ' s behaviour. After scoring the questionnaire four children at each end of the r a t i n g scale were selected as subjects. In another Good and Brophy study (1974) delineated method in which the teacher was not overly concerned about being observed. This present study followed t h e i r method by explaining to the teacher that the i n t e r a c t i o n process being observed included both teacher and c h i l d , even though only the day care supervisor's in t e r a c t i o n with each c h i l d was analysed. Jones (1971) deleted a coding i n the Recitation category from the Good-Brophy Dyadic Interaction System. He found Reading Turns inapplicable to the high school subjects i n his study. He also added several behaviour codings to the Teacher-Afforded contact category. This present study also did not use Reading Turns codings, and also added several Behaviour codings. In a l l of the studies reviewed, the problems investigated were related to academic achievement. Even though t h i s investigation was concerned with interpersonal behaviour, the review of studies using the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction system provided supporting information about the u s e a b i l i t y of the instrument. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In t h i s present study of a day care supervisor's i n t e r -action with three and four year old children i n ;the day care setting, the data were co l l e c t e d by video tape recording and coded using a modification of the Good and Brophy Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction (1969). Analyses were performed i n order to fi n d i f the interaction of the day care supervisor with male and female children perceived as behaviourally 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 with those children not so perceived. Before the research problem was investigated, a p i l o t study was conducted to determine the f e a s i b i l i t y of the data c o l l e c t i o n and coding procedures. The methodology of t h i s p i l o t study w i l l be described f i r s t , followed by a description of the procedure followed to c o l l e c t , score and analyse the data and information for the primary study. P i l o t Study In order to obtain v a l i d data, i t was necessary to test the data c o l l e c t i o n procedures and instrumentation i n a p i l o t study, which was performed i n a day care centre close to a large metropolitan area. The centre met a l l the p r o v i n c i a l government regulations as did the centres in the primary study. The data c o l l e c t i o n procedure was modified for purposes of t h i s study to allow for clear recording of the dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between the day care superviser and each c h i l d . The instrumentation was also modified so that i t would better correspond to the day care environment. A more complete description of the modified i n s t r u -ment i s found i n Chapter I I . 37 Data C o l l e c t i o n Methods of observational research have i n the past mainly consisted of d i r e c t observation. In t h i s study the r e a l i z a t i o n of t o t a l observation and accurate recording posed a major d i f f i c u l t y . Development and variations of observation-a l methods and recordings are reported at length by Medley and Mitzel (1963). To determine the exis t i n g state of a f f a i r s , the investigator must a f f e c t the setting as l i t t l e as possible i n a natural f i e l d study. A suitable observational method should allow observation of behaviours and the obtaining of an accurate record of them without disturbing or influencing the natural s e t t i n g . The use of video recording as an observational medium permits maximum recording of behaviour with minimum intrusion into the s e t t i n g . Subsequent repeated viewings of ithe tapes provide unlimited opportunity for accurate coding and for maximum inter-coder agreement. This method was adopted for the present study. A single video camera was mounted on a movable tripod i n a selected spot i n the room. The spot was chosen so that, u s i -ng a wide angle lens, over three-quarters of the room could be covered. Since the audio equipment i n the camera was not s u i t -able for feeding the day care supervisor's voice into the tape recorder, a highly sensitive miniature F.M. battery microphone was clipped to the supervisor's l a p e l . Thus, the camera was foc-used upon the day care supervisor so that both picture and sound of the day care supervisor's in t e r a c t i o n with the children was recorded with reasonable f i d e l i t y on a hal f - i n c h tape. Video-taping the observed i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h i s manner f u l f i l l e d c r i t e r i a pointed out by Kounin (19 67). .... an observational medium should be passive and receptive rather than c r i t i c a l , should allow a l l events to come through without d i s -t o r t i o n or selection, should be free of a w i l l of i t s own and should neither r e s i s t nor i n v i t e occurrences onto i t s record. (p.87) An audio and T.V. monitor placed i n an area away from the children's a c t i v i t y p e r i o d i c a l l y monitored the tape recordings. The video tapes produced i n the p i l o t study provided the investigator with data to t r a i n the coders to use the Good and Brophy Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System (1969) . As a r e s u l t , the coding sheet as developed by Good and Brophy was modified for use i n the study. Coding procedures Six coders were trained by the researcher to use the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System. Because the coders were students nearing completion of the c e r t i f i c a t e programme i n Early Childhood Education,. Continuing Education, U.B.C, they were given three units of course c r e d i t for par-t i c i p a t i n g i n the t r a i n i n g procedure and coding of data. A l l the coders had at l e a s t three years of experience i n a day-care centre or nursery school. The t r a i n i n g procedure followed the steps outlined i n the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction Manual (1969). Additional time of a varied amount was spent by each coder between work sessions to complete assignments and to become knowledgeable about the interaction system. After becoming fa m i l i a r with the coding labels and usage, the coders were required to write examples of codings such as forms of c r i t i c i s m , praise, nurture, p o s i t i v e feedback, negative feed-back, behavioural, warning, and contact.. The group discussed these examples to consolidate conception of the codings. The coders were then shown fi v e minute portions of the p i l o t study video tape and required to code the interaction d i r e c t l y on the coding form. After each period, the codings were discussed. If there were discrepancies i n the coding, the video tape was replayed u n t i l there was a unanimous agreement and understanding. The coding periods gradually became longer u n t i l the group could code a half hour tape at one observational session. The tr 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, inter-coder agreement was investigated. The researcher and coders, working independently, coded a half hour tape never previously observed from the p i l o t study for a measure. Brophy and Good (1969) recommended that the percent agreements between d i f f e r e n t coders a t t a i n a minimal l e v e l of .80. In t h i s study, the agreement was taken for each coder and the researcher. 40 The percent agreement between each coder and the researcher was then calculated as: number of agreements  number of agreements + number of disagreements + number of omissions (Good and Brophy, 1969, p.103). The denominator represents the t o t a l number of codings while observing the half-hour tape. As seen from Table I, the percent agreement between the researcher and each coder varied from 82.6 to 9 2.6. In a l l instances, the percent was above the minimal 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 codings 52 52 52 52 52 52 Percent 86.6 88 .4 84.6 92.6 82.6 86.5 Primary Study Population Setting. This study concerned day care centres i n two suburbs (population i n each approximately 500,0 00) of a large metropolitan area i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia (B.C.). Both municipalities contain a vari e t y of socio-economic l e v e l s and have a m u l t i - c u l t u r a l representation throughout the community. Group day care for children i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s c l a s s i f e d as either (1) non-profit or (2) private. Because non-profit group day care f a c i l i t i e s are funded by the Ministry of Human Resources i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, and are required to operate under the standards set out by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board, Ministry of Health, they have common character-i s t i c s . 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 non-profit 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 selected Municipal Day Care Information O f f i c e . The. non-profit day care centres observed were operated by parent or community boards registered under the Societies Act of B.C. A l l had received government funding, such as c a p i t a l grant funds ($20,000); equipment grant ($2,500); and seed money ($2,500). These centres received t h i s funding between January 1973 and December 1974. The following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are common to the day care centres included i n t h i s study: (1) care i s provided to children from six to ten hours per day, Monday through Friday; (2) the centres adhere to the Regulations Act of the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board, Ministry of Health. This establishes: c h i l d - a d u l t r a t i o , space, age of children i n group, number of children i n group, number of q u a l i f i e d adults i n group (Act enclosed i n Appendix A); (3) children of families subsidized by the Ministry of Human Resources attend each day care; (4) a l l centres are regarded as providing programs for normal growth and development; (5) 2 5 children were enrolled i n each centre and (6) there are more four year old children than three year olds i n each centre. Day care supervisor. The day care supervisor i n each centre was a q u a l i f i e d female s t a f f person responsible for the administration of the centre and the children enrolled; the supervisor i s q u a l i f i e d according to the Regulations Act, Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board, Ministry of Health; although t r a i n i n g i s not standardized (see Appendix A). A l l of the day care supervisors had two or more years of experience as s t a f f members i n a day care centre. In each centre, there were two additional female s t a f f , the actual number- being determined by the r a t i o of eight children to each day care worker. The two additional staff'were paid assistant supervisors and were q u a l i f i e d or i n the process of obtaining licence q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Children. Three and four year o ld male and female ch i l d r e n were selected as subjects for t h i s study because they are i n the day care program f u l l time.* The ages of the children ranged between three years four months to four years eight months. The average length of attendance was approximately seven months. There were more four year old children i n each day care centre but the number of boys and g i r l s were constant. Each centre contained children from various c u l t u r a l backgrounds. Sample s e l e c t i o n procedure Two mun i c i p a l i t i e s which are geographically close to * Five year old children attend kindergarten i n the elementary school for half a day and attend the day care centre for half a day a large metropolitan centre and which share similar day care standards were selected as the sample base. After discussing the study proposal with the educational consultants i n the two Day Care Information o f f i c e s , verbal and written support and cooperation were received. In Area I, the researcher met with the day care supervisors at t h e i r regular monthly meeting to introduce the proposed study. The purpose was explained i n terms of observing the i n t e r a c t i o n of day care supervisors and children i n natural day care settings employing a video tape recorder. I t was also agreed that the findings of the study would be shared with the centres and Day Care Information O f f i c e . Following t h i s meet-ing, a l e t t e r was sent to each centre i n that area to i n v i t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study and to get permission from each in d i v i d u a l day care Board of Directors. A copy of the l e t t e r i s provided i n Appendix B. In Area I I , the educational consultant i n the Day Care Information O f f i c e provided the researcher with the names of seven centres. These centres were v i s i t e d by the researcher, who explained the proposed study to each supervisor. 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 centres v i s i t e d , requesting permission from each day care centre's Board of Directors. In response to the 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 the study, seven centres out of 25 i n each geographic area indicated t h e i r willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e . V i s i t s to each 44 of these centres were arranged to discuss with the supervisor some of the procedural d e t a i l s . I t also was explained that the verbal i n t e r a c t i o n of three and four year o l d children with the supervisor would be examined, but that because of limited funds not a l l the children would be observed. During t h i s v i s i t , the supervisor was asked to complete a questionnaire on every three and four 1 year o l d enrolled. This questionnaire was developed to i d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n considered by the day care supervisor as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviour-a l l y adapted. Before the f i n a l questionnaire was adopted, the investigator discussed a d r a f t with six day care supervisors i n the f i e l d not involved i n the study. These discussions enabled the development of a questionnaire which s a t i s f i e d the needs of the study. Relevant suggestions of the day care supervisors were incorporated i n the f i n a l form, a copy of which appears i n i l l u s t r a t i o n 2. The questionnaire was com-pleted independently by each day care supervisor for each three and four year o l d c h i l d i n the centre and returned to the investigator. The scoring of the questionnaire proceeded i n the following way: Question 1: Please c i r c l e as many adjectives as can be applied to describe the c h i l d most of the time. The adjectives: i n this-question f e l l into two categories: behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviourally adapted. 45 (-) Behaviourally D i f f e r e n t (BP) Apathetic anxious frustrated aggressive needs guidance needs support Total (-) (+) Behaviourally Adapted (BA) curious happy accepting affectionate f r i e n d l y 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 adjectives as apply to describe t h i s c h i l d most of the time. apathetic accepting aggressive curious frustrated needs guidance happy affectionate needs support anxious f r i e n d l y cooperative Please describe this c h i l d with any other additional adject-ives that are suitable. 3. Did anyone ever comment to you about this c h i l d ' s behaviour? Yes No Please indicate who. (nurse, parent, etc.) What did they say? Do you perceive t h i s c h i l d as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t i n the s o c i a l - emotional- i n t e l l e c t u a l areas from the other children i n the group? Yes No Please describe how. 5. Do you spend more time with t h i s c h i l d than with other children? Yes No Please indicate when. I l l u s t r a t i o n 2 Study Questionnaire 47 The score i s obtained by adding the negative t o t a l to the p o s i t i v e t o t a l . The r e s u l t i s then a (-) or (+) score. For example: a day care supervisor c i r c l e d four adjectives i n the behaviourally d i f f e r e n t category (-) and two adjectives i n the behaviourally adapted category (+). The t o t a l s are added -4 +2 = -2. Question I i s then scored as -2. Question I I . Please describe the c h i l d with any other additional adjectives that are suitable. Some of the adjectives added by the day care supervisor were bossy, bright, spaced out, back-ward . The investigator placed the additional objectives i n either of the two categories: behaviourally d i f f e r e n t (-) or behaviourally adapted (+). The score i s obtained by adding the negative weighted t o t a l to the p o s i t i v e weighted t o t a l . The r e s u l t i s then a (-) or a (+) number. For example: i f a day care supervisor has added three p o s i t i v e adjectives and one negative adjective, the score would be +3 + -1 =• +2. Question I I I . Did anyone ever comment to you about t h i s c h i l d ' s behaviour? What did they say? If the answer i s Yes, and negative remarks are made, then one point for BD (-). If answer i s Yes and p o s i t i v e remarks are made, then one point for BA (+). If answer i s No, then one point for BA (+) . Question IV. Do you perceive t h i s c h i l d as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t i n social-emotional-intellectual areas from the other children i n the group? If answer i s Yes then -5 point. If answer i s No then +5 point. The + points and the - points for the f i v e questions were t o t a l l e d . -The negative and posi t i v e subtotals were added to provide a pos i t i v e (+) or negative (-) score. If 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 behaviourally adapted. If 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 behaviourally d i f f e r e n t . Sample A two stage selection procedure was used i n the selection of day care centres and children for the sample. Day Care Centres and Supervisors. The f i r s t stage of the selection procedure consisted of scoring the data on each questionnaire i n order to c l a s s i f y the children into two categories: those who were perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and those who were perceived as behaviourally adapted by the day care supervisor. -Those day care supervisors having at l e a s t four and not more than six behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children i n t h e i r centres were considered for the study. For the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses i t was necessary that each day care centre s a t i s f y t h i s c r i t e r i a . The selection of day care supervisors corresponded with the selection of centres. Fourteen centres expressed t h e i r willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e ; out of t h i s number eight centres were eliminated. Five centres did not have the required number of behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children, and two centres had more than the required number of behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children. The remaining six supervisors i n six centres were selected for the study. Children. In the second stage of the s e l e c t i o n procedures, two boys and two g i r l s receiving the highest minus scores on the questionnaire of each centre were selected as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children; and the two boys and two g i r l s receiving the. highest plus scores were selected as the behaviourally adapted children. The f i n a l sample of children with t h e i r questionnaire scores i s provided i n Table 2. The f i n a l sample consisted of six centres and 50 Table 2. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Age and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Scores f o r Sample C h i l d r e n BD Male BD Female BA Male BA Female Age Behaviour Age Behaviour Age Behaviour Age Behaviou: Center 1 4 -11 4 -10 4 15 4 17 3 - 7 4 - 7 3 12 4 10 Center 2 4 - 9 4 -11 4 9 3 13 3 -13 4 -10 4 12 4 11 Center 3 3 - 9 3 - 8 3 12 4 11 4 - 8 4 -12 3 13 3 11 Cente r 4 4 -15 4 -16 3 13 4 14 4 -13 4 -14 4 16 4 13 Center 5 4 -12 4 -15 4 13 3 12 3 -13 3 -10 3 11 4 15 Center 6 3 - 8 3 - 9 4 13 3 11 4 -11 4 -10 3 11 4 13 51 48 children; 12 g i r l s and 12 boys-selected as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t ; and 12 g i r l s and 12 boys selected as behaviourally adapted. Data c o l l e c t i o n After the children and centres were selected, observations were taped, using the same procedures described for the p i l o t study. Observations were taped on three consecutive mornings i n each centre, from 8:30 to 12:30 p.m., thus providing a t o t a l of 72 hours of int e r a c t i o n data. During video taping the normal dysfunction of equipment was experienced. In one instance the microphone battery needed to be replaced and i n the other, the tape recorder was exchanged. In each case the video tape session was postponed u n t i l the following morning. No changes were made i n the day care programme and the only new equipment i n the room was the video recorder and camera. Some children noticed the camera almost at once, and the more curious came to investigate and examine the equipment more c l o s e l y . The calm acceptance and the minimal comment of the photographer seemed to s a t i s f y the children's c u r i o s i t y . Within a moment or two the children seemed to have forgotten the camera completely. In any case, i f they continued to be aware of the camera or of being observed, they gave no distinguishable evidence of concern or f uneasiness. Each day care super-visor commented about the i n i t i a l discomfort with the lapel microphone but as they became more involved with the children they forgot -their uneasiness with the video tape equipment. Coding procedure The video tape data <of each centre was coded by one coder randomly assigned to each centre. Two randomly selected tapes from each centre were also coded by the investigator and used as a r e l i a b i l i t y measure. The percent agreement (see p.40) was obtained between the investigator's coding and each coder. Table 3 presents the r e s u l t s of the r e l i a b i l i t y measure. Table 3. Inter-coder Biercen€ ;^^reJ§mg&€npr4marymsmMy Coder :1 2 3 -i 4 :?, 5 6 Tape I Tape II 86.5 83.3 87 .3 85.9 87.2 83.9 86.6 84.5 88 .5 84.7 87.2 84.6 In Each case the percent agreement exceeded the minimum value of .80 recommended by Good and Brophy (19 69). Design The study used a 6 x 2 x 2 (centre-by-behaviour-by-gender) f u l l y crossed f a c t o r a l design with the same number of subjects i n each c e l l . 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 design. M 2 2 2 V 2 2 2 BD F 2 2 2 2 2 2 M 2 2 2 2 2 2 BA 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 Factoral Design Data analyses For each c h i l d the frequency for each code (see I l l u s t r a t i o n 1) was tabulated. These data served as the basic input for subsequent data analyses. As suggested by Good and Brophy (19 69), codes were combined to construct varia b l e s . Thirty-three variables were constructed to meet the int e r e s t s of t h i s study. For example, variable I was constructed by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l of the code frequencies i n the c h i l d created category by the sum of the code frequen-ci e s i n the c h i l d created category plus the teacher created category. The name and d e f i n i t i o n for each of the 3 3 constructed variables are summarised i n Table 4. For purposes of t h i s study the 33 variables were grouped into nine c l u s t e r s . Four day care supervisors i n a geographic area separate from the research location and the investigator independently grouped the 33 variables. Five sets of variable cards were prepared and di s t r i b u t e d to the day care supervisors for 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 V a r i a b l e Name D e f i n i t i o n P r o p o r t i o n c h i l d c r e a t e d c o n t a c t s P r o p o r t i o n c h i l d c r e a t e d work con t a c t s i n c h i l d c r e a t e d contacts P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e i n t o t a l c o n t a c t s P r o p o r t i o n nurture i n t o t a l contacts P r o p o r t i o n c r i t i c i s m i n t o t a l c ontacts 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 con t a c t s 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 c r a t e d procedure c o n t a c t s 8 P r o p o r t i o n negative feedback i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work 9 P r o p o r t i o n negative feedback i n c h i l d c r e a t e d procedure contacts 10 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e i n c h i l d c r e a t e d work co n t a c t s 11 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e i n c h i l d c r e a t e d procedure contacts 12 P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n teacher c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t 13 P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n teacher c r e a t e d procedure contact 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 contact 15 P r o p o r t i o n negative feedback i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d procedure c o n t a c t 16 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d work contact codes 45-5 9 codes 2-84 45-51; 63-69 45-59 24 f 45, 54, 63, 72, 80 2-84 50, 58, 68, 76, 84 2-84 35 , 49, 51, 67, 75, 82 2-84 45, 47, 50 45-51 54, 55, 58 54-59 48, 49, 51 45-51 56, 57, 59 54-59 45 45-51 54 54-59 53, 65, 68 63-69 72, 73, 76 72-77 66, 67, 69 6 3-69 74, 75, 77 72-77 63 6 3-69 (continued , on next page) 55 Table 4. (continued) . V a r i a b l e Name D e f i n i t i o n 17 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d procedure c o n t a c t 72 72-77 18 P r o p o r t i o n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d work c o n t a c t s 63-69  i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d c o n t a c t 72-77; 63-69; 80-84 19 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e and nu r t u r e i n 80-84 behaviour c o n t a c t 80-84 20 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 81, 82, 83 i n behaviour 80-84 21 P r o p o r t i o n d i r e c t response o p p o r t u n i t y 7 i n type 6-9 22 P r o p o r t i o n c a l l out o p p o r t u n i t y i n type 9 6-9 2 3 P r o p o r t i o n process q u e s t i o n s i n l e v e l 12 12-15 2 4 P r o p o r t i o n p r o d u c t q u e s t i o n s i n l e v e l 13 12-15 25 P r o p o r t i o n t e r m i n a l feedback i n feedback 24-35 38-41 2 6 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e as second response 45, 54 i n c h i l d c r e a t e d c o n t a c t 45-59 2 7 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e as second response 6 3, 72 i n t e a c h e r c r e a t e d c o n t a c t 6 3-77 2 8 P r o p o r t i o n c r i t i c i s m as second response 49, 5 7 i n c h i l d c r e a t e d c o n t a c t 4 5 - 5 9 2 9 P r o p o r t i o n c r i t i c i s m as second response 6 7, 75 i n teacher c r e a t e d c o n t a c t 6 3-6 7 30 P r o p o r t i o n p r a i s e and nurture as second 80, 84 response i n behaviour c o n t a c t 80-84 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 81, 82, 83 as second response i n behaviour c o n t a c t 80-84 (concluded on next page) 56 Table 4 (concluded) V a r i a b l e Name D e f i n i t i o n 32 P r o p o r t i o n p o s i t i v e feedback i n 63, 65, 68, 72, 73, 76 c h i l d and t e a c h e r c r e a t e d contacts 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 48, 49 , 51 , 57, 59 c h i l d and t e a c h e r c r e a t e d contacts 65, 66, 67, 69,74,75,77 45-59 ; 6 3-71 57 requested to group the variable cards into clusters which would r e f l e c t t h e i r own practice i n early childhood education. The judges unanimously but independently agreed to group-the 33 variables into nine c l u s t e r s . Table 5 presents the nine plust e r s together with the member variab l e s . S ta 11s t i c a1 analyses ' Analyses of variances were used to test the nine hypothesis corresponding to the research question of t h i s study (see Chapter 1). Prior to these analyses of variance, the proportions described i n Table 4 were transformed using the arcsine transformation. The arcsine transformation i s used with dependent variables expressed as a proportion, thereby better s a t i s f y i n g the demands underlying the analysis of variance (Kirk, 1968, p.66). The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses were conducted i n two stages. Because systematic differences among the day care centres might mask the major differences of interests i n t h i s study, differences among centres with respect to each of the variables defined were investigated, employing a 6 x 2 x 2 (centre-by-behaviour-by sex) analyses of variance (MANOVA). The r e s u l t s of t h i s preliminary analyses confirmed differences among centres. Following Brophy and Good (1969), the scores were then standardized to mean zero, and standard deviation one, within each centre. This enabled the simultaneous i n v e s t i -gation of two factors: behaviour and sex, with the t h i r d factor, centres, c o n t r o l l e d . Table 5. Cluster Formation 58 Cluster Variables No Name No Name I Total Support 3 praise i n t o t a l contact 4 nurture i n t o t a l contact 32 posit i v e feedback i n t o t a l contact II Support i n Child 6 po s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created Created Contact work 7 po s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created procedural 10 priase c h i l d created work 26 praise as 2nd response c h i l d created III Support i n Teacher 12 pos i t i v e feedback teacher Created Contact created work 13 pos i t i v e feedback teacher created procedure 16 praise teacher created work 17 praise teacher created procedure 27 praise as 2nd response teacher created IV Total Non Support 5 c r i t i c i s m t o t a l contact 8 negative feedback c h i l d created work 14 negative feedback teacher crearted work 15 negative feedback teacher created procedure 28 c r i t i c i s m on 2nd response c h i l d created • 29 -.-cr-iticism as :2nd-_response-teacher created 33 negative feedback in t o t a l contact V Non Support 8 negative feedback created work Child Created (continued next page) Table 5 (concluded) 59 Cluster Variables No Name No Name V (continued) 9 negative feedback created procedure 28 c r i t i c i s m 2nd response c h i l d created VI Non Support: Teacher Created 14 negative feedback teacher created work 15 negative feedback teacher created procedure 20 red 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 created 31 re d i r e c t i o n and .2nd response i n behaviour VII Praise: Child Created 10 11 praise i n c h i l d created work praise i n c h i l d created procedure 26 praise 2nd response c h i l d created 30 praise 2nd response behaviour contact VIII Praise: Teacher Created 16 17 praise teacher created work praise teacher created procedure 19 praise behaviour contact 27 praise 2nd response i n teacher created IX Response ~v.Opportunities 21, 22 d i r e c t response c a l l out response 23 process question response. 24 product question response 25 terminal feedback The univariate analyses revealed that there was no evidence of in t e r a c t i o n for variables 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 31; that i s , each c h i l d received a zero frequency. These variables were deleted from further analyses. The remaining variables i n each cluster were then analyzed using a 2 x 2 (sex-by-behaviour) multi-variate analysis of variance. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses 1 were performed using the computer programme Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance and Regression (International Education Services) maintained by the Education Research Services Centre, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND SUMMARY Introduction As stated i n the opening chapter, t h i s study was b a s i c a l l y exploratory i n nature. The purpose was to i d e n t i f y day care supervisor's s i g n i f i c a n t interactions with children perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and to compare these interactions with children not so perceived. Differences were investigated for behaviour, gender and the interaction of each of 33 v a r i a b l e s . Six day care centres were selected for observation by the use of a questionnaire designed to select the centres and children. As a r e s u l t , the six day care supervisors and 48 children, comprising of,. 24 behaviourally d i f f e r e n t - c h i l d r e n and 24 behaviourally adapted children, were selected for obser-vation. The two groups contained an equal number of boys and g i r l s . The day care supervisors interaction with the selected children was videotaped i n the natural day care s e t t i n g . The video tape observations were subsequently coded with the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System (19 69) . After minor modification of the codes, 61 codes were employed to describe the in t e r a c t i o n of the day care supervisor with each c h i l d . Thirty-three variables were constructed by com-bining codes i n order to meet the informational needs of the problem. For purposes of analysis the 33 variables were grouped into nine c l u s t e r s . As a means to test the hypotheses expressed i n the n u l l form, a 2 x 2 (sex-by-behaviour) multi-variate analysis of variance was performed on the data i n each c l u s t e r . 62 For purposes of the present discussion, the data results w i l l be summarized i n an order similar to that followed when analyzing the data. \ su.'.'S w-l_ '.- - c . c-;s^ ~ ,.' -.... _™a JT»'' j . ' .'3: • ~ ;r.^ /-"s. » c " '. ..j. Results Preliminary Analyses After the nine clusters were formed the f i r s t step i n analyzing each cluster involved computing the mean and standard deviation for each member variable. The results of this preliminary analysis are contained i n Appendix C. Inspec-t i o n of these data revealed that the coding frequencies f o r variables 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31 were zero. These 12 variables are contained i n Cluster I Total Support, Cluster II Child Created Support, Cluster III Teacher Created Support, Cluster IV Teacher Created Non Support, and Cluster IX Response Opportunity. Cluster I Total Support subsumes Cluster II Child Created Support and Cluster III Teacher Created Support. These clusters contain variable 7 c h i l d created procedure p o s i t i v e feedback; variable 11 praise c h i l d created; variable 19 praise i n behaviour and variable 30, praise as second response i n behaviour. The frequency of occurrence for variables 7 and 11 was zero, thus indicating that the day care supervisor did not interac t with pos i t i v e feedback to any c h i l d i f the c h i l d created a contact about his own needs or in t e r e s t s . S i m i l a r l y , the frequencies for variables 19 and 30 were zero, thus i n d i c a t i n g that the day care supervisor did not respond with praise as an i n i t i a l response or second response to any c h i l d requiring the day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n . In Cluster IV Teacher Created Non Support, variable 9 (child-created procedure negative feedback); variable 20 (behaviour r e s t r i c t i o n ) ; and variable 31 (behaviour r e s t r i c t i o n as second response) were-not observed. This indicates that the day care supervisor did not respond with negative feedback to any c h i l d creating a behavioural problem. Variables 20 and 31 reveal that the day care supervisor did not respond with re-s t r i c t i o n as an i n i t i a l response- or a second response to any c h i l d requiring the day care supervisor's reaction to t h e i r behaviour. Variable 21 (direct response); variable 22 ( c a l l out response); v a r i a b l e 23 (process question); variable 24 (product question) and variable 25 (terminal feedback) form Cluster IX, Response Opportunity. The entire c l u s t e r was not observed which indicates that the day care supervisor d i d not ask any c h i l d a question during a, group a c t i v i t y . As a r e s u l t Cluster IX was.eliminated from further s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. Multivariant Analysis of Clusters The remaining variables i n each c l u s t e r were then analyzed using a 2 x 2 (Sex-by-Behaviour) multivariate analyses of variance. The c l u s t e r s including variables revealing difference between the compared groups were: Cluster I variables 3, 4, 32 Cluster II variables 5, 10, 26 Cluster III variables 12, 13 ,16, 17 , 27 Cluster IV variables 8, 14, 15, 28, 29 Cluster V variables 8, 28 Cluster VI variables 14, 15 , 29 Cluster VII variables 10, 26 Cluster VIII variables 16, 17 ,27 Cluster IX none The r e s u l t s of these analyses are reported for each c l u s t e r using two tables. The f i r s t table reports the mean, standard deviation and sample size for each of the four groups of children. The multivariate F s t a t i s t i c and the corresponding univariate F r a t i o s for each member variable i n each c l u s t e r are presented i n the second table. -A b r i e f discussion pre-cedes the two tables reporting the data r e s u l t s for each c l u s t e r . C l u s t e r I; Total Support.. The c e l l mean,., standard devia-tions and sample size for Cluster I are reported i n Table 6. The r e s u l t s of the corresponding multivariate analysis of variance are reported i n Table 7. The multivariate F r a t i o s i n Table 7 reveals that t o t a l support was s i g n i f i c a n t at p<.05 for the behaviour factor. The univariate F s t a t i s t i c s disclose that 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 behaviour-a l l y d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted, children for nurture (variable 4). Inspection of Table 6 reveals that behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children received proportionally less nurture (variable 4) than behaviourally adapted children. For praise (variable 3) and positive feedback (variable 32) the univariate F s t a t i s t i c s show no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups. Si m i l a r l y no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found for gender or for the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two factors of gender and behaviour. 66 Table 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 Group n V a r i a b l e s 3 4 32 male BD 12 3.13% 13.8% 23.1% (5.0) (10.4) (9.5) male BA 12 11.2 19.5 26.5 (11.5) (14.7) (10.6) female BD 12 3.9 22.4 29.0 (3.4) (15. 3) (8.0) female BA 12 7. 7 31.2 21.0 (13.0) (22.6) (9.2) (Note ( ) = standa r d d e v i a t i o n Table 7. C l u s t e r I. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f Variance f o r T o t a l Support So urce M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F S t a t i s t i c F df df 3 4 32 Sex 2.37 (3,42) 1 a0.20 1.30 6.66 Behaviour 3.69* (3,42) 1 2 .98 7. 33* 0.20 Sex x behaviour 0.82 (3,42) 1 a0.52- a0.10' 2.22 W i t h i n 44 p<.05 a. The value f o r F r a t i o s l e s s than one are not p r o v i d e d i n t h i s t a b l e and the corresponding t a b l e s f o r each of the remaining c l u s t e r s . . I n s p e c t i o n of the 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 cases the means to be compared were'very n e a r l y equal, i n o t h e r s the l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y coupled with the small sample s i z e helped to account f o r the v a l u e s . 67 Cluster II Support C h i l d Created. Table 8 reports c e l l mean, standard deviations and c e l l sample size for Cluster I I . The MANOVA summarized i n Table 9, Cluster II was signir-f i c a n t at p<.05 for behaviour. : The univariate F r a t i o s reveal that the day care supervisor's interaction with behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children 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 interactions with behaviourally adapted children for variable 6, p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created work. As shown i n Table 8, behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children received proportionally less p o s i t i v e feedback c h i l d created than behaviourally adapted ch i l d r e n . Praise i n . c h i l d created work (variable 10) and praise as second response c h i l d created (variable 26) were not s i g n i f i c a n t . S i m i l a r i l y the day care supervisor's response was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d for gender or i n the 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 and Standard D e v i a t i o n s For Support C h i l d C reated Group n 6 V a r i a b l e s 10 26 male BD 12 74. 8 .58 .16 (21.7) (1.4) (.58) male BA 12 74. 3 2.2 1.1 (28. 7) (4.6) (3.5) female BD 12 83.5 3. 3 1.2 (19.1) (5.1) (2.6) female BA 12 89.9 9.5 1.5 (14.7) (17.1) (4.8) Note ( ) = stand a r d d e v i a t i o n Table 9. C l u s t e r 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 f o r Support C h i l d Created M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df df 6 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 behaviour 0. 13 (4,41) 1 0. 37 0. 01 0.16 Wi t h i n 44 69 Cluster III Support Teacher Created Table 10 reports the c e l l means, standard deviations and c e l l sample s i z e . Table 11 summarizes the MANOVA for Cluster I I I . The multivariate F r a t i o s i n Table 11 reveal that Cluster I I I was not s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.05. However, the univariate F s t a t i s t i c reveals that positive feedback i n teacher created contact (variable 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 behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children. This would indicate by the nature of the test that a probable Type I error has occurred for variable 12. Thus, variable 12 w i l l 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 variable i n the discussion of these data. 70 Table 10. C l u s 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 C r e a t e d Group n V a r i a b l e s 12 13 16 17 27 male BD 12 78.6 (19.6) 20.0 (23.0) 2.8 (3.9) 0 * (0) .5 (1.0) male BA 12 84.6 (12.1) 15. 7 (15.9) 6.3 (13.7) 3.5 (9.4) 1.0 (2.1) female BD 12 76.0 (27.1) 24.0 (23.22) 1. 7 (1.8) .5 (1.5) .2 ( .87) female BA 12 92.0 (9.1) 23.0 (21.51) 1.9 (5.4) . 3 (1.2) 0 (0) Note ( ) = st a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n Table 11. C l u s t e r 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 f o r Support Teacher Created Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df df 12 13 16 17 27 Sex 0. ,63 (5, ,40) 1 . 0.02 .03 . 35 2.14 1.25 Behaviour 1. ,42 (5, ,40) 1 4.44*1.92 1.62 . 36 .20 Sex x behaviour 0. 47 (5, ,40) 1 0 .01 2.28 .51 .20 Wit h i n 44 71 Cluster IV Total Non Support. The mean, standard deviations and c e l l sample s i z e for Cluster IV are reported i n Table 12. The corresponding MANOVA summary i s summarized i n Table 13. The multivariate F r a t i o s i n Table 13 reveal that Cluster IV was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) for behaviour. The corresponding univariate F s t a t i s t i c s show that negative feedback i n c h i l d created work (variable 8), negative feedback i n teacher created work (variable 14), and c r i t i c i s m as a second response i n c h i l d created (variable 28) were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children by the day care supervisor. The c e l l means i n Table 12 reveal that behaviour-a l l y d i f f e r e n t children received proportionally more negative feedback i n c h i l d created work, negative feedback i n teacher created work, and c r i t i c i s m as a second response i n c h i l d created than did behaviourally adapted children. The univariate F s t a t i s t i c s for negative feedback teacher created procedure and c r i t i c i s m as second response-teacher created were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Again, the day care supervisor'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, or i n the inte 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 and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r T o t a l Non Support Group n V a r i a b l e s 8 14 15 28 29 male BD 12 24. 8 21.1 12.1 2.8 3.1 (22.0) (25.5) (25.5) (5.3) (6.4) male BA 12 21.5 8.7 1.4 .9 .5 (28. 7) (11.5) (2.3) (3.2) (1.1) female BD 12 15. 8 20.4 3.5 1.2 2.3 (19.5) (23.6) ,(6.4) (2.1) (3.3) female BA 12 9.4 5.1 2.3' 0.0 0.0 (14.3) (9.4) (5.0) 0.0 ( .30) Note ( ) = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n Table 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 o f Variance f o r T o t a l Non Support Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df df 8 14 15 28 29 Sex 1. 76 (5 ,40) 1 1.94 09 1.67 4. 27 Behaviour 3. 86* (5 ,40) 1 13.59*12. 80* 1.60 4. 66* Sex x behaviour . 88 (5 ,40) 1 .51 39 .53 1. 98 Within 44 * p<.05 73 Cluster V Non Support Child Created. The analysis of variance summary i s presented i n Table 15, and Table 14 con-tains the c e l l means, standard deviations and c e l l sample size for Cluster V. Table 15 reveals that non support c h i l d created i s s i g n i f i c a n t at p<.05 for behaviour. The univariate F s t a t i s t i c s reveal that negative feedback c h i l d created work (variable 8), and c r i t i c i s m as a second response (variable 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, behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children received proportionally more negative feedback i n c h i l d created work (variable 8) and c r i t i c i s m as second response than did behaviourally adapted children. The day care supervisor's response was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d for gender or i n the i n t e r -action between behaviour and gender. 74 Table 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 C r e a t e d Group n V a r i a b l e s  8 28 male BD 12 24. 8 2.8 (22.0) :(5.3) male\BA 12 21.5)' .9 (28.7) (3.2) female BD 12 15. 8 1.2 (19.5) (2.1) female BA 12 9.4 0 (14.3) (0) Note ( ) = standard d e v i a t i o n Table 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 o f Variance f o r Non Support C h i l d Created Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df df 8 28 Sex 2.09 (2 ,43) 1 8 4.27 Behaviour 6.72* (2,43) 1 13.6* 4.66* Sex x behaviour 1.01 (2 ,43) 1 1.52 1.98 Within 44 . * p<.05 < 75 Cluster VI Non Support Teacher Created. The c e l l means, standard deviations and c e l l sample size are reported i n Table 16. The MANOVA summary i s reported i n Table 17. Variable 14 contributed to the s i g n i f i c a n t multivariate F, observed for behaviour. The c e l l means i n Table 16 reveal that behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children receive proportionally more teacher created negative feedback work than behaviourally adapted children. The day care supervisor's responses did not d i f f e r between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children on negative feedback teacher created procedure (variable 15) and c r i t i c i s m as second response i n teacher created (variable 29). The response of the day care supervisor was also 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 inte r a c t i o n between behaviour and gender. 76 Table 16. C l u s t e r VI. C e l l Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Non Support Teacher Cre ate d Group n V a r i a b l e s . 14 15 29 male BD 12 21.1 12.1 3.0 (17.3) (25.5) (6.4) male,BA 12 8.7 1.4 .5 (11.5) (2.3) (1.1) female BD 12 20.4 3.5 2.5 (23.6) (6.4) (3.3) female BA 12 5.1 2.3 0.0 (9.4) . (5.0) ( .30) Note ( ) = standard d e v i a t i o n Table 17. C l u s t e r VI. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f Variance f o r Non Support Teacher Created Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e d f U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c • F df 14 15 29 Sex 1.18 (3,42) 1 .09 1.67 1.64 Behaviour 4.25* (3,42) 1 12.2* 1.61 . 38 Sex x behaviour .25 (3,42) 1 . 39 .53 .06 W i t h i n 44 * p<.05 77 Cluster VII Praise Child Created. -Table 18 reports the c e l l means, standard deviation and cell.sample size for Cluster VII. The corresponding multivariate analysis are presented i n Table 19. -The multivariate F r a t i o s i n Table 19 reveal that Cluster VII Praise C h i l d Created i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.05. The day care supervisor's response between the groups was not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d for praise c h i l d created work (variable 10) or praise as a second response i n c h i l d created (variable 26) . 78 Table 18. C l u s t e r VII D e v i a t i o n s C e l l Means and f o r P r a i s e C h i l d Standard Created Group n V a r i a b l e s 10 26 male BD 12 .5 (1.8) .1 (.58) male.BA 1 2 ) 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 ( ) = s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n Table 19. C l u s t e r V 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 f o r P r a i s e C h i l d Created Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df df 10 26 Sex 1.64 (2,43) 1 Behaviour 0.41 (2,4 3) 1 Sex x behaviour 0. 79 (2,43) 1 W i t h i n 44 2.60 0.51 0.01 1.67 0.57 0.16 79 Cluster VIII Praise Teacher Created. Table 20 reports the c e l l means, standard deviations and c e l l sample size for Cluster VIII. The corresponding multivariate analysis summary i s presented i n Table 21. The multivariate F values reveal that Cluster VIII Praise Teacher Created i s not s i g n i -f i c a n t at p<.05. The day care supervisor does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e her response between compared groups on praise teacher created work (variable 16), praise teacher created procedure (variable 17), and praise as a second response teacher created (variable 27) . 80 Table 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 C h i l d C r e a t e d Group n 16 V a r i a b l e s 17 27 male BD 12 2.8 0.0 .5 (4.0) (0) (1.0) male BA 12 6.3 3.5 1.0 (3.7) (9.5) (2.1) female BD 12 1.7 .5 .2 (1.9) (1.5) (.87) female BA 12 1.9 0.0 0.0 (5.4) (1.1) (0) Note ( ) = standar d d e v i a t i o n s Table 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 f o r P r a i s e C h i l d C reated Source M u l t i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e U n i v a r i a t e F. S t a t i s t i c F df 16 17 27 Sex 1.09 (3,42) 1 . 35 2.13 1.25 Behaviour . 86 (3,42) 1 1.62 . 361 .20 Sex x behaviour . 80 (3,42) 1 1.28 .51 .20 Wit h i n 44 Inspection of Tables 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 reveals that across the eight c l u s t e r s there were no s i g n i f i -cant differences between boys and g i r l s and i n the in t e r a c t i o n between the two factors of behaviour and gender. Thus, i t can be concluded that those differences- observed between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children are pervasive across gender and. that gender i s not a deter-miner of the day care supervisor 1s perception toward children. From the foregoing results- the-hypothesis that the day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t with behaviour-a l l y d i f f e r e n t children when compared to in t e r a c t i o n with behaviourally adapted c h i l d r e n i s supported for several v a r i -ables and c l u s t e r s . The day care supervisor's in t e r a c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children for t o t a l support, support c h i l d created,, t o t a l non support, non support teacher created and non support c h i l d created. In a l l work situations the day care supervisor provided less p o s i t i v e feedback and more negative feedback to behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children than to behaviourally adapted children. Nurture responses provided by the day care supervisor to behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children were les s than those provided behaviourally adapted children, and c r i t i c i s m as a second response was provided more to behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children when they i n i t i a t e d the contact than to behaviourally adapted children. The conclusions and implications derived from the above res u l t s are discussed i n Chapter V. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The major purpose of t h i s study was to determine any observable differences between the int e r a c t i o n of a day care supervisor with three and four year old children per-ceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t when compared to the supervisor's interaction with children not perceived i n th i s manner. The interactions of six day care supervisors with 48 selected c h i l d r e n i n six non-profit day care centres i n two mun i c i p a l i t i e s of a large metropolitan area i n B r i t i s h Columbia were examined. A two-stage selection procedure was implemented to select the'centres and children. The day care supervisor completed a questionnaire designed to i d e n t i f y behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children, for each three and four year old c h i l d . The questionnaire scores were used f i r s t to i d e n t i f y the six centres for the study, then to select from each centre eight c h i l d r e n , two most behaviourally d i f f e r e n t boys, two most behaviourally d i f f e r e n t g i r l s , two most behaviourally adapted boys and two most behaviourally adapted g i r l s . Each day care supervisor's interactions with the eight selected c h i l d r e n were video taped on three consecutive mornings from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. i n the natural day care s e t t i n g . The Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System (19 69) was used to code the recorded observations. 83 After minor modification of the Brophy and Good instrument, 61 codes were used to describe the interaction of the day care supervisor with the selected children. Six coders were trained to code the video taped observations. -The mean inter-coder r e l i a b i l i t y was established at over 80% as required by Brophy and Good (19 69) for the p i l o t study and for the f u l l study. By grouping codes, .33 variables-were constructed and then grouped into nine c l u s t e r s representative of the major classes of supervisor-child interactions found i n day care centres. Preliminary data analysis revealed differences among centres, thus the data were standardized (mean zero, standard deviation one) within centres. Each cl u s t e r was then analyzed using a 2-x-2 (behaviour-by-gender) multivariate analyses of variance. The findings revealed that (1) though i t was assumed that the day care supervisor would i n t e r a c t with both groups of children i n a l l si t u a t i o n s , some interactions did not occur; (2) for some cl u s t e r s the day care supervisors* i n t e r - -actions were not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children; (3) for the remaining c l u s t e r s the day care supervisors interactions 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 behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children; 84 (4) the sex of the c h i l d was not a factor i n the day care supervisor's interactions, nor was the inte r a c t i o n between the behaviour and the gender of the c h i l d s i g n i f i c a n t i n any int e r a c t i o n . CONCLUSIONS Two major headings selected for discussion were non-d i f f e r e n t i a t e d interactions and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d interactions of day care supervisors with behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviour-a l l y adapted children. Non-differentiated Interaction Within the l i m i t s of the.data f i v e findings are pertinent. (1) No frequency was recorded for posit i v e feedback, nega-ti v e feedback or praise when a c h i l d i n i t i a t e d a contact to meet his personal needs or i n t e r e s t s . One can only wonder i f the children were not i n i t i a t o r s i n t h i s area of contact because of inexperience or former experience, or i f the day care supervisor did not intera c t with children i n t h i s area of contact because i t was deemed to be unimportant. (2) No day care supervisors were observed to intera c t with any c h i l d i n the response opportunity category (which noted interactions i n large or small group a c t i v i t i e s such as c i r c l e time or story time) during which the 85 day care supervisor questions and the children are provided an opportunity for answers and discussion. If the response opportunity 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 teaching techniques, these re s u l t s tend to suggest inappropriate planning for and teaching of group a c t i v i t i e s . - This would eliminate any possible i n t e r a c t i o n with children i n t h i s area. (3) No r e s t r i c t i o n s of the children's unacceptable behaviour were observed. Here again there seem to be l i n k s with inappropriate teaching practice, which did not employ p o s i t i v e techniques i n order to maximize a c h i l d ' s acceptable behaviour, or with i n s u f f i c i e n t knowledge of i n t e r a c t i o n a l process. (4T); Similar or non-differentiated responses were noted for behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children i n interactions created by the supervisor requiring her supportive response, such as p o s i t i v e feedback and praise i n work and procedure a c t i v i t i e s . While the responses to the two groups was undifferen-t i a t e d , the day care supervisor provided very low frequencies of praise in t e r a c t i o n to a l l children. (5) the sex of the c h i l d was not found to a f f e c t interaction, with the day care supervisor. -This undifferentiated response might be due to the influence on attitudes of day care supervisors of a great many workshops and in-service sessions given by i n s t i t u t i o n s and organiza-tions conscious of the sex r o l e stereotyping of children;' or,the fact that three and four year old children s t i l l have not recognized sex d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , and therefore the g i r l s and boys interact with the day care supervisor s i m i l a r l y ; or,that the day care super-visor perceives children of t h i s age as e s s e n t i a l l y sexless. However i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the supervisors could d i f f e r e n t i a t e some of t h e i r i n t e r -actions with c h i l d r e n on the behaviour variable but probably did 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 investigator had assumed that a behaviourally d i f f e r e n t c h i l d could require more of the day care supervisors attention and assistance, therefore forcing the day care supervisor to interact with observable difference between the two groups, the data did not support t h i s assumption Further, because the investigator accepted the assertions of White (1971) that success i s . v i t a l to the growth and p o s i t i v e feedback could be interpreted as success, the data i n d i c a t i n g that day care supervisors i n t h i s study provided neither the qu a l i t y nor quantity of praise or p o s i t i v e feedback to s a t i s f y i n d i v i d u a l differences suggest that further investigation i s required. D i f f e r e n t i a t e d Interaction Within the l i m i t s of the data, two findings were pertinent. (1) Less supportive i n t e r a c t i o n was provided to young children perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t by the day care supervisor than to children not perceived i n t h i s manner. The s i g n i f i c a n t a t t r i b u t e s d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children i n Total Support (Cluster I) was the nurture and po s i t i v e feedback response of the day care supervisor. Behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children were found to receive less nurture than behaviourally adapted children. However i t was also evident that both behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted childr e n received l i t t l e nurturing i n t e r a c t i o n (Table 6) from the day care supervisor. When either the c h i l d or the supervisor created an i n t e r a c t i o n a l work contact, children perceived to be behaviourally d i f f e r e n t received less p o s i t i v e feedback from the day care supervisor than behaviourally adapted children. The findings suggest that even, though behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children receive l e s s p o s i t i v e feedback i n work contacts than behaviourally adapted children, the amount of p o s i t i v e feedback given to any c h i l d i s very low (Tables 10 and 11) i n comparison to the t o t a l i nteractions. (2) Besides receiving l e s s t o t a l support (praise, p o s i t i v e feedback, nurture) from the day care supervisor, the behaviourally d i f f e r e n t children received more .negative feedback and c r i t i c i s m as second response from the day care supervisor than behaviourally adapted children. In work contacts the day care supervisor responded with s i g n i f i c a n t l y more negative feedback to behaviourally d i f f e r e n t than to behaviourally adapted children. Work contacts appeared to be the category y i e l d i n g the greatest number of responses from the supervisor. (The work category focuses upon the supervisor's directed a c t i v i t i e s / material and equipment for the child.) Certain assumptions a r i s i n g from the above findings concerning day care supervisors d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i nteraction are: (a) The behaviourally d i f f e r e n t c h i l d ' s development of future competencies i s l e s s l i k e l y to occur than that of a behaviourally adapted c h i l d because the behaviourally d i f f e r e n t c h i l d receives l e s s nurture from the day care supervisor. Bandura (1963), White (1978) and Skeels (1966) have emphasized that the the nurture provided by the long term caring adult i s most i n f l u e n t i a l upon the pre-school c h i l d ' s development of future competency and intellect'. (b) Because children i n t h e i r early years need p o s i t i v e feedback from the adults 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 developing s e l f image/ (Bronfrenbrener, 1971) i t may be reasonably assumed from the data of t h i s exploratory study that behaviour-a l l y d i f f e r e n t children who receive less positive feed-back and more negative feedback and c r i t i c i s m i n work contacts from the day care supervisor are not receiving the q u a l i t y of i n t e r a c t i o n required to develop a p o s i t i v e s e l f concept. (c) In order to account for the low frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n i n a l l clusters i t may be assumed that the i n t e r a c t i o n of the day care supervisor with the selected children, (who were selected extremes of behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted) r e f l e c t unconscious avoidance of these children. I t may well be that more supervisors interactions occur with the bulk of the children i n the middle of the behaviour continuum who are less d i f f i c u l t i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the supervisor. Within the l i m i t s of the data, the conclusions of t h i s exploratory study are summarized as follows. ..The day care supervisors d i d perceive three and four year old childr e n as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviourally adapted.-..The day care supervisors did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r i n t e r -actions between male and female children. ..The day care supervisors did not i n t e r a c t with any c h i l d , behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviourally adapted, i n group s i t u a t i o n s . 90 .. The day care supervisors did not r e s t r i c t unacceptable behaviour for either group. ..The day care supervisors did not interact with any c h i l d , behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviourally adapted, when the c h i l d i n i t i a t e d a contact to meet his personal needs or i n t e r e s t s . ..The day care supervisors did d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r interactions between behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted children on support and non-support c l u s t e r s . ..The day care supervisors provided less nurture and p o s i t i v e feedback to behaviourally 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 supervisor's provided more c r i t i c i s m to behaviourally d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n . ..The day care supervisors did provide undifferentiated but low frequency praise to a l l children. Limitations Although the r e s u l t s of the study provided useful 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 important l i m i t a t i o n was the small and r e s t r i c t e d sample. Only six day care supervisors were observed i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with 48 c h i l d r e n . The small sample may have r e s t r i c t e d the information the•Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interation (1969) was capable of providing. A larger sample involving more day care centres and childr e n might have provided data with more vari e t y and possibly more responses i n those categories where no interaction was recorded. Another l i m i t a t i o n was the time span a l l o t t e d for the c o l l e c t i o n of data. Observations were made on three con-secutive mornings from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to provide 72 hours of video tape. Data c o l l e c t e d over a longer period might have provided information to questions not formulated for t h i s study. Implications for Day Care Practice Implications for supervisors Developmental researchers such as Sears, McCoby and Levin (1957), and Bandura (1969) suggest that every c h i l d requires much support, nurture, p o s i t i v e feedback and praise from the constant caregiver. The findings of t h i s study indicate that day care supervisor's interactions with children perceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t are l e s s supportive (positive feedback, praise, nurture) than with children not perceived 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) that points out that teachers act upon, the i r perceptions through t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with children. The findings imply that there i s a great need for day care supervisors to become more aware of how they do or do not interact with children i n t h e i r care. However d i f f i c u l t i t may be for supervisors to assess th e i r own interactions with children, they need to learn how to monitor th e i r own behaviour or feedback i f they are to improve the patterns of inte r a c t i o n i n the day care environment. Implications for evaluation , Clear l y , the value of process evaluation l i e s not only i n the provision of i n t e r a c t i o n a l data which i s related to the products of educational experiences, but also i n the opportunity for fostering teacher-awareness. Moffett and Ryan (1975) have demonstrated that teachers are very often unaware of responding d i f f e r e n t l y to d i f f e r e n t c h i l d r e n . Day care supervisor's teaching involves r a p i d l y paced sequences of in t e r a c t i o n and i t i s understandably d i f f i c u l t for the day care supervisors to keep up with, l e t alone to monitor t h e i r own behaviour. However, the findings of t h i s study suggest that there are many situations i n which children would benefit i f the supervisors had information about t h e i r interactions with children. Former research indicates that teachers can predict f a i r l y accurately when asked about student a b i l i t y , but are r e l a t i v e l y unaware of their patterns of interactions with students (Baker, 1972), es p e c i a l l y i n d i v i d u a l differences among children. If one assumes that day care supervisors are unaware of the i r interaction,and callousness, indifference or lack of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s not the major cause of i n -appropriate interactions, i t follows that much inappropriate 93 i n t e r a c t i o n can be modified by making the day care supervisor aware what he/she i s doing. Present, l i t e r a t u r e strongly supports t h i s idea (Whithall 1956; McNeil 1971). Survey data show that e f f e c t i v e supervisory evaluative methods are sorely needed. Most day care supervisors and teachers are r a r e l y or never observed or given factual feedback by advisory con-sultants (Day Care Information 1975; McNeil 1971). Furthermore day care supervisors tend to r e j e c t the consultant's feedback as often they do not agree with or are unfamiliar with the values or c r i t e r i a that the evaluation i s based upon,(McNeil 1971) . Good and Brophy (19 74) point out that the evaluator of a teacher's i n t e r a c t i o n with children should be a resource person to the teacher, o f f e r i n g meaningful feedback and r a t i o n a l suggestions for change. Systematic evaluation of a day care supervisor's in t e r a c t i o n with children could be implemented within the framework of supervisory services of the Area Day Care Information O f f i c e , thereby providing day care supervisors with useful information from objective obser-vation about appropriate and inappropriate in t e r a c t i o n with i n d i v i d u a l children. Implications for children Day care supervisors knowledgeable about t h e i r interactions with children could become more aware of and there-fore able to modify th e i r responses to children. They would be able to provide children optimal opportunities for accept-able behavioural responses by v i r t u e of t h e i r own supportive i n t e r a c t i o n . For instance, i n one of the day care centres, Robbie, perceived as a behaviourally d i f f e r e n t c h i l d by the day care supervisor, continually received negative feedback and c r i t i c i s m for his behaviour. Had the day care supervisor become more aware of her interactions with Robbie by viewing a video tape or by feedback based upon objective observation she could have modified them i n such ways as to r e s t r i c t Robbie's unacceptable behaviour by providing him with acceptable alternatives that could be supported, praised and nurtured. If the adult supervisor sets up supportive i n t e r -actions as well as an appropriate physical environment, the behaviour of young childre n could better be supported. As a r e s u l t , day care supervisors might have fewer children per-ceived as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t i n their day care. Not only w i l l the day care supervisor be setting a behavioural pattern and model for young children, she/he w i l l also be pro-viding interaction that encourages i n t e l l e c t u a l , s o c i a l and emotional human competence (Bruner, .1971; White 1975) . The present study the day care supervisors perceived young children as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t or behaviourally adapted within the group, the question inevitably a r i s e s whether the same day care supervisor would d i f f e r e n t i a t e among young children on other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s also, thereby creating such labels as high achievers, low achievers, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y competent, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y incompetent; emotionally well or emotionally unwell. With the information provided by the 95 present study and support of related research v(see- Chapter I I ) , one can conclude that day care supervisors do perceive children d i f f e r e n t l y and interact with them according to those perceptions. Thus, the day care supervisor's teaching s t y l e , behaviour and expectations of children may be changed, thereby a f f e c t i n g the young c h i l d ' s behaviour and learning p o t e n t i a l . Implications for t r a i n i n g day care supervisors The findings of t h i s study imply that day care supervisors either lack knowledge about,the i n t e r a c t i o n a l process between adult 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 . In order to provide a l l children i n day care with optimal opportunities to develop a wide range of required competencies i t i s necessary to consider the addition of an i n t e r a c t i o n a l knowledge base i n day care super-v i s o r s ' t r a i n i n g programs. Presently the various t r a i n i n g programs emphasize methods courses and a basic course- i n c h i l d development. Knowledge of i n t e r a c t i o n a l process integrated with knowledge of c h i l d development could greatly enhance the day to day interactions of supervisors with each c h i l d . The following example serves to i l l u s t r a t e the lack of such knowledge, as well as i t s non-integration with c h i l d development understanding. The day care supervisor, Mrs. X> perceived four year old Sarah as behaviourally d i f f e r e n t , describing her as rude and a l i a r . ' One morning Mrs.. X sat next to Sarah during snack. Sarah i n i t i a t e d the i n t e r a c t i o n by informing Mrs. X about he r s e l f . "Do you know I'm a whale train e r ? " Mrs. X r e p l i e d , "Oh no you are not, you're too small." "Oh no," r e p l i e d Sarah, "I am, and I t r a i n sharks too!" Mrs. X turned so that her back almost faced Sarah and retorted, "You can't, you are too l i t t l e . " "Oh yes I can, I'm big, 'cause I'm getting a dolphin and I'm going to t r a i n him t o o l " was the reply.- Mrs. X immediately l e f t the table and said, "Those are l i e s , Sarah. Can't you t e l l me true things - ever?" Sarah was quiet for a moment, then said, "I know something that you don't know." Mrs. X looked extremely i r r i t a t e d and did not reply. Sarah continued, "You think whale doctors are whales don't you? Well, they aren't you know, whale doctors are people!" Mrs. X went to the other side of the room and began a conversation with another c h i l d . Had t h i s day care supervisor / some knowledge about the inte r a c t i o n process and integrated i t with her under-standings of c h i l d development, her interaction with the c h i l d might have been more accepting and supportive. Many sim i l a r situations were recorded during the course of the study pro-viding strong support for incorporating knowledge about teacher-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i n a tr a i n i n g program. Implications for Further Research This exploratory study held i n natural day care settings tends to ra i s e more questions than i t answers. How-ever, because i t i s a f i e l d study i t does throw some l i g h t on 97 variables, processes and interactions that deserve careful attention in future research. In general, the data from t h i s study firmly supports the view that d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher interaction i s r e a l but i s by no means universal. A p a r a l l e l investigation to t h i s study might elect to use a variety of methods for assessing children's developmental status, possibly thereby more accurately defining the v a l i d i t y of the day care supervisors' perceptions of i n d i v i d u a l children. Matching t h i s assessment to the day care supervisors' interactions with the c h i l d also might provide information about the needs of individual children and the way i n which the supervisor meets these needs, through interaction analyses. In previous i n t e r a c t i o n a l research involving young children and teachers (Katz, 19 69; Prescott, 1969; Richenberg-Hackett 19 62), the findings provided information about the "average" teacher i n t e r a c t i o n with a group of children. However, these findings could not r e f l e c t the way the day care supervisor actually interacts with i n d i v i d u a l children. For example: the day care supervisor who provides nurture i n general to a group of children might simultaneously, provide negative feedback to or c r i t i c i s m of individual children. S i m i l a r l y the t y p i c a l teacher-class observation system, nurture may average high on a measure. However, the average nurture provided to the group by the supervisor inaccurately portrays the supervisor's interaction and degree of nurture as experienced by an individual c h i l d . The outcome of t h i s study suggests that observation of dyadic day care supervisor-child i n t e r a c t i o n might be expanded to study re c i p r o c a l interaction between the c h i l d and the day care supervisor. In observing d i f f e r e n t day care supervisors i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with young children there appeared to be d i s t i n c t differences i n the e f f e c t of such in t e r a c t i o n upon children's desirable behaviour. I t might be f r u i t f u l to study the e f f e c t i v e kinds of things day care supervisors do, in t e r a c t i o n of the day care supervisor with children and the consequences upon the children's s o c i a l , emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l develop ment. Further understanding of the day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n with pre-school children and the e f f e c t of t h e i r s p e c i f i c interactions upon children's development seems to be c r u c i a l to quality day care programs. The interactions of each day care supervisor i n t h i s study with eight children who represented the extremes i n behaviour measured at a. very low frequency. Might i t be that the day care supervisor interacted with greater frequency with children found i n the middle of the two extreme categories? In other words does the day care.supervisor anticipate more d i f f i c u l t interaction with the .behaviour extremes thus preferring not to i n t e r a c t with them but rather with the majority of children found i n the middle of the behaviour continuum? This question would require extended research of the present problem possibly using the same data base. Because a firm understanding of dyadic interactions between the day care supervisor and each c h i l d i s v i t a l , i t i s 99 necessary to develop an instrument which can be used for the purposes of evaluating such in t e r a c t i o n . The Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction (19 69) measure was successfully employed i n t h i s study as a research instrument. However further research might develop an instrument capable of e f f e c t i v e l y providing an objective evaluation of a day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n with children, ~.or modifying the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System so that in t e r a c t i o n can be coded by observers as they occur i n the natural day care setting without the use of a video tape recorder. Another aspect of t h i s study, which might well be the subject of additional research, i s the value of video tape recording and playback as a method for changing the day care supervisor's i n t e r a c t i o n a l pattern with young children. The opportunity for the supervisor to view herself or himself i n int e r a c t i o n with the children can be a most powerful aid to improvement. A research study needs to address the following questions; What would happen.if the day care supervisors were informed of t h e i r behaviour by viewing the video tape and suggestions for change were made? Can day care supervisors change undesirable i n t e r a c t i o n patterns with individual children af t e r they have become firml y established? How would t h i s a f f e c t the children i f the day care supervisors interaction did change? Systematic study i s required by c o l l e c t i n g video taped data on how day care supervisors interact with children, providing feedback by observing the video tape and then 100 suggesting change. I t i s hoped that the strengths of video tape observa-tions i n natural day care.settings and the instrument r e l i a b i l i t y of the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction (1969) w i l l be u t i l i z e d i n future investigations a r i s i n g from this s tudy. 101 Bibliography Anderson, H. The measurement of domination and of s o c i a l l y integrative behaviour i n teachers' contacts with children. In Amidon and Hough Interaction Analysis, theory, research  and ap p l i c a t i o n . Addison-Wesley, 19 69. Baker, E. Parents, Teachers and Students as data sources. American Educational Research Journal 1972 9 403-11. Bales, R. Interaction Process Analyses. Addison Wesley, N.Y. 1950. Bandura, A. Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y. 19 63. Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s of behaviour modification. Holt, Rinehart, N.Y. 19 69. Beel, R.G. Stimulus Control of parent or caretaker behaviour from o f f s p r i n g . Child Development 1972 p. 423-431. Biber, B. Promoting Cognitive Growth: a developmental point of view. Education 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 children. Psychological Monographs, 65, 1951, p.1-35. Bloom, B. S t a b i l i t y and Change i n Human Characte r i s t i c s N.Y. Wiley 19 64. Bronfenbrener, U. Who Cares for American's Children. Young  Children, Vol. 26, No. 3, Jan. 1971,.157-63. Brophy, J . and Evertson, C. Learning From Teaching: A Develop-mental Perspective, A l l y n & Bacon, 1976. Brophy, J . and Good, T. Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction Manual 1969 . Brophy, J., and Good, T. Teacher-Child Dyadic Interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 1970, p. 131-137. Brophy, J., and Good, T. Teacher Child Dyadic Interaction: A Manual for Coding Classroom Behaviour Report, series No. 27, The Research and Development Centre for Teacher Education. University of Texas, Austin, 1969. Brophy, J. and Good T. Teacher-Student Relationship: Causes and  Consequences, Holt Rinehart, 1974. 102 Brophy, J. and W i l l i s , S. Origins of teacher attitudes towards young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, p. 52-529. Bruner, J. Poverty and Childhood. M e r i l l Palmer Monographs, 1970. Canada Day Care Information Department of Health and Welfare, Ottawa 1976. Cazden, C. Education i n Day Care Centres. Day Care and Child  Development Council. Washington, 1972. Caldwell, B. Descriptive Evaluations of Child Development and of Developmental Settings. P e d i a t r i c s , Vol. 40, No. 1, 1967. Champney, E. Variables of Parent Behaviour. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1941, p. 525-41. Dunkin and Biddle, M. and Biddle, B. The study of teaching. Holt, Rinehart, 1974. Dreikurs, R. Children The Challenge. Howthorn Book Inc. N.Y. 1964. Everston, Brophy J . and Good, T. Communication of teacher expect-ations. Research and Development Centre for Teacher  Education. Flanders, N. Analyzing Teacher Behaviour. Reading, Massachusetts, Addision-Wesley, 1970. Gabbert, H. The influence of pupil socio-economic status on teacher behaviour. University of Texas, Austin, Dissertation Abstracts, 1973. Garner, J . and Bing, M. The Elusiveness of Pygmalion and differences i n teacher-pupil contacts. Interchange, 19 73b, p. 34-52. Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of Human Resources Annual Report, 1974, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Good, T. and Brophy, J. Behavioural expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, p.63. Good, T. and Brophy, J. and Biddle, B. Teachers make a difference. Holt, Rinehart, 1975. Good, T., Sykes, J . and Brophy, J. Effects of teacher sex, student sex and student achievement on classroom i n t e r a c t i o n . Teacher-Child Interaction, 1973. 103 Good, T. and Brophy, J. Looking i n Classrooms. Harper Row, 1973. Gordon, I. Human Development: A Transactional Perspective. Harper and Row, 1975. Hargreaves, F. Interpersonal Relationships and Education 1972. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London. Jeter, J. and Davis, 0. i n Teacher-Student Relationships (Brophy, J. and Good, T.) 1974. Holt Rinehart and Winston, N.Y. Jones, S. The influence of teacher-student int e r a c t i o n , achieve-ment and s i m i l a r i t y of teacher-student Dyadic classroom inte r a c t i o n , 1974. Dissertation Abstracts, University of Texas, Austin. Katz, L. Children and Teachers i n two types of headstart classes. Young Children, 1969. Kirk, R. S t a t i s t i c s . Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., C a l i f o r n i a 1968, Wadsworth Publishers. Kounin, J.S. "An Analysis of Teachers'^Managerial Techniques." Psychology i n the Schools. Vol. IV, No. 3, July 1967, pp. 221-227. Luria, A. The Role of Speech i n the Regulation of Normal and Abnormal Behaviour, L i v e r i g h t Publishing, N.Y. 1961. McNeil, J. Toward Accountable Teachers. N.Y. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Mattick, I., Perkins, F. Guidelines for observation,and assess-ment. Day Care and C h i l d Development Council of America, 1972. Medley, D., M i t z e l , H. Measuring Classroom Behaviour by Systematic Observation i n Gage N. (ed.) Handbook of Research on  Teaching. Chicago, Rand McNally 1963. Mof f i t , A., Ryan, T. Evaluation of pre-school programs. The  Canadian Psychologist 1974. -15, p. 205-19. Moustakas, C. et. al.. • An objective method for the measure-ment and analysis of c h i l d - a d u l t i n t e r a c t i o n . Child  Development, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1956. Piaget, J . Play, Dreams and Imitation i n Childhood. N.Y. W.W. Norton and Co., 1962. 104 Prescott, E. Day Care as a Child Rearing Environment. National Assoc. for the Education of Young Children, Washington, D.C. 1976. Richenberg-Hackett, W. Practices, attitudes and values i n nursery group education. Psychological Reports, 1962. Robinson, G. and McDermick, P. Report on the Survey of the day care c h i l d with special needs. -Children's Hospital, Diagnostic Centre, Vancouver, B.C. 19 73. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobs, L. Pygmalion i n the Classroom, Holt, Rinehart, 19 68. Ryan and Appleford. "An examination of Social Processes i n a Preschool, unpublished manuscript. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. Schaefer, E. A circumplex model for maternal behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1959, p. 226-235. Sears, P., McCoby, E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearing. Harper Row, N.Y. 1957. Silverman, M. Behaviour expression of teacher's attitudes towards elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60. Skeels, H. Adult status of children with constrasting early l i f e experiences. Monographs of the Society for Research i n  Ch i l d Development, 1966, 33. Simon, A. and Boyer, E. Mirrors for Behaviour; an anthology of observation instruments. Volumes A and B. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1970. Soar, R. Follow through model implementation i n Travers (ed.) Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand McNally, 1973. Spodek, B. Early Childhood Education, Prentice H a l l , N.Y., 1973. Stubbs, M. and Delamont, S. Exploration.in Classroom Observation John Wiley and Sons, 1976. Thorndike, R.L. Review of Pygmalion i n the Classroom. American  Research Journal 5 (1968) p. 708-11. Travers, R. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand McNally, 1973. 105 Vygotsky, L. Thought and Language MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 19 62. , Vygotsky, L. Texas Teacher Effectiveness Project. 1975. White, B. An analysis of excellent Early Educational Practices Interchange, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1971. White, B. Experience and Environment, Prentice H a l l , N.Y. 1978. Withall, J . An objective measurement of teacher's classroom inter a c t i o n s . Journal of Educational Psychology 1956 47 pp. 203-212. W i l l i s , S. Formation of teacher expectations of student's academic performance. Dissertation Abstracts. University of Texas;of Austin, 1972. Withall, J . . ^The development of techniques-for the measurement of s o c i a l emotional climate i n classrooms. In Amidon and Hough. Interaction analyses,, theory, research and a p p l i - cation . Addison-Wesley, 1967. Yarrow, M. and Waxier, Scott. Child e f f e c t s on adult behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 1971. pp.. 300-311. Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licencing Board Standards PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS TO FOLLOW IN LICENSING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN INTERPRETATION The following d e f i n i t i o n s are used i n l i c e n s i n g services for c h i l d r e n . Interim Permit: An interim permit allows a f a c i l i t y to begin operation once s a t i s f a c t o r y reports have been received. I t may be issued for a period not exceeding one year. I t i s issued before a licence i s granted and allows time for assessment of the program. Licence; A l i c e n c e i s issued to an applicant by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board once the Board i s assured that the program i s operating s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . I t i s not trans-ferable from one l o c a t i o n to another, or from one person to another. A l i c e n c e remains v a l i d u n t i l suspended or surrender-ed . Supervisor: "Supervisor" means a person who has completed the minimum basic t r a i n i n g for a preschool supervisor required by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board and whose name appears on the Board's r e g i s t r y as having approved standing. Assistant: "Assistant" means a person who may not have completed the minimum t r a i n i n g requirements for a supervisor 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 for previous t r a i n i n g . Such a person may receive s p e c i a l per-mission from the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board to substitute for the person i n charge i n the event of the person i n charge being absent from the licenced center. Head Supervisor: When enrollment i n a center 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 supervisor must be employed who, i n addition to minimum t r a i n i n g requirements, has had several years of p r a c t i c a l experience and has demonstrated supervisory and administrative a b i l i t i e s . The head supervisor s h a l l be res-ponsible for the administration of the center. 107 (2) Responsible Adult: "Responsible a d u l t " means a person nineteen years of age or over and approved by the l o c a l Department of Human Resources s t a f f and the l o c a l Public Health s t a f f . I I . DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES A. ALL DAY SERVICES  Family Day Care Family Day Care simulates as c l o s e l y as possible the home environment i n providing care for c h i l d r e n . When a responsible adult cares for more than two ch i l d r e n not rela t e d to the person by blood or marriage, a li c e n c e i s required. The maximum number of chi l d r e n permitted i n a family day care home i s f i v e . This number includes t h i s person's own preschool c h i l d r e n . Group Day Care Group Day Care provides an opportunity for s o c i a l , emotional, p h y s i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth for c h i l d r e n i n a group s e t t i n g . A l l group centers require a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the supervisor. A maximum of twenty-five c h i l d r e n between three years and school entrance age may be cared f o r i n one group. Group care programs f or ch i l d r e n under three years of age are permitted by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing 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 provides an opportunity for s o c i a l , emotional, and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth for the c h i l d three years of age to school age. A l l nursery schools require a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the supervisor. Kindergarten Kindergarten provides an opportunity for s o c i a l , emotional, phy s i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l growth for ch i l d r e n e l i g i b l e to enter Grade 1 the following year. A l l kindergartens require a q u a l i f i e d person i n charge known as the supervisor. C. PART TIME SERVICES  Chil d Minding Child Minding provides supervised group care for ch i l d r e n for no more than three hours, two days a week. The Board (3) requires a s o c i a l recommendation for the person i n charge to determine personal s u i t a b i l i t y . Out-of-School Care Out-of-School Care provides supervision and s o c i a l and recrea-t i o n a l experiences for c h i l d r e n of school age. The Board requires a s o c i a l recommendation on the person i n charge to determine personal s u i t a b i l i t y . D. SPECIALIZED DAY CARE Specialized Day Care provides a group experience for c h i l d r e n who exhibit a phys i c a l handicap i n t e r f e r i n g with development, an iden-t i f i a b l e developmental l a g , or behaviour 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 should provide opportunities f o r p h y s i c a l , emotional, 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 care for s p e c i f i c needs. I I I . PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING The following procedures should be c a r r i e d out i n order to obtain a l i c e n c e f or provision of services to ch i l d r e n . 1. Applicants may obtain the packet of l i c e n s i n g information provided by the province's Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board from the l o c a l Public Health O f f i c e or a Department of Human Resources Day Care Information Center or a Department of Human Resources O f f i c e . 2. Plans should be discussed with the Public Health s t a f f and Human Resources s t a f f who w i l l provide s p e c i f i c information regarding the requirements for the type of care to be off e r e d . 3. Applicants are strongly advised to make sure that the chosen l o c a t i o n meets l o c a l zoning by-laws before 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 applicant submits the following to the l o c a l Health Unit: (a) Completed a p p l i c a t i o n form (b) Confirmation of municipal or regional zoning regulations. (c) Three copies of the f l o o r plan. The f l o o r plan must include the s i z e of areas of use for play, sleep, etc. The type and number of t o i l e t f i x t u r e s are to be included. 5. A q u a l i f i e d pre-school supervisor must be i n charge of the Nursery School, Kindergarten or Group Day Care program. I f t h i s person has been engaged at the time of a p p l i c a t i o n , the name should 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 of the supervisor must be cleared with the Community Care, F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board, (4) 1075 Quadra Street, Parliament Buildings, V i c t o r i a , B.C. . . When the a p p l i c a t i o n i s received, the l o c a l Public Health Staff 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 the b u i l d i n g which the applicant proposes to use meets applicable health, 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 rec e i p t of s a t i s f a c t o r y inspection reports an interim permit may be issued. During the period that t h i s permit i s v a l i d , a s o c i a l report w i l l be requested by the Board from the Department of Human Resources or an alternate designated agency. The Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board w i l l issue a l i c e n c e when the reports i n d i c a t e a l l the requirements have been met. STANDARDS FOR LICENSING The b u i l d i n g used by the f a c i l i t y must meet a l l applicable provin-c i a l and municipal health, f i r e , e l e c t r i c a l , plumbing, b u i l d i n g , and zoning regulations. Procedures to follow i n an emergency or when one adult i s alone with a group of c h i l d r e n must be established p r i o r to the opening of the f a c i l i t y . -The following standards of care are expected to be met i n f a c i l i t i e s providing services to c h i l d r e n . ALL DAY SERVICES Family Day Care Hours: Maximum of ten hours per day. No c h i l d may be kept over-night . Ages and Number of Children: Only f i v e c h i l d r e n may be cared f o r at one time. This includes the responsible adult's own pre-school c h i l d r e n . No more than two ch i l d r e n under the age of two may be cared f o r at one time. S t a f f Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : Responsible adult. Staff to C h i l d Ratio: One adult to f i v e c h i l d r e n . P h y s i c a l Standards: Sleeping 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 c h i l d . There should 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 play. Equipment: The person i n charge must provide play equipment appro-p r i a t e f o r the ages of the c h i l d r e n i n care. The equipment must stimulate healthy 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 emotional 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 supply to allow f o r i n d i v i d u a l and group play. (5) Group Day Care Hours: Maximum of ten hours per day. No c h i l d may be kept overnight. Ages: Between three years and school entrance age. Group care programs f o r c h i l d r e n under three years of age are permitted by the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s . Number of Children: Maximum of twenty-five c h i l d r e n per group. No more than seventy-five c h i l d r e n may be accommodated i n one center. 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 or center. S t a f f Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : Supervisor and a s s i s t a n t s . S t a f f to C h i l d Ratio: A supervisor or an a s s i s t a n t must be on the premises at a l l times when c h i l d r e n are present. When the number of c h i l d r e n exceeds eight but does not exceed twenty, there should be an a s s i s t a n t i n addition to the supervisor. When the number of c h i l d r e n exceeds twenty but does not exceed twenty-five there should be two a s s i s t a n t s i n addi-t i o n to the supervisor. When the enrollment i n a center reaches s i x t y a head supervisor i s required. Absence of Person-In-Charge: In the absence of the supervisor i n charge during operating hours arrangements s h a l l be made for 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 supervisor-in-charge must be cleared with the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board. Ph y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y 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. There must be i n d i v i d u a l sleeping arrangements a v a i l a b l e f or each c h i l d , i . e . cot or three inch foam mat-tress with a washable cover and washable warm bed covers. One t o i l e t an one hand-basin for every ten c h i l d r e n . A fenced outdoor play area should be e a s i l y a ccessible. Equipment: For suggested guidelines please r e f e r to Brochure #5, Equipment f o r Children, Day Care for Children i n B r i t i s h Columbia. HALF DAY SERVICES Nursery School Hours: Maximum of three hours per day. Ages of Children: Between three years and school entrance age. (6) Number of Children: Maximum of twenty-five children in one group. No more than seventy-five children may be accommodated in one center. Available space determines the maximum number permitted in a specific group or center. Staff Qualifications: Supervisor and assistant Staff to Child Ratio: One supervisor for fifteen children. When the number of children exceeds fifteen an assistant must be present. When the enrollment in a center reaches sixty a head supervisor is required. Physical Standards: Thirty square feet of floor space per child 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 for every fifteen children. Outdoor play space should be readily accessible. Equipment: For suggested guidelines please refer to Brochure #5, Equipment for Children, Day Care for Children in British Columbia. Kindergarten Hours: Maximum of three hours per day. Ages of Children: Between five years and school entrance age. Number of Children: Maximum of thirty children in one group. No more than seventy-five children may be accommodated in one center. Available space determines the maximum number permitted in one specific group or center. Staff Qualifications: Supervisor and assistant.. Staff to Child Ratio: One supervisor for twenty children. When the number of children exceeds twenty an assistant must be present. When the enrollment in a center reaches sixty, a head supervisor is required. Physical Standards: Thirty square feet of floor space per child exclusive of hallways, b u i l t - i n storage and fixtures and bathrooms. One toi l e t and one handbasin for every fifteen children. Outdoor play space should be readily accessible. Equipment: For suggested guidelines please refer to Brochure #5, Equipment for Children, Day Care for Children in British Columbia. PART-TIME SERVICES  Child Minding Hours: A child may be kept no longer than three hours per day and no more than two days per week. Ages of Children: A child must be two years of age. 112. (7) Number of Children: Maximum of twenty c h i l d r e n i n one group. No more than seventy-five c h i l d r e n may be accommodated i n one center. A v a i l a b l e 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 : Responsible adult. Staff to C h i l d Ratio: One responsible adult f o r every ten c h i l d r e n . Where c h i l d r e n under three years of age are cared f o r , one ad d i t i o n a l responsible person f o r every ten ch i l d r e n . P h y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y 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 c h i l d r e n . Equipment: For suggested guidelines please r e f e r to Brochure #5, Equipment f or Children, Day Care f or Children i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Out-of-School Care Hours: Maximum of four hours a day during school term and a maximum of ten hours a day during school closure to meet family need. No c h i l d may be kept overnight. Ages of Children: School age. Number of Children: Maximum of f o r t y c h i l d r e n per group. When the groups contain c h i l d r e n i n grades I and I I , the group s i z e should not exceed twenty c h i l d r e n . S t a f f Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : Responsible adult. S t a f f to Chi l d Ratio: Each group s h a l l have a responsible adult as the person i n charge. When the group exceeds twenty c h i l d -ren a second responsible person should be a v a i l a b l e f o r supervision. In a center with two groups, one of the responsible adults s h a l l also be responsible f o r the center. In a center with three or more groups there s h a l l be a responsible adult i n charge of the center i n addi t i o n to a responsible adult i n charge of each group. P h y s i c a l Standards: T h i r t y 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. Outdoor play area should be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e . Equipment: Play equipment appropriate f o r the ages of the ch i l d r e n i n care should be provided. The equipment should be i n good r e p a i r and s u f f i c i e n t supply f o r the number of 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 of programs may be offered as s p e c i a l i z e d group day care. The standards f o r these programs are determined on an i n d i -v i d u a l basis by the Board i n consultation with 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 of care given through the program. Staff q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , s t a f f r a t i o , physical standards and equipment required are r e l a t e d to the needs of the ch i l d r e n i n care. Hours of operation of the service and numbers and ages of the ch i l d r e n cared for depend on the type of program offe r e d . V. INSPECTION Regular inspections w i l l be made by accredited representatives of the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board to ensure that regulations made under the Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Act and other applicable Acts are followed. Approved by the Community Community Care F a c i l i t i e s Care F a c i l i t i e s Licensing Board Licensing Board December 19, 1974 Health Department Parliament Buildings 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 in the Day Care Information Services North Shore Office. If you reacall 1 outlined a study project that I am proposing to do within the North Shore day care centres. Should you be interested in taking part in the project, I would be happy to meet with you at your centre to provide you with more details and information. Should your centre be willing to participate in this project I would be most appreciative to know of your decision by February 12. Please c a l l me at at any time. Sincerely, Hannah Polowy Appendix C Non Computable Variables Variable bdm bdf bam . baf 7 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 9 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 11 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 19 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 20 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 21 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 22 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 23 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 24 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 25 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 30 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 31 X 0 0 0 0 sd 0 0 0 0 Note: bdm = behaviourally d i f f e r e n t male bdf behaviourally d i f f e r e n t female bam = behaviourally adapted male baf = behaviourally adapted female 116 APPENDIX D DEFINITION OF TERMS Behaviourally d i f f e r e n t Behaviourally adapted Behaviour contacts C r i t i c i s m Interaction Negative feedback Non support Perception Pos i t i v e feedback Nurture Praise The description i s defined by the questionnaire (p.45) which was developed to i d e n t i f y behaviourally d i f f e r e n t and behaviourally adapted chi l d r e n . A category i n the Brophy and Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction (1969 p.5) describing i n t e r a c t i o n i n which the teacher provides the c h i l d with information about his behaviour. Negative teacher evaluative reactions that go beyond the l e v e l of simple negation by expressing anger or personal c r i t i c i s m of a c h i l d , i n addition to indicating the incorrectness of his response (Brophy and Good 19 69 p.25). Observable patterns of action between teacher and c h i l d (Flanders 1970). Simple negation (Brophy and Good 1969 p.25) . Consists of c r i t i c i s m and negative feedback interactions of the day care supervisor i n the work and procedure category as created by c h i l d or teacher. ; Defined by Hargreaves (1972)p.3 of d i s s e r t a t i o n . Simple affirmation (Brophy and Good 1969, p.25). A day care supervisor's i n t e r -actional response giving the c h i l d confidence, encouragement, comfort and help (Prescott, 1972, p.12). The teacher's evaluative i n t e r -actions which go beyond the l e v e l of simple affirmation or p o s i t i v e feedback by verbally complimenting the c h i l d and/or by accompanying ve r b a l i z a t i o n of p o s i t i v e feedback,-, 117 Procedure contacts Response opportunity R e s t r i c t i o n Support Work contacts with expressions or gestures connoting excitment or warmth B(Brophy and Good, 1969 p.23). Interaction i n which the teacher-c h i l d interaction i s concerned with the c h i l d ' s individual needs and interests (Brophy and Good" 1969, p.5). Interaction i n which the c h i l d p u b l i c l y attempts to respond to a, question posed by the teacher within any group s i t u a t i o n (story time, discussion time, small group a c t i v i t y ) (Brophy and Good 19 69, p.5). C o n f l i c t exists when c h i l d does, not accept-teacher 1s goals and teacher moves to obstruct c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s . Teacher behaviour makes i t clear to a c h i l d without damaging h i s s e l f esteem that there are l i m i t s which must be respected (Prescott 1972, p.4). Consists of nurture, p o s i t i v e feed-back and praise. Interaction i n which the teacher-c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s concerned with those areas which are de 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 ) . APPENDIX E TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC INTERACTION: A MANUAL FOR CODING CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR Jere E. Brophy Thomas L. Good INTRODUCTION This manual presents the rationale and coding system used by the authors to study dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between teachers and children i n classrooms. Emphasis i s stressed on the word dyadic, since the manual applies only to those classroom interactions i n which the teacher i s dealing with a single, i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d . There are two major differences between the present system and other systems i n common use: (a) i t i s not a universal system that attempts to code a l l classroom behavior — expository le c t u r i n g and other s i t u a -tions i n which the teacher i s addressing himself to the entire class as a group are omitted e n t i r e l y ; (b) the teacher' interactions i n his class are recorded and analyzed separately for each i n d i v i d u a l student, so that the student rather than the class i s treated as the unit of analysis. Except for the observation aspect of behavior modification studies, classroom research on teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n has tended 119 to treat the class as a unit, ignoring i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l differences i n teacher^child contact patterns. The present authors have argued at length elsewhere (Good and Brophy, 1969) that t h i s methodology i s not always appropriate for the kinds of questions which have been investigated with i t . In addition, i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y inapplicable to studies that focus on i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l differences, including studies of communication of d i f f e r e n t i a l performance expect-ations by teachers. The coding system to be presented was developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f or the l a t t e r research purpose, although i t i s applicable to a much wider range of studies of teachers' and pupils' classroom behavior. In stressing the need to s h i f t from the class to the i n d i v i d u a l student as the basic unit of analysis i n classroom observation studies, Good and Brophy (1969) question two t a c i t assumptions made at lea s t i m p l i c i t l y by i n v e s t i -gators who study teacher effectiveness with observation and coding systems using the class as a unit. These two assumptions are: (a) i n t r a - c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the way the teacher interacts with d i f f e r e n t children are of l i t t l e or not importance r e l a t i v e to i n t e r - c l a s s differences among teachers: (b) the teacher behavior variables involved are properly conceptualized as interactions between the teacher and the class as opposed to interactions between teacher and i n d i v i d u a l children. The f i r s t assumption i s 120 c a l l e d into question by a review of the l i t e r a t u r e of classroom observation studies which shows that differences between sex, SES, r a c i a l , and other groups are regularly found when investigators look for them and that large 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 i s the rule rather than the exception. Given the large i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n within a cla s s , the second assumption may also be questioned, since i t follows that the teacher's average score on t r a d i t i o n a l l y studied variables such as warmth or indirectness may not actually r e f l e c t the way he actually treats the majority of the students i n his classroom. For example, the teacher who i s neutral toward the majority of his students but warm and rewarding towards a subgroup might appear moderate to high on a measure of teacher warmth derived from a t y p i c a l obser-vation system using the class as the unit. In such a bimodal s i t u a t i o n , there i s no " t y p i c a l " or "average" teacher warmth; in e f f e c t , the majority of the children are experiencing low teacher warmth. Use of an averaged frequency score inaccurately portrays both the teacher's general behavior and the degree of teacher warmth experienced by i n d i v i d u a l p u p ils. In view of the preceding considerations, we conclude that observation of dyadic teacher-child in t e r a c t i o n i s the method of choice not only i n research concerning i n d i v i d u a l differences among the children i n a clas s , but also i n research on teacher effectiveness, which frequently has been approached through systems using the class as the unit. Teacher warmth, 121 teacher indirectness, and other teacher variables which have usually been studied with the l a t t e r methods are variables which have usually been studied with the l a t t e r methods are variables of teacher behavior which are usually directed to i n d i v i d u a l children rather than to the class as a group. They are, i n e f f e c t , variables of dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n and should be conceptualized as such. The r e l a t i v e l y weak ef f e c t s that have been reported i n studies of teacher effectiveness using such variables may be a r e s u l t of f a i l u r e to take into 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 than a r e s u l t of weakness in the variables themselves as predicators of student performance. A change in research design from the class to the i n d i v i d u a l as the unit of analysis would be more appropri-ate conceptually and more powerful s t a t i s t i c a l l y for evalu-ating the importance of these teacher behaviors. Although the system to be presented below does not involve coding everything that goes on i n the classroom, i t does attempt u n i v e r s a l i t y with reference to the class of dyadic contacts: every interaction between the teacher and an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d i s coded. In addition, several aspects of the system involve preservation of the sequential nature of teacher-child.interaction, so that cycles of i n i t i a t i o n and reaction are not l o s t i n the coding process. This feature i s e s p e c i a l l y important for studying the communica-tio n of performance expectations, since i t allows separation of e f f e c t s due primarily to the teacher from e f f e c t s due p r i m a r i l y t o the c h i l d . The system a l s o a l l o w s f o r the co n v e r s i o n o f raw codes from the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n i n t o per-centage scores which n e u t r a l i z e the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the absolute f r e q u e n c i e s of v a r i o u s types o f i n t e r a c t i o n s they have with t h e i r t e a c h e r . Teachers' i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n or subgroups of c h i l d r e n may then be compared d i r e c t l y w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n i n e q u i v a l e n t s i t u a t i o n s w i t h other i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups. • In t h i s way, q u a l i t y of c o n t a c t (what the teacher does when engaged i n c e r t a i n k i n d s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h the c h i l d ) and q u a l i t y of c o n t a c t (the sheer frequency of the d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s ) may be s t u d i e d s e p a r a t e l y and e v a l u a t e d . F i n a l l y , data f o r the e n t i r e c l a s s t r e a t e d as a group may a l s o be ob t a i n e d by combining the codes f o r the i n d i v i d u a l members. The behavior c a t e g o r i e s and coding procedures p r e s e n t l y b e i ng used t o study communication of performance e x p e c t a t i o n s i n the classroom are presented below. To s i m p l i f y p r e s e n t a t i o n , o n l y those behaviors a c t u a l l y b e i n g coded w i t h the prese n t system are presented i n the body of the manual. The cod i n g sheets used i n g a t h e r i n g data i n the classroom from t h i s manual are presented as Appendix One (General C l a s s A c t i v i t i e s Coding Sheet) and Appendix Two (Reading and R e c i t a t i o n Group Coding Sheet). A d i s c u s s i o n of other behavior v a r i a b l e s , which c o u l d have been s t u d i e d but were excluded from the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h f o r t h e o r e t i c a l and/or p r a c t i c a l reasons, i s presented i n Appendix Three. 123 Discussion of these variables i s deferred u n t i l the appendices because they do not appear on the coding sheets shown i n Appendices One and Two. Incorporation of these additional variables (or any others) would require redesigning of the coding sheets to accommodate the new categories. Mention of the material i n Appendix Three i s made here at the beginning of the manual, however, because i t points up an important fact about the system to be presented i n p a r t i c u l a r and the notion of coding dyadic in t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom i n general: The system to be presented should not be con- ceived as a fin i s h e d , closed system to be used without modifi- cation. Different research questions may require the coding of d i f f e r e n t variables and/or a d i f f e r e n t approach to coding some of the same variables included i n the following 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