Child Temperament, Gender, Teacher-Child Relationship ... - DigiNole!

Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations

The Graduate School

2006

Child Temperament, Gender, Teacher-Child Relationship, and Teacher-Child Interactions Meral Oren

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

CHILD TEMPERAMENT, GENDER, TEACHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP, AND TEACHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS

BY MERAL OREN

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of the Childhood Education, Reading and Disability Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded Summer Semester, 2006

Copyright © 2006 Meral Oren All Rights Reverved

The members of the committee approved the dissertation of Meral Oren defended on June 29, 2006.

________________________ (signed) Ithel Jones Professor Directing Dissertation

________________________ (signed) Sande Milton Outside Committee Member

________________________ (signed) Charles Wolfgang Committee Member

________________________ (signed) Vickie Lake Committee Member

Approved: _________________________________________________________________ Ithel Jones, Chairperson, Department of the Childhood Education, Reading and Disability Services

The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Ithel Jones for his patience, skilled guidance, and support throughout this project. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Sande Milton, Dr. Charles Wolfgang, and Dr. Vickie Lake for their advice and contributions to my study. I would also like to thank the school directors who helped make this study possible and the preschool teachers and children who participated in my study. Without their kindness and willingness to allow me in their classrooms and respond to my queries, this study would not have been possible. I also wish to thank my friend Clifford Fyle, who always believed in me and supported me throughout my research. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my mother Neriman Oren and my two sisters Ayse and Naciye, and my nephew Deniz, for their support, love and unerring belief in me.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................................

vii

Abstract ......................................................................................................................

xi

CHAPTER I

II

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………

1

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………...

7

The Conceptual and Theoretical Framework …………………………….

8

The Purpose and Significance of the Study ……………………………...

14

Research Questions ……………………………………………………....

16

Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………

17

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………..

19

Teacher-Child Relationships ……………………………………………..

19

Assessment of Teacher-Child Relationship ………………………….

20

The Nature of Teacher-Child Relationship and Its Effects on

IIII

Learning in the Classroom Environment …………………………….

21

Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Developmental Outcomes

22

Teacher-Child Interactions ……………………………………………….

26

Teacher-child interaction and developmental outcomes …………….

27

Nature of Teachers’ Interaction with Children ………………………

32

The Distribution of Teacher Attention to Children ………………….

33

Gender ……………………………………………………………………

33

Teacher-child relationship and gender differences …………………..

33

Teacher-child interaction and gender differences ……………………

34

Temperament ……………………………………………………………..

36

Theory ………………………………………………………………..

36

Temperament and Teacher-Child Interaction ………………………..

41

Temperament and Teacher-Child Relationship ………………………

46

Summary ……………………………………………………………...

47

METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………...

51

iv

Method …………………………………………………………………….

51

Participants ………………………………………………………..….

51

Setting …………………………………………………………….

52

Procedures ………………………………………………………...

52

Approval of the Study…………………………………….

52

Procedures for Preliminary Analysis and Getting the Subjects

IV

comfortable with the Observer’s Presence ……………….

53

Data Gathering Procedures ……………………………….

53

Instruments/Measures ………………………………………………...

55

Temperament …………………………………………………….

55

Selection of the instrument ………………………………

55

A Short Form of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire

55

Teacher-Child Relationship ………………………………………

56

Selection of the Instrument ………………………………

56

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale …………………….

57

Teacher-child interactions ………………………………………

58

Observation categories …………………………………

59

Validity of the observational measure ………………….

61

Reliability of the observational measure ……………….

61

Observer effects on reliability ………………………….

62

Recording methods …………………………………….

62

Selection of the observation days ………………………

63

Data Analysis ……………………………………………………….

63

RESULTS ………………………………………………………………

67

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results ...........................................

68

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results for Temperament....

68

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results for Teacher-Child Relationships ...............................................................................

69

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results for Teacher-Child Interactions ..................................................................................

69

Correlational Analyses ...........................................................................

81

Relationships between Gender, Temperament, and Teacher-Child Relationships ...................................................... Relationships between Gender, Temperament, and v

81

Teacher-Child Interactions .........................................................

91

Relationships between Teacher-Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions .........................................................

118

Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................

131

Temparement and Teacher-Child Relationships ........................

131

Temperament and Teacher-Child Interactions ...........................

132

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................

134

Discussion of the Research Findings …………………………………..

134

Temperament and Teacher-Child Relationships ……………….

135

Gender and Teacher-Child Relationships ………………………

137

Temperament and Teacher-Child Interactions …………………

138

Gender and Teacher-Child Interactions ………………………...

142

Teacher-Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions ….

143

Educational Implications ………………………………………………..

144

Suggestions for Future Research ………………………………………..

146

APPENDICES.....………………………………………………………………..

149

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………….

159

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...............................................................................

170

V

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Timeline for Research Procedures…………………………………...................... 54 2. Descriptions of teacher interaction categories ………………………....................60 3. Descriptive Statistics for Temperament Dimensions by Classroom ……....…………………………………………………...... ........... 70 4. Descriptive Statistics for Temperament Factors by Classroom ………............... 71 5. ANOVA Source Table for Temperament Dimensions by Classroom................... 72 6. ANOVA Source Table for Temperament Factors by Classroom …….................. 73 7. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Student Relationship Subscale scores by classroom …………………………………………………........ ........... 74 8. ANOVA Source Table for Teacher-Child Relationships by Classroom..... ........... 75 9. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher-Child interaction by Classroom ....................... 76 10. ANOVA Source Table for Teacher-Child Interactions by Classroom................... 79 11. Correlations between Temperament Factors, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 1 ……………………………........................................ 82 12. Correlations between Temperament Factors, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships- Classroom 2 ……………………………....................................... 83 13. Correlations between Temperament Factors, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 3 ……………………………........................................ 84 14. Correlations between Temperament Factors, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 4 ……………………………......................................... 84 15. Correlations between Temperament Dimension, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 1 ……………………………......................................... 87 16. Correlations between Temperament Dimensions, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 2 ……………………….......................................…….. 88 17. Correlations between Temperament Dimensions, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 3 ……………………………........................................ 89 18. Correlations between Temperament Dimensions, Gender, and Teacher-Child Relationships-Classroom 4 ……………............................……………….......... 90 19. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Dimensions, and TC Interactions with relative frequencies-Classroom 1…………………................... 94 20. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Factors, and TC Interactions with relative frequencies -Classroom 2……………………............... 95 vii

21. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Factors, and TC Interactions-Classroom 3………………………………………………................ 97 22. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Factors, and TC Interactions-Classroom 4……………………………………………….................98 23. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Dimensions, and TC Interactions with relative frequencies-Classroom 1 ……………………...............102 24. Correlations between Gender, Temperament Dimensions, and TC Interactions with relative frequencies -Classroom 2 ……………………...............103 25. Interccorrelations between Gender, Temperament Dimensions, and TC Interactions-Classroom 3……………………………………………….................104 26. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament Dimensions, and TC Interactions-Classroom 4……………………………………………….................105 27. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, TC Interactions with Total of Ti and Ci of Teacher interaction behaviors-Classroom 1.......................... 107 28. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, TC Interactions with Total of Ti and Ci of Teacher interaction behaviors-Classroom 2……….............. 109 29. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, TC Interactions with Total of Ti and Ci of Teacher interaction behaviors-Classroom 3…….................. 111 30. Correlations between Gender, Temperament, TC Interactions with Total of Ti and Ci of Teacher interaction behavior-Classroom 4………............... 113 31. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, and TC InteractionsClassroom 1……………………………………………………………................. 114 32. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, and TC InteractionsClassroom 2……………………………………………………………................. 115 33. Intercorrelations between Gender, Temperament, and TC InteractionsClassroom 3……………………………………………………………................. 116 34. Correlations between Gender, Temperament, and TC InteractionsClassroom 4……………………………………………………………................. 117 35. Teacher Child Relationship and Teacher Child Interaction-Classroom 1..............120 36. Teacher Child Relationship and Teacher Child Interaction-Classroom 2..............121 37. Teacher Child Relationship and Teacher Child Interaction-Classroom 3..............122 38. Teacher Child Relationship and Teacher Child Interaction-Classroom 4..............123 39. Intercorrelations between Gender, STRS, and Teacher Child InteractionsClassroom 1……………………………………………………………..... .......... 124 40. Intercorrelations between Gender, STRS, and Teacher Child InteractionsClassroom 2 …………………………………………………………….... ...........125 41. Intercorrelations between Gender, STRS, and Teacher Child InteractionsClassroom 3 …………………………………………………………….... ...........126 42. Intercorrelations between Gender, STRS, and Teacher Child InteractionsClassroom 4……………………………………………….....................................127 viii

43. Intercorrelations between Teacher Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions-Classroom 1………………………………................. .......................128 44. Intercorrelations between Teacher Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions-Classroom 2 ………………………………............................ .......... 129 45. Intercorrelations between Teacher Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions-Classroom 3……………………………….........................................129 46. Intercorrelations between Teacher Child Relationships and Teacher-Child Interactions-Classroom 4……………………………….........................................130 47. Standard Multiple Regression of Temperament Dimensions Effects on Teacher-Child Relationships................................................................................... 131 48. Standard Multiple Regression of Temperament Dimensions Effects on Teacher-Child Interactions ………………………………….................................133

ix

ABSTRACT

This study examined the relationships between child temperament, gender, teacher-child relationships, and teacher-child interactions. Children’s temperament and teacher-child relationships were assessed by teacher ratings. Teacher-child interactions were assessed through natural observations during free play/centers time. The sample consisted of 61 (29 boys and 32 girls) 4- to 5-year-old children who attended one of the four classrooms which participated in the study. The preliminary analyses revealed classroom differences in child temperament, teacher-child relationships, and teacher-child interactions. The results indicated that the temperament factor, Task Orientation was related to closeness of teacher-child relationship. Children with high task orientation had closer relationships with their teachers, while children with low task orientation, who are more active, distractible and less persistent, had less close relationships with their teachers. Reactivity was the most important temperament factor affecting conflictual relationships. The findings also revealed gender differences in teacher-child relationships. One of the teachers reported greater closeness in her relationships with girls than boys. Two of the teachers reported more conflict in their relationships with boys than with girls. Furthermore, boys were observed to receive more behavior management interactions from their teachers than girls. Behavior management was the only teacher-child interaction category that was related to temperament in all of the classrooms. Task orientation was the most important temperament factor affecting behavior management. Other categories of teacher-child interactions’ relationships with temperament characteristics indicated classroom differences. The first teacher included more elaborations in interacting with children who had positive temperament characteristics, than with children who had negative temperament characteristics. The second and third teachers initiated interactions more frequently with more reactive children. Reactivity was positively related with child initiated interactions and total interactions, elaborations, and praise in the fourth classroom. Therefore, there might be other factors affecting the

x

relationship between temperament and teacher-child interactions; such as, teacher temperament, classroom structure, and curriculum. This study demonstrates that differences in temperamental characteristics of preschool children are noticed by teachers and that temperamental characteristics affect teachers’ relationships and interactions with children. Therefore, temperament, particularly task orientation factor, may be an important individual difference in preschool children’s experiences in a preschool classroom.

xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant changes in the lives of young children in the last three decades has been the widespread use of early childhood programs. As a result of the large increase in the number of women in the North American work force, the early childhood setting has become the first major out-of-home environment children experience (White & Howes, 1998; Helburn & Bergmann, 2002). Eighty-five percent of children whose mothers work full time (35 hours o more per week) and 70 percent of children whose mothers work part time (less than 35 hours per week) receive care on a weekly basis from a nonparent caregiver (NCES, 2006). Preschoolers are more likely to receive center-based care than relative or nonrelative care. In 2001, 56 percent of preschoolers (three- to five-year-olds) received center based care. Specifically, forty-three percent of 3 year olds, 65 percent of 4 year olds, and 73 percent of five year olds received center-based care. On average, preschoolers received 29 hours of non-parental care per week. Twenty one to 23 hours of this non-parental care were in center-based arrangements (NCES, 2006). This has led to an increase in research (e.g., Clifford, 1998; Peisner-Feinberg, 1999, 2001) about the effects of early childhood education programs on children’s development across a number of domains, such as social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. Several studies indicate positive relations between child-care quality and children’s social, cognitive, language and socioemotional development, and social competence (Golden et ai., 1978; Kontos, 1991; McCartney, 1984; McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1982, NICHD, 2000, Peisner-Feinberg, Burchinol, 1997, Roupp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979). Further, long-term effects of child-care quality on children’s patterns of socioemotional and cognitive development through kindergarten, and in some cases, through second grade have been found (PeisnerFeinberg, et al., 2001). The characteristics of high quality care are: frequent teacherchild interaction, teacher guidance to enhance learning, a friendly and respectful

1

atmosphere, close teacher-child relationships, well organized classroom with ageappropriate materials, large variety of hands-on activities to choose from (PeisnerFeinberg et al., 1999), low adult/child ratio, small group size, and a safe environment (Caldwell, 1998). Although, there are many characteristics of high quality child care, the main components of high quality early childhood programs have been found to be teacher-child relationship and verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). This study examined the relationship between two child characteristics (temperament and gender), teacher rated teacher-child relationship, and naturallyoccurring teacher-child interactions. Specifically, how child temperament and gender are related to teacher’s perceptions of teacher-child relationship and teacher interaction behaviors toward individual children will be examined. Furthermore, the study investigated how teacher-child relationships affect teacher-child interaction. Although interactions and relationships mutually affect each other, relationships are different from teaching strategies, interactions, or individual behaviors. Relationships are dyadic, they develop over time based on many interactions, and they include emotional content and expectations produced by past interactions (Pianta, 1997). The quality of teacher-child relationships can enhance or harm child development. The quality of teacher-child relationship can affect social, emotional, cognitive and language development of children and their feelings of self worth. The quality of teacher-child relationships varies. It may range from being closer with some children to being conflictual with others. Children who are securely attached to their teachers have been found to be more prosocial (Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997) and more socially competent with unfamiliar peers than children who have an insecure relationship with their teachers (Howes et al., 1994, Kienbaum, J., 2001). Teachers’ warmth and sensitivity can also facilitate children’s socioemotional development. Furthermore, warmth, openness and lack of conflict in teacher-child relationships are related to competency in preschool children (Pianta and Steinberg, 1992). Closeness of the teacher-child relationship was associated with children’s attitudes toward child care, perceptions of their own competence, language scores, sociability ratings (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997), and cognitive and social skills (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 2001). Similarly, teacher-child closeness predicted better language skills for African American children, and better reading skills for 2

children who had more authoritarian parents (Burchinal, Pesner-Feinberg, Pianta, Howes, 2002). Furthermore, the cost quality and closeness study (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999) indicates long term effects. After adjusting for individual child social characteristics, teacher-child closeness during preschool years was significantly related to teacher ratings of children’s cognitive/attention skills, problem behaviors, and sociability over time through second grade (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999). Likewise, children with closer relationships to their teachers had better thinking/attention skills, fewer problem behaviors, especially for boys, lasting at least from age 3 through kindergarten (Dick, et al., 1998). While teacher-child closeness has been found to be positively related, teacherchild conflict during preschool is known to be negatively correlated with the prosocial behavior of kindergarteners (Birch & Ladd, 1998) and second graders (Howes, 2000). Furthermore, conflict in the teacher-child relationship is related to a decline in children’s prosocial behavior one year later (Birch & Ladd, 1998). Briefly, evidence suggests that while a warm and close teacher-child relationship is related to competency, prosocial skills, social, cognitive, and language development, thinking/attention skills and fewer problem behaviors of the children, conflictual relationship can cause a decline in prosocial behaviors. Therefore, teacher-child relationship is an important aspect of children’s experiences in early childhood education programs. The second factor of child care quality focused on in this study is teacher interactions with individual children. Young children learn mostly through interactive experiences. For example, language, social skills, and social competence are learned through interactions with adults and peers. Therefore, the quality of teacher-child interaction is a major factor contributing significantly to the effects of early childhood programs on children (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 2002). Research reveals that caregiver-child verbal interaction makes a major contribution to social, cognitive and language development (Clarke-Stewart, 1984; Golden et al., 1978; Roupp et al., 1979 cited in Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; & McCartney, 1984, NICHD, 2000, Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). A verbally stimulating environment, in which caregivers and children frequently participate in conversation, enhances social, cognitive and language development (McCartney, 1984; NICHD, 2000; Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S., 1987). Also, follow-in directives (following the child’s lead) were found to be positively correlated to children’s language development, while redirectives 3

(initiating a new topic) were negatively correlated (McCathren et al., 1995). Furthermore, teacher-child interaction which expands children’s ideas and conversations, or which includes ‘rare’ vocabulary is related to children’s later development of vocabulary, story understanding, print skills, and the ability to produce extended discourse (Smith, 1996). Even though studies show the importance of frequent and verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction, the amount of time teachers spend with students and the attention they give to students are not distributed equally among all children. Teachers were found to be actively involved with children in Head Start Preschool classrooms about 71% of the time. Yet, 31% of the children received no individual attention during the observation. Also, in 12% of the classrooms, one half of the children received no individual attention (Layzer, Goodson, & Moss, 1993). Teachers distribute their attention across children in varying ways (Wilcoxen, 1984; Hildebrandt & Cannan, 1985; Coplan & Prakash, 2003). Furthermore, the nature of teacher-student interactions has been found to vary. While some interactions between teachers and students are mainly social in nature, others are completely instructional or managerial (Silberman, 1969 cited in Keogh, 1889). There are many factors affecting the quality of teacher-child relationships, and the quantity and nature of teacher-child interactions. Elicker and Fortner-Wood (1995) suggests four important factors affecting the development of adult-child relationships: characteristics of the child, characteristics of the adult, adult-child interactions, and the context surrounding the relationship. While teacher-child relationships are affected by teacher-child interactions, the quality of relationships in return can affect the nature and frequency of teacher-child verbal interactions. This study will focus on two child characteristics: temperament and gender and how they relate to teacher-child interaction and teacher-child relationship. For the purpose of this study, temperament was defined according to Thomas and Chess (1977) as the ‘how’ of behavior. Temperament is related with the way in which an individual behaves rather than how well, what or why he or she behaves in that way (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Previous temperament research (e.g., Nelson & Simmerer, 1983; Paget, Nagle & Martin, 1984, Pullis, 1985; Pullis & Cadwell, 1982; Werfhorst 1985, 86) reveals that teachers’ interaction with children differ systematically based on children’s temperamental characteristics. In addition, recent research on disabled children

4

indicates a relationship between teacher-child relationship and temperament (Flynn, 2000). Child temperament has been shown to affect teacher expectations (Keogh, 1982; Pullis & Cadwell, 1982; Thomas & Chess, 1977); the amount of the time teachers spend with children; teachers’ monitoring decisions; and the amount of the teacher’s praise, criticism, instruction, physical contact, and directive behaviors. (Nelson, 1987, Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). These studies examined the relationship between child temperament and teacher-child interaction, teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ management behaviors, and teacher placement decisions. However, there has been a lack of research examining child temperament and teachers’ feelings and beliefs about their relationship with typical children. Flynn (2000) suggests that child temperament can have an effect on the way a teacher perceives her relationship with students. Her research on children with developmental disabilities indicate positive relationships between closeness of teacher-student relationship and temperament dimensions---task orientation, and personal and social flexibility. Also, teacher-student conflict was related to task orientation (Flynn, 2000). Another study shows that aggression, disruptive behavior, and social withdrawal in the second grade are related to low levels of teacher-child closeness in preschool (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999). Therefore, it is expected that child temperament will be related to teacher-child relationship. Greenspan and Porgers (1984) argue that one’s feelings and beliefs about his or her relationships with another person plays an important role in organizing his or her interaction patterns with that person (Flynn, 2000). Therefore, temperament, while affecting the relationship between teacher and child, can also affect teacherchild interaction. Although research findings (McCartney, 1984, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987, NICHD, 2000) show the importance of teachers’ verbal stimulation of children on cognitive, social, and language development, none of the existing studies address the issue of the effects of temperament on teachers’ verbal stimulation of children. Teachers may have more verbally stimulating interactions with some children, while having more restrictive interactions with others. For example, it may seem like a teacher is interacting more with a temperamentally difficult child, however if looked in depth it can be realized that most of the interaction is directive. As a result, the temperamentally difficult child may not be receiving the verbal stimulation he or she needs to reach his or her highest potential development. 5

Gender and teacher-child relationship have also been found to be related. Teacher reports indicate greater closeness and more dependency in teacher-child relationship with girls than with boys in a recent research (Howes, Phillipsen & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000). Likewise, another research revealed that teachers express more affection to female children than to male children (Botkin & Twardosz, 1988). Recent research on gender and teacher-child interaction is somewhat inconclusive. While most of the evidence suggests that teachers adjust their behavior depending on the gender of the child, some research indicates no gender difference. Research (Clawson, 1997; Fagot, 1984; Murphy, 1986; Steinkamp, 1990) found that teachers use disciplinary techniques more frequently with boys than girls. Similarly, findings revealed that boys were given more reprimands than the girls for the same or similar misbehavior in day care. Moreover, they received more interaction, and more praise and acceptance. They received more instruction and direction in order to complete a task, while girls received more assistance and even sometimes their task was completed by teachers (Murphy, 1986). In contrast, some research (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997, Simac, 1993) indicates no gender difference. Kontos and Wilcox-Herzog (1997) found no relationship between gender and two categories of teacher behavior: teachers’ responsive involvement and verbal stimulation. Likewise, Kathleen (1993) found no significant difference in the way preschool teachers responded to girls or to boys. The teacher responses investigated were: teacher gives a soft reprimand, teacher gives praise, teacher gives directions, and teacher comments. She suggests that the difference between the findings of her research and previous research can be because of greater awareness of sex equity or inequity by educators (Kathleen, 1993). Therefore, while most of the evidence shows gender difference in the way teachers treat children, some recent research reveal no difference, indicating the need for new research on gender and teacher-child interaction in order to see if the increase in awareness of sex equity results in changes in teacher behavior. In this chapter the proposed study is described. First, the statement of the problem is presented. Then, the conceptual and theoretical framework for the study is discussed. The chapter’s third section explains the purpose and significance of the study. This is followed by a section outlining the research questions that will be addressed in the study. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary and definitions of key terms. 6

Statement of the Problem

Today, young children spend a considerable amount of time in early childhood programs. The relationships between child care quality and child outcomes has been well documented. The literature review indicated that two characteristics of program quality, teacher-child relationship and teacher-child interactions, are crucial for child outcomes. Therefore, it is important to study the factors affecting teacher-child relationship and teacher-child interactions. Some characteristics of children can affect teacher-child relationship and teacher-child interactions. Gender is a widely studied child characteristics in relation to teacher verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Temperament has been also studied in regard to some teacher behaviors (e.g., monitoring, instruction). Studies (such as, Werfhorst 1985, 1986; Pullis, 1985; Paget, Nagle & Martin, 1984, Pullis & Cadwell, 1982) indicated that teachers’ behaviors towards children with different temperaments differ systematically. Child temperament can affect the amount of time teachers spend with children, teachers’ monitoring decisions, and the amount of the teacher’s praise and criticism. However, even though previous research (McCartney, 1984, NICHD, 2000; Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S., 1987) indicates that verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction has positive effects on social, cognitive and language development of children, the effect of temperament on verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction has not been studied yet. Furthermore, there is a paucity of research on teachers’ perceptions of teacher-child relationship and temperament. Recent research (Flynn, 2000) reveals a relationship between temperamental characteristics of developmentally disabled children and teacher-child relationships. However, the relationship between teacher-child relationship and temperamental characteristics of typical children has not been studied yet. Since warm and close teacher-child relationship is related to competency, prosocial skills, social, cognitive, and language development, thinking/attention skills and fewer problem behaviors of the children (Birch & Ladd, 1998, Howes, 2000, Birch and Ladd, 1998, Dick, et al., 1998, Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997 Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999, 2001), it is important to know how temperament is related to teacher-child relationship.

7

The Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Today, the first five years of life is recognized as a period of enormous cognitive, social, and language development (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). According to cognitive and social stimulation theories, a positive and healthy learning environment with a responsive adult will enhance children’s cognitive development (HRSDC research, 1999). Teachers are responsible for preparing a stimulating environment for language, cognitive, social development, as well as keeping children physically and emotionally safe in preschools. They are at the center of the children’s experiences in early childhood programs. They work directly with children who have different abilities, different needs, and who have different temperamental characteristics on a daily basis. Individual characteristics of children may affect the way teachers interact with them and the quality of their relationship with the children. There is a widely held argument that the behavior of adults in early childhood settings has an important effect on children (Howes, Whitebook, & Phillips, 1992; PhyfePerkins, in Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). The evidence suggests that quality and nature of teacher-child relationship and verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction have a significant effect on social, emotional, cognitive, and language development of children. (McCartney, 1984; NICHD, 2000; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 2001; Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S., 1987). Teacher-child relationship appears to be an important aspect of classroom experiences. According to attachment theory, all children become attached to the important adults in their life, including their teachers. Every attachment relationship has an organization. There are four categories of attachment: secure; avoidant insecure; insecure ambivalent/resistant; and disorganized (incoherent and fragmented). The optimal attachment is a secure attachment relationship (Howes & Ritchie, 2002). Emotionally secure teacher-child relationships in early childhood settings are crucial to children’s security, self-confidence, and learning (Feeny, Christiensen, & Moravcik, 1987); and are predictive of children’s relationships with peers, behavior problems, and later school achievement (Bowman, Donovan, Burns, 2001). Moustakas (1956) argues “all children need love, safety, belongingness, acceptance, and respect as basic conditions to their growth” (p. 10). However, teachers’ have relationships varying in nature and quality with children. These varying relationships affect children’s attachment to teachers. While teachers may have close and 8

affectionate relationships with some children, they may have distant and formal relationships with others, or conflictual and even hostile with yet other children (Howes & Matheson, 1992; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995; Pianta, Nimetz, Bennett, 1997). Pianta (1999) classified teacher perceived teacher-child relationships into three dimensions based on attachment theory: close, conflictual, and dependent. The definitions of the three dimensions and how they are related to learning in preschool are described below. First, the closeness dimension reveals the degree of a teacher’s experiences of affection, warmth, and open communication with a particular child. A child with a close relationship with the teacher perceives the teacher as supportive and efficiently uses the teacher as a resource. When children have good communication with their teachers, they trust that they can get help from their teacher when they need it and this makes them feel emotionally secure in the classroom. The child who feels emotionally secure with the teacher uses her as a secure base and resource for exploring the learning opportunities of the classroom. This feeling of security helps them to focus their energies and attention on learning (Pianta, 1999). Therefore, the child with a close relationship with the teacher can use the support provided by this positive relationship to explore and learn (Howes & Ritchie, 2002). Second, a conflictual relationship indicates the conflictual and negative relationship between the child and the teacher. The teacher views the student as angry and unpredictable, and feels emotionally drained and unsuccessful. If a child has a conflictual relationship with the teacher, the child cannot use the relationship as a base of support and this may interfere with the child’s focus of attention on learning and achievement. Furthermore, a conflictual relationship may cause anxiety and fear about going to school for the child. Third, dependency reflects the over dependency of the child on the teacher. A dependent child-teacher relationship is characterized by clinging and immature interactions rather than close and positive reciprocated interactions (Howes & Ritchie, 2002). Overly dependent child often requests help from teacher when not needed (Pianta, 1999). An overly dependent child is also unlikely to explore the environment or play with peers (Howes & Ritchie, 2002). Young children can listen, focus and learn better from teachers with whom they have close relationships than from teachers with whom they have detached or 9

conflicted relationships (Pianta, 1999). Therefore, conflictual and dependent teacherchild relationships can interfere with school adjustment, children’s ability to learn, and achievement. Recent research supports this argument. The quality of teachers’ relationships with children is related to child adjustment and the social, emotional, and educational outcomes for children (Burchinal, Pesner-Feinberg, Pianta, Howes, 2002; Dick, et al., 1998; Howes et al., 1994; Kienbaum, J., 2001; Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999; 2001; Pianta and Steinberg, 1992). Another crucial aspect of classroom experiences for children is teachers’ interactions with individual children. The quality of teacher’s interaction with young children has long been discussed by early childhood educators and psychologists. It is generally agreed that since young children learn basic skills and knowledge (e.g., language, social competence) through interactive experiences, the quality of teacherchild interactions contributes significantly to the effects of early childhood programs on children’s development (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). According to NAEYC (Bredekamp, 1987) “appropriate caregiver interaction with children is represented by facilitation of children’s activities through the asking of divergent questions, offering suggestions, encouraging and helping children elaborate on their activities” (Dunn, 1993, p. 174). Learning is encouraged through play by teachers playing a facilitative role. Bryant et al. (1994) described a high quality classroom as one with warm teachers who are not harsh with children, who encourage verbal interaction, and who interact with children in a responsive and informative way (Bryant, Burchinal, Lau & Sparling, 1994). The nature and quality of teachers’ interaction with children vary. While some interactions between teachers and students are mainly social in nature, others are completely instructional or managerial (Silberman, 1969 cited in Keogh, 1989). Positive interactions lead to productive outcomes, whereas negative interactions result in unsuccessful and stressful interchanges (Keogh, 2003). The nature of the interaction has developmental outcomes for children. A verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction, in which the teacher listens and responds attentively and engages in frequent conversations, has positive effects for child development. Frequent teacherchild conversation has been found to enhance social, cognitive and language development (McCartney, 1984, NICHD, 2000, Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S., 1987). 10

Research reveals that the proportion of teacher’s control utterances is a negative predictor of language development of preschool children. Control utterances are teacher statements to control the present or future behavior of a child, such as, “Stop talking” (McCartney, 1984, p. 247). McCartney (1984) suggests that while children seem to be hindered by verbal teacher interactions in which their behavior is controlled, they seem to benefit from verbal teacher interactions in which they are given information and requested information. Research by McCathren et al. (1995) reveals that follow-in directives (following the child’s lead) are positively correlated to language development, while redirectives (initiating a new topic) are negatively correlated (McCathren et al., 1995). Furthermore, teacher-child interaction which expands children’s ideas and conversations is related to children’s later development of vocabulary, story understanding, and print skills, and ability to produce extended discourse. Restating what the child says and open ended questions can extend children’s ideas and conversations (Smith, 1996). Trawick-Smith (1994) argues that open-ended and cognitively challenging questions are crucial methods for teachers which lead to positive outcomes for children (Kontos, 1999). Teachers may interact more with some children, and less with others. The amount of time a teacher spends with a child can affect the quality of the relationship between them (Elicker & Fortner-Wood, 1995). The opposite is also true; teacherchild relationship can affect the amount of the time a teacher interacts with a child and the way she or he interacts with the child. Therefore, it is expected that there will be a relationship between teacher-child relationship and teacher interaction with individual children. Teacher-child relationship will be related to the frequency and nature of teacher-child interaction. Teachers’ may have more controlling interactions with some children, while being more stimulating with other children. In addition to the mutual effect of teacher-child relationship and teacher-child interaction on each other, there are other factors influencing both of them. Factors affecting the teacher-child relationship and interaction can be organized under three categories: child characteristics, teacher characteristics and classroom physical environment. This study focuses on the effects of two child characteristics; temperament and gender, on teacher-child relationships and teacher interactions with individual children. Previous studies indicate that teachers’ behaviors towards children with different temperament (Werfhorst 1985, 1986; Pullis, 1985; Paget, Nagle & 11

Martin, 1984, Pullis & Cadwell, 1982) and gender differ systematically (Fagot, 1984; Steinkamp, 1990, & Clawson, 1997). According to Thomas and Chess’ (1977) temperament theory, the childcaregiver interaction is not a one-sided process. The child plays a highly active part in the interaction process because of his or her temperamental traits. Thomas, Chess, and Birch (1968) define temperament as “the behavioral style of the individual—the how rather than the what (abilities and content) or why (motivations) of behavior” (p. 4). Although there is no one agreed-on temperament definition among temperament researchers, it is believed that temperament is biologically rooted, appears early in life, and is relatively stable across time and in a variety of situations. (Bates, 1987; Bates, 1989; Goldsmith et al., 1987; Kohnstamm, 1986). Through interviews and clinical observations of children, Thomas et al. (1963) identified nine categories of temperament: activity level, rhythmicity, approach/withdrawal, adaptability, intensity of reaction, threshold of responsiveness, quality of mood, distractibility, and attention span and persistence. Furthermore, they identified three clusters: the easy child, the difficult child, and the slow to warm up child (Thomas & Chess, 1977). The most useful clusters for teachers derived by Keogh are: task orientation, personal-social flexibility, and reactivity. Each of these will be described in the “definitions of terms” section. The NYLS (1959) research stimulated current research on temperament in the United States. (Anderson-Goetz, Worobey, 1984). Thomas’ and Chess’ temperament theory is based on interactionist theory. Research on nonadoptive and adoptive siblings and twins found that the average heritability estimate for temperamental characteristics was .44 (Braugart, Plomin, Defries, and Fulker, 1992). Temperament characteristics can go through a developmental path that will be significantly affected by environmental conditions. Temperament characteristics identified at young ages may remain relatively unchanged or it may be reinforced and intensified, or diminished or modified by environmental influences during the developmental course (Thomas, Chess & Birch, 1968). However, while temperament is influenced by environmental factors, adults’ child-care practices, attitudes and reactions to children are influenced by children’s temperamental characteristics (Thomas & Chess, 1977). For example, if the child has an easy temperament, and socialization processes are smooth, the parents will feel 12

they are good parents, and their self-esteem will improve. Improvement in self-esteem can enhance the affection for the child and the parents’ tolerance to the child. On the other hand, if the child has a difficult temperament, the socialization process will be stressful for the parents and they may feel incompetent and they may even unconsciously treat the child in a hostile manner (Thomas & Chess in Kohnstamm, Bates & Rothbart, 1989). This can be also explained with the reactive type of genotype-environment correlation. Reactive correlation occurs when the behavior of the child causes the people in the environment to react in a specific manner that strengthens the disposition. For example, the child who exhibits high levels of negative emotion tends to elicit high levels of negative emotion in return, which may in turn cause others to avoid the child. Crockenberg (1986) found that mothers whose infants exhibited high levels of negative emotion attended less to their infants. In this way, children’s dispositions create environments, which strengthen these dispositions. (Martin, 1994, p. 123). In school, temperamental characteristics of children affect their adaptation to the classroom, and how they are viewed and treated by their teachers (Rothbart & Jones, 1998). Therefore, it is expected that children’s temperament will influence the quality of teacher-child relationships and teacher-child interaction. Temperament characteristics often considered as hard to manage by teachers are negative mood, low adaptability, high intensity, high activity, initial withdrawal, low persistence and high distractibility (Carey, 1998). A child who is sociable as opposed to one who has a negative mood, or has high intensity or who is withdrawn, interact very differently with teachers. These interaction patterns affect the construction of teacher-child relationships. It is easier to construct close relationships with children who are approachable and have positive moods. On the other hand, teachers have to work harder to construct close relationships with children who have negative moods or are withdrawn. Some teachers may isolate or neglect these children rather than try to gain the trust of the children and construct a more positive relationship. Furthermore, some temperament characteristics may not be compatible with the classroom environment and classroom rules. Thomas and Chess (1977) developed the concept of ‘goodness of fit’ to explain how well a child’s temperament characteristics, capacities, and other characteristics meet the expectations and demands of the environment. ‘Goodness of fit’ proposes that some temperamental 13

characteristics may be better suited for specific environments. Children who have long attention span, low activity level, and who can easily regulate their negative emotions adjust easier to more structured environment of the early education classrooms (Coplan, Barber, Lagace-Seguin, 1999). For example, highly active and easily distractible children, particularly boys, may have problems following classroom rules, such as no running in the classroom. These kinds of behaviors may lead to conflictual teacher-child relationships. These behaviors may also affect the nature of teachers’ interaction with those children. The teachers may have controlling and managerial interactions with the children rather than stimulating interactions. As a result, children with temperaments difficult to deal with in a classroom environment may not be getting the loving and close relationships, and verbal stimulation they need to achieve their potential language, emotional, social, and cognitive development. Therefore, interaction between child characteristics and teacher can enhance or deteriorate a child’s social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. Previous studies (Keogh and Burstein, 1988, Hildebrandt and Cannan, 1985, Coplan and Prakash, 2003, Paget, Nagle and Martin, 1984, Pullis and Cadwell, 1982, Pullis 1985, Van de Werfhorst, 1985, 1986) indicated that children’s temperament has an effect on teacher-child interaction. Activity level, distractibility, and persistence are found to be the most significant temperamental characteristics for teacher-child interactions (Flynn, 2000; Keogh, 1989; Martin, 1989). Furthermore, recent research reveals a relationship between temperamental characteristics of developmentally disabled children and teacher-child relationships. Temperament dimensions; task orientation, personal and social flexibility are positively correlated with closeness of teacher-student relationship (Flynn, 2000).

The Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of the study is to investigate the relationships between child temperament, gender, teacher-child relationships, and naturally-occurring teacherchild interaction. Firstly, the study will examine the relationship between child temperament, child gender and teachers’ of their relationship with individual children. Another purpose of the study is to investigate how children’s temperament and gender are related to teachers’ interaction with individual children. The final purpose of the

14

study is to examine the relationships between teacher-child relationships and teacher’s interaction with individual children. Investigating the relationship between temperamental characteristics of children and teachers’ relationship with children will help us to understand which temperamental characteristics have negative or positive effect on teacher-child relationships. Since evidence (e.g. Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997, PeisnerFeinberg, et al., 2001, Pianta and Steinberg 1992, Birch & Ladd, 1998) suggests that teachers’ perceptions of quality of teacher-child relationships affects competency, prosocial skills, social, cognitive, and language development of the children, knowing which temperament characteristics have negative effects on teacher child relationship will provide us with knowledge of the disadvantaged temperamental characteristics in preschool environment. With an understanding of factors related to teacher-child relationships, we can design prevention and intervention techniques that improve the quality of relationships between teacher and child. Consequently, we can enhance the child’s well being, social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. Increasing teachers’ understandings of children’s individual differences and their relation to adaptations or problems in classroom environment can be very helpful for teachers to understand the underlying reasons of children’s misbehaviors. I f teachers understand how children’s temperament dimensions might contribute to the situation rather than believing children are misbehaving on purpose, they will be able to better focus on solving the problem. As a result, conflict between teachers and children can be reduced (Pullis, 1985) Furthermore, when children feel accepted and respected as individuals, they are more inclined to solve problem rather than defending their positions (Rothbart & Jones, 1998). The knowledge about temperament is related to teacher’s relationship with children can also help teachers to gain self awareness of their behaviors toward children and their relationship with children. This self awareness may lead to adjustments in their behaviors and feelings toward children. Also, knowing that temperament has a sizeable heritability component may help teachers to control their anger and frustration while dealing with problem behaviors. For example, expecting a child with a high activity level stay still during a long story time is not a realistic expectation. If the teacher focuses on disciplining the child rather than reading the story, after a while he or she might develop a conflictual relationship with the child. However, if the teacher is aware of the child’s temperament and how it will affect his 15

behaviors during classroom activities, she will have more realistic expectations and less conflictual relationship with the child. Teachers’ awareness of how temperament can affect their relationships with children, and knowledge of the biological basis of temperament and how temperamental characteristics can be changed by environmental factors can help teachers’ reconstruct their relationship with children. Studying the relationship between temperament, gender and teacher-child verbal interaction is important since evidence (Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987, McCartney, 1984, and NICHD, 2000) reveals that frequent conversation between children and teachers enhances social, cognitive and language development. Temperament was found to be one of the factors which affect teachers’ behaviors towards children. The results of this study will help to determine how gender and temperament characteristics affect teachers’ verbal stimulation of children. With an understanding of factors relating to teacher-child verbal interaction, we can design prevention and intervention techniques that improve the quality and nature of the verbal interaction for disadvantaged children. This knowledge can also be used to increase teachers’ awareness of their verbal interaction patterns with children and this awareness can help them provide equal distribution of verbal stimulation among children. As a result, children with disadvantaged characteristics for verbal teacher interaction can also have the opportunity to reach their potential social, language, and cognitive development.

Research Questions

Question 1. Are there relationships between child gender, temperament, and teacher-child relationship scores of children? Hypothesis 1. There will be statistically significant correlations between children’s temperament characteristics, gender, and teacher-child relationship scores. Question 2. Are there relationships between child gender, temperament dimensions, and teacher-child interactions scores of children? Hypothesis 2. There will be statistically significant correlations between children’s temperament dimensions, gender, and teacher-child interaction scores. Question 3. Are there relationships between teacher-child interaction and teacher-child relationship scores of children? Hypothesis 3. There will be significant

16

correlations between teacher-child interaction scores and teacher-child relationship scores. Question 4. What is the overall strength of relationship between the eight temperament dimensions and teacher-child relationships, and which temperament dimensions appear most influential to teacher-child relationships? There is no statistical hypothesis developed for this question. Question 5. What is the overall strength of relationship between the eight temperament dimensions and teacher-child interactions, and which temperament dimensions appear most influential to teacher-child interactions? No statistical hypothesis is developed for this question.

Definition of Terms •

Temperament: “Temperament is the behavioral style of the individual child— the how rather than the what (abilities and content) or why (motivations) of behavior. Temperament is a phenomenologic term used to describe the characteristic tempo, rhythmicity, adaptability, energy expenditure, mood, and focus of attention of a child, independently of the content of any specific behavior” (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 4).

•

Activity Level: “the level, tempo, and frequency with which a motor component is present in the child’s functioning” Activity level ranges from low to high (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 20).

•

Approach/withdrawal: “The child’s initial reaction to any new stimulus, be it food, people, places, toys, or procedures” (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21).

•

Adaptability: “The sequential course of responses a child makes to new or altered situations.” The emphasis is not on the initial response, it is on the “ease or difficulty with which the initial pattern of response can be modified in the direction desired by the parents or others”. It ranges from slow to fast (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21).

•

Intensity of Reaction: “In this category interest is directed to the energy content of the response, irrespective of its direction. A negative response may be as intense or as mild as a positive one”. It ranges from mild to intense (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21).

17

•

Attention Span and Persistence: “This category includes two subcategories which are related. By attention span is meant the length of time a particular activity is pursued. By persistence, we mean the child’s maintaining of an activity in the face of obstacles to its continuation”. It ranges from short to long attention span (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 23, 24).

•

Distractibility: “The effectiveness of extraneous environmental stimuli in interfering with, or in altering the direction of, the ongoing behavior”. It ranges from distractible to non distractible (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 23).

•

Threshold of Responsiveness: “The level of extrinsic stimulation that is necessary to evoke a discernible. The explicit form of response that occurs is irrelevant and maybe of any quality, e.g., approaching or withdrawing, intense or mild. What is fundamental is the intensity of stimulus that has to be applied before a response of any kind can be elicited.” It ranges from high to low (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 23). Factor analysis of the teacher ratings of temperament by Keogh (1982), Pullis

and Cadwell (1982), and Martin and his colleagues (1984) extracted three common factors; task orientation, personal-social flexibility, and reactivity. •

Task orientation (Task Attention) is composed of activity level, persistence and distractibility. Task attention indicates a child’s ability to be seated during a task, to persist on task until completion without being distracted.

•

Personal-Social Flexibility (Adaptability) includes items from the dimensions of withdrawal/approach, adaptability, and positive mood. Social adaptability is about children’s tendency to react positively to new situation or stimuli and modify behavior easily in the desired direction, and to respond positively during social interactions.

•

Reactivity contains items from the dimensions of intensity, and threshold of response, and negative mood. Children with high reactivity have a tendency to overact to stressful situations and become overly upset when frustrated.

18

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter provides an overview of the relevant theoretical and empirical research. The first major section addresses the role of teacher-child relationships, including an assessment of teacher-child relationship, and the effects of teacher-child relationship on child outcomes. This is followed by the second major section that reviews the research on teacher-child interaction. This section consists of a review of research on the effects of teacher-child interactions on child outcomes, the nature of teachers’ interaction with children, and the distribution of teacher attention. The third major section discusses the effects of gender on teacher-child relationships and teacher-child interaction. The next major section reviews the theory and research on temperament. Specifically, it discusses the theory, review of research on temperament and teacher-child interactions, and review of research on temperament and teacherchild relationship. Finally, in the last section a summary of the chapter is provided.

Teacher-Child Relationships

It is believed that young children’s early experiences during the critical years (0-6) can have a considerable effect on children’s developmental outcomes. Relationships between adults and children are a critical resource for the development of children’s social, emotional, and academic competencies in the preschool, elementary, and middle-school years (Burchinal et al., 2002; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Dick, et al., 1998; Pianta, 1999; Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Wentzel, 1996). However, poor or conflictual relationships with adults can be a source of risk for children. Since many preschoolers spend the majority of their weekdays in an early childhood program, teachers are one of the most important adults in young children’s lives. It follows that the nature of preschool children’s relationships with adults is of considerable importance. Relationships with teachers are a crucial part of classroom experiences for children as well as a potential source for improving developmental

19

outcomes (Pianta, 1999). Much of the research to date has explored how the quality of teacher-child relationships can influence young children’s emotional, social, and language development, aggressive behavior, and school adjustment (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Burchinal, et al., 2002; Hamre and Pianta 2001; Howes, 1997; Howes et al., 1994; Pianta, 1992, 1995). To understand the significance of teacher-child relationships for child outcomes it is first necessary to understand assessment and the nature of adult-child relationships and how they relate to learning in the classroom environment. Assessment of Teacher-Child Relationship Relationships between teachers and children have been assessed using three types of methodological techniques: teacher report (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997, 1998; Ladd & Burgess, 1988; Lambert, 1998; Pianta, Steinerg, & Rollins, 1995), observational techniques (e.g.,Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999), and child report (e.g., Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992). Child report is the least employed technique to assess teacher-child relationships. In one study, children (ages 7-13 years) were asked to answer questions about their feelings of their relationships with their teachers (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992). Studies which utilized observational techniques followed parent-child attachment patterns to investigate teacher-child relationships (Howes & Hamilton, 1992a, 1992b; Howes et al., 1994) by employing the attachment Q-set which was originally developed for assessing mother-child attachment (Waters & Deane, 1985). Pianta (1992a) argues that it would be oversimplifying to say that parent-child attachment is equal to the entire teacher-child relationships. Even though, mother-child and teacher-child relationships have similar characteristics, and many young children develop relationships with their teachers that are “attachments”, teachers have different roles, concerns, and responsibilities toward children in school-like settings than parents do at home (Pianta, 1992a). Pianta and his colleagues have developed the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta et al., 1991) based on attachment theory and research on teacherchild interactions. The majority of recent research on teacher-child relationships has employed the STRS. The STRS defines the quality of teacher-child relationships based on teachers’ perspectives on their feelings about their relationships with individual children in their classrooms. Assessment of the relationship quality with teacher-report provides insight into how one of the relationship’s participants perceives the nature of the relationship. The STRS measures three dimensions of 20

teacher-child relationships: closeness, conflict, and dependency. The following section will address the definitions of these dimensions as well as how they relate to children’s learning in a classroom setting. The Nature of Teacher-Child Relationship and Its Effects on Learning in the Classroom Environment A relationship is a series of successive interactions occurring over a long period of time between two individuals. There is continuity among interactions in a relationship. Specifically, current interactions are influenced by previous interactions, and will affect future interactions (Hinde, 1979). Therefore, while teacher-child relationships are affected by teacher-child interactions, the quality of relationships in return can affect the nature and frequency of teacher-child interactions. Even though relationships and interactions mutually affect each other, they differ from each other. Relationships are dyadic, they develop over time based on many interactions, and they include emotional content and expectations produced by past interactions (Pianta, 1997). According to Pianta (1999), teacher-child relationship has three dimensions: closeness, conflict, and dependency. The closeness dimension reveals the degree of a teacher’s experiences of affection, warmth, and open communication with a particular child. When a child has a close relationship with his or her teacher, he or she feels emotionally secure with the teacher, and uses the teacher as a secure base and resource for exploring the learning opportunities of the classroom. Therefore, the child who has a close relationship with his or her teacher is better able to focus his or her energy and attention on learning (Pianta, 1999). In contrast, a conflictual relationship may interfere with the child’s focus of attention on learning and achievement. The child who has a conflictual relationship with his or her teacher is viewed as angry and unpredictable by the teacher. The teacher also feels emotionally drained and unsuccessful in her relationship with the child. The child does not feel emotionally secure with the teacher and so cannot use the relationship as a base of support for exploring the learning opportunities in the classroom. Furthermore, conflictual relationship may cause anxiety and fear about going to school for the child (Pianta, 1999). An overly dependent child is also unlikely to explore the learning opportunities in the classroom or play with peers. Rather than close and positive reciprocated interactions, the dependent child has clinging and immature interactions with the teacher. The child often requests help from his or her teacher when not needed 21

(Howes & Ritchie, 2002; Pianta, 1999). Consequently, the quality of children’s relationships with their teachers’ affects their use of learning opportunities, as well as their well-being in the classroom. Young children can listen, focus and learn better from teachers with whom they have close relationships than from teachers with whom they have detached or conflicted relationships (Pianta, 1999). Therefore, conflictual and dependent teacherchild relationships can interfere with school adjustment, children’s ability to learn, and achievement. Recent research supports this argument. The quality of teachers’ relationships with children is related to child adjustment and the social, emotional, and educational outcomes for children (Burchinal, Pesner-Feinberg, Pianta, Howes, 2002; Dick, et al., 1998; Howes et al., 1994; Kienbaum, J., 2001; Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999; 2001; Pianta and Steinberg, 1992). The following section reviews the research on effects of teacher-child relationship on child outcomes. Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Developmental Outcomes Evidence revealing the importance of relationships with mothers for child competence, has led researchers to search for possible effects of teacher-child relationships on children’s schooling. Much of the literature has focused on how children’s relationships with their teachers relate to school adjustment, academic achievement, prosocial behaviors, behavioral problems and peer relationships (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Burchinal, et al., 2002; Hamre and Pianta 2001; Howes et al, 1994; Pianta, 1992). Pianta and Steinberg (1992) have examined the relations between teacher-child relationships and children’s school adjustment and achievement in kindergarten. Teacher-child closeness was related to behavioral and academic competence (e.g., social skills, good work habits), while teacher-child conflict was related to conduct and learning problems in kindergarten. Moreover, findings revealed that children who were retained in kindergarten had more conflictual and less close relationships with their teachers than their peers who were not retained, although they had the same achievement levels (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Likewise, another study found that within a group of children at-risk for retention in kindergarten, first grade, or second grade, the children who had a closer relationship with their teachers were not retained (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). Burchinal et al. (2002) found that teacher-child closeness predicted better 22

language skills for African American children, and reading skills for children who had more authoritarian parents. A longitudinal study by Hamre and Pianta (2000) supports these findings. Negative teacher-child relationships predicted lower academic performance on standardized tests, lower grades in academic subjects, lower ratings of positive work habits, and more disciplinary problems through elementary school (Hamre & Pianta, 2000). Furthermore, after adjusting for individual child social characteristics, teacher-child closeness during preschool years was significantly related to teacher ratings of children’s cognitive/attention skills over time through second grade (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999). Likewise, children with closer relationships with their teachers had better thinking/attention skills lasting at least from age 3 through kindergarten (Dick, et al., 1998). Birch and Ladd (1997) assessed the relations between teacher-child relationships and children’s school adjustment (school liking, engagement, and achievement) in kindergarten. The regression analyses showed that children who had closer and less dependent relationships with their teachers liked school more, and were more involved and engaged in classroom activities. In contrast, children who had conflictual relationships with teachers liked school less, and were less involved and engaged in classroom activities. Furthermore, children with closer and less dependent relationships had higher scores on visual and language tests (Metropolitan Readiness Test) than their peers who had less close teacher-child relationships (Birch and Ladd, 1997). The cost quality and closeness study (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997) revealed similar results. Closeness of the teacher-child relationship was associated with children’s attitudes toward child care, perceptions of their own competence, language scores, sociability ratings (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997), and cognitive and social skills (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 2001). The studies mentioned above indicated that the quality of teacher-child relationships is related to children’s attitudes toward school, involvement and engagement in classroom activities, and academic achievement. However, they do not provide information about how these variables are related. A study by Valeski (2000) answers this question. She examined the developmental trajectories between children’s relationships with teachers and academic engagement, and academic achievement, from kindergarten through third grade. Teacher-child relationships predicted academic engagement, which predicted academic achievement in kindergarten through third grade. The more important finding is that analyses of 23

developmental trajectories revealed that changes in relationship quality from one year to the next predicted corresponding patterns of change in academic engagement. Changes in academic engagement predicted academic achievement. This research provides evidence for linking teacher-child relationships to academic achievement. Relationship quality affects academic engagement of children, which affects academic achievement. She concludes that children can develop positive relationships with their teachers, academic engagement, and achievement in every grade, regardless of their relationship history (Valeski, 2000). Therefore, it can be concluded that close relationships with teacher increases children’s liking of school, which increases their engagement in classroom activities, and in return this increases academic achievement. On the contrary, conflictual relationships cause negative attitudes toward school, which cause decrease in their engagement in classroom activities, and in return, lower the children’s academic success. Studies (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes and Ritchie, 2002) also investigated the relationship between teacher-child relationship and prosocial skills, behaviors toward peers, and problem behaviors. The cost quality and closeness study (PeisnerFeinberg, et al., 1999) investigated longitudinal affects of teacher-child relationship on problem behaviors and sociability. After adjusting for individual child social characteristics, teacher-child closeness during preschool years was significantly related to teacher ratings of children’s problem behaviors, and sociability over time through second grade. Furthermore, aggression, disruptive behavior, and social withdrawal in the second grade were related to low levels of teacher-child closeness (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999). Likewise, children with closer relationships with their teachers had fewer problem behaviors, especially for boys, lasting at least from age 3 through kindergarten (Dick, et al., 1998). Another study by Birch and Ladd (1998) revealed a positive relationship between teacher-child closeness and prosocial behavior of kindergarteners. Besides, teacher-child conflict was negatively correlated with the prosocial behavior of kindergarteners. What is more important is that conflict in the teacher-child relationship was related with a decline in children’s prosocial behavior and an increase in peer-perceived aggressive behavior one year later (Birch & Ladd, 1998). Second graders teacher-child closeness was also related to prosocial behaviors of children (Howes, 2000). A study by Howes and Hamilton (1993) shows how change in relationship 24

quality can change children’s behaviors in the classroom. They examined the changes in children’s aggression with peers when children changed child-care teachers. Children who were enrolled in child-care centers were followed from their first birthdays until they went to kindergarten. Attachment security with teachers and aggression with peers were observed every 6 months. When children’s primary childcare teacher changed, if the change was from insecure to secure relationship, children’s aggression with peers decreased (Howes & Hamilton, 1993). Furthermore, teacher-child relationship is a stronger predictor of behavior with peers in the classroom than parent-child relationship (Howes, Matheson, Hamilton, 1994). Therefore, these studies provide evidence that the quality of the relationships between teachers and children affects children’s behaviors with their peers. Closer, secure relationships between children and teachers can lead to harmonious interactions in classrooms. Howes and Ritchie (2002) argue that developing more trusting and secure relationships with children can help children to develop internalized dispositions toward regulation and control, which in return encourage harmonious classroom interactions. A study by Kienbaum (2001) supports this argument. Findings show that children who showed compassionate and prosocial behaviors had warmer teachers than children who did not show sympathetic-prosocial reactions. The correlation was stronger particularly for boys. Therefore, teachers’ ability to interact in a warm, affectionate way is crucial for the development of emotional competence in young children. She suggested that warm teacher-child relationships can increase children’s compassionate and prosocial behaviors, particularly boys’ (Kienbaum, 2001). Mitchell-Copeland et al. (1997) not only found that secure attachment relationship with teacher was related to prosocial behavior, and social competence in preschool, but also showed that a preschool child’s secure attachment relationship with his or her preschool teacher may partially compensate for an insecure relationship with his or her mother. Children who had insecure attachment relationships with their mothers but had secure attachments with their teachers were more socially competent, prosocial, and positive emotionally than children who were insecurely attached to both mother and teacher (Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Briefly, the nature of teacher-child relationships is related to children’s attitudes toward school, cognitive/attention skills, academic engagement, working 25

habits, language, reading skills, academic performance, sociability ratings, and problem behaviors. Teacher-child relationships can enhance children’s development by providing children with social support and emotional security. Children with more positive teacher-child relationships appear more able to exploit the learning opportunities available in classrooms (Howes & Smith, 1995), construct positive peer relationships (Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994), and adjust to the demands of formal schooling (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Relationships between teachers and children develop based on consecutive interactions between teachers and children. Therefore, relationships between teachers and children are affected by past interactions. However, relationships between teacher and children also affect the quantity and quality of future teacher-child interactions. Teacher-child interactions are believed to be the center of children’s experiences in early childhood programs. Besides, teacher-child interactions have developmental outcomes for children. The following section discusses teacher-child interactions, how teacher-child interactions affect child development, and the nature and distribution of teacher attention to children.

Teacher-Child Interactions

The quality of teacher interaction with young children has long been discussed by early childhood educators and psychologists. It is generally agreed that because young children learn basic skills and knowledge (e.g., language, social competence) through interactive experiences, and teachers are the most capable social partners for scaffolding young children’s learning and social interaction in early childhood classrooms, the quality of teacher-child interactions contributes significantly to children’s development (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Kontos & WilcoxHerzog, 2002). Child development is enhanced when teachers facilitate learning through play in well organized and child-centered classrooms (Bryant, Burchinal, Lau & Sparling, 1994). According to NAEYC (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the characteristics of developmentally appropriate teacher interaction to enhance children’s learning and development are: (a) encouraging children to choose and plan their own activities; (b) stimulating children’s thinking and extending their learning by posing problems, 26

asking questions, making comments and suggestions; (c) presenting new experiences, stimulating ideas, problems, experiences, or hypotheses; (d) modeling, demonstrating specific skills, providing information, paying attention, verbally encouraging, reinforcing; (e) providing cues and other kind of “scaffolding” to help the child to complete a task that is just beyond his or her ability to succeed alone (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Frequent teacher-child interactions which expand children’s ideas and conversations by asking open-ended and cognitively challenging questions, giving information related to child’s engagement can extend children’s ideas and conversations and facilitate language and cognitive development (McCartney, 1984; 2002; Smith, 1996; Trawick-Smith, 1994). Teacher-child interaction has been used as an index of child care quality (Clawson, 1996). The way teachers interact with children is an important aspect of quality in the classroom (De Kruif & McWilliam, 2003). High quality classrooms are those in which teachers interact with children in a warm, responsive and informative way, and encourage verbal interaction (Arnett, 1989; Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Cassidy & Buell, 1996; Clarke-Stewart & Gruber, 1984; McCartney, 1984). McCartney (2002) suggests that classrooms with high levels of sensitive care and language stimulation are the most advantageous environments for the cognitive and language development of children. Researchers (e.g. McCartney, 1984; McCathren et al., 1995; Phillips et al, 1987; NICHD, 2000; 2003; Roberts et al., 1989) investigated the effect of verbal interaction between teachers and children on child outcomes. Evidence is accumulating that teachers’ stimulating interaction with children is positively associated with various child outcomes. The following section reviews the literature related to teacher-child interaction and child outcomes. Teacher-child interaction and developmental outcomes Teacher-child interaction has been assessed in relation to children’s language, cognitive and social development, and language productivity. Tizard, Cooperman, Joseph, and Tizard (1972) investigated the relationships between teacher-child interactions and children’s language development. Language development was related to quality and frequency of informative talk and the frequency of teacher responses to children’s questions. Golden et al. (1978) also found that 2-year-old children who were provided with high levels of cognitive and social stimulation by their child care providers had higher scores on social competence and language comprehension measures when they were 3. Likewise, Carew (1980) found that 27

children who had high levels of language mastery experiences provided by their teachers had higher scores on IQ and receptive language tests. McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, and Schwartz (1982) examined the immediate and long-term consequences of environmental differences in day care centers on children’s social, emotional, intellectual and language development. Subjects were 156 children, 36- to 60-months of age, attending one of the target centers for at least six months. Children attending centers characterized by large amounts of teacher-child interaction received higher scores on measures of language development and higher ratings of sociability than children attending centers low in teacher-child interaction. Furthermore, high levels of regulatable quality, structural features of the child care environment that are controlled by government regulations (e.g., class size, teacher-child ratio, and the education and the training of the child care teacher), but low levels of teacher-child interaction were related to high ratings of teacher-rated anxiety, hyperactivity, and aggression in children. Moreover, children in centers characterized by low levels of regulatable quality but high levels of teacherchild interaction were better adjusted than children in centers with high regulatable quality but low levels of teacher-child interaction. Therefore, even though both regulatable quality and teacher-child interaction are important of aspects of classroom quality, teacher-child interaction has stronger effect on children’s adjustment in classroom than regulatable quality. McCartney (1984) investigated the effect of verbal environment in day care on children’s language development by improving the methodology of the previous research (McCartney et al., 1982). Subjects were 166 children, 36 to 68 months of age, attending one of the nine day care centers in Bermuda. Children’s verbal intelligence was assessed with the revised Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn, 1979). Language development was assessed with standardized test results from the Preschool Language Assessment Instrument (PLAI; Blank, Rose, & Berlin, 1978), teacher ratings of the Adaptive Language Inventory (ALI; Feagans & Farran, 1979), and ratings of children’s free-speech during an individually-administered communication task (e.g., retelling a story to a puppet). Eight randomly selected children from each center were observed to measure function and quality of verbal interaction with teachers and peers. Each child was observed for six 10-minute segments throughout the day across varying activities, except nap time, within a 2week period. The results indicated that frequency of verbal interaction was a 28

significant predictor of children’s language scores, particularly stronger with the two measures reflecting the development of pragmatic skills (the ALI and experimental communication task scores). Analysis of the effects of type of verbal interaction indicated that caregivers’ proportion of control utterances (control of present or future behavior of a child, e.g. “Stop talking”) was a negative predictor of all four language development measures (accounted variance ranges from 3.4% to 25.8%). The frequency of peer interaction was not a significant predictor of language development. McCartney (1984) concluded that classrooms where teachers and children engage in frequent conversations, particularly where teachers give or requested information, expressed their feelings, attitudes, and evaluations (e.g. “I like your castle”), and used less control utterances can enhance children’s language skills (McCartney, 1984). Research by McCathren et al. (1995) has revealed similar findings. Follow-in directives (following the child’s lead) were positively correlated to language development, while redirectives (initiating a new topic) were negatively correlated (McCathren, Yoder, & Warren, 1995). Research examining the relation between teacher directiveness and child language productivity has supported these findings (Girolametto, Weitzman, Lieshout, and Duff, 2000). Wh-questions, clarification questions, conversational yes/no questions were related to the greatest amount of child talkativeness, lexical diversity, and complexity. On the other hand, teacher utterances which constrain behavior (behavior control) and dominate turn-taking were related to children’s use of restricted and less complex language. Roberts, Rabinowitch, Bryant, Burchinal, Koch, and Ramey (1989) examined the effects of a language-enriched day care program for economically disadvantaged children. Participants attended the program five full days a week from the time the children were three-months of age until they entered kindergarten. Day care teachers were trained to talk to children by the frequent use of individualized conversation, daily reading, and frequent discussions, and modeling informative and reflective talk by acknowledging, questioning, and extending children’s speech. The children who participated in the program were better able to elaborate the topic of a conversation by being imaginative, evaluative, and inquisitive in their response, compared to the control group, at age five (Roberts, et al., 1989). Furthermore, teacher-child interaction which expands children’s ideas and conversations, or which includes ‘rare’ vocabulary was found to be related to children’s later development of vocabulary, 29

story understanding, and print skills, and ability to produce extended discourse (Smith, 1996). Trawick-Smith (1994) argues that open-ended and cognitively challenging questions are crucial methods for teachers which lead to positive outcomes for children. A longitudinal study (NICHD, 2000) investigated how experiences in child care relate to language and cognitive development. The number of participants varied between 595 and 856, depending on the assessment. Language stimulation behavior categories were: asks questions of child, responds to child’s vocalizations, and other (nonnegative) talk to child. After adjusting for maternal vocabulary score, family income, child gender, observed quality of the home environment, and observed maternal cognitive stimulation, the overall quality of childcare, particularly language stimulation, was related to cognitive and language outcomes at ages 15, 24, and 36 months. Furthermore, after adjusting for current child care, language stimulation predicted subsequent cognitive and language performance 9 to 12 months later. Language stimulation by the caregiver was found to be the most important component of quality of the program affecting child outcomes at age 4 ½ (NICHD, 2003). Language stimulation categories included responding to the child's vocalizations, asking and answering questions, reading to the child, conversing with the child in other ways, and stimulating the child's cognitive development or teaching the child an academic skill. Greater language stimulation by the caregiver was significantly related to higher scores on five measures of cognition—specifically, letter-word identification, applied problem solving, language comprehension, expressive vocabulary, and short-term memory. Furthermore, after controlling the quality of present care, the stimulating quality of care children experienced from 6 to 36 months was significantly related to the five measures of cognition. The quality of verbal interactions between adults and children was also found to be the strongest predictor of social development (Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987). Verbal interaction was assessed with the observational coding system of McCartney et al. (1984). Social development was assessed with parent and caregiver ratings of children on two standardized measures. Social competence was assessed with the classroom Behavior Inventory (Schaefer & Edgerton, 1978), which yields factors for intelligence, considerateness, sociability, task orientation, and dependence. Social adjustment was assessed with the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (Behar & Stringfield, 1974), which yields factors for aggression, anxiety, and hyperactivity. 30

Verbal interaction between caregivers and children was found to predict social development. Children in centers with high levels of teacher-child verbal interaction were rated by their teachers as more considerate, more sociable, intelligent, and task oriented than children in centers with low levels of teacher-child verbal interaction. The authors concluded that verbal teacher-child interaction is the strongest predictor of social development among the all components of program quality. Children benefit socially from a verbally stimulating environment in which caregivers and children are frequently engaged in conversation (Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987). Teachers’ responsive interactions with children were found to be strongly related to higher self-esteem (Kostelnik, Stein, & Whiren, 1988), enhanced selfperceptions, perceptions of competence and worth (Openshaw, 1978), and fewer discipline problems (Lunenberg, 1984). The National Child Care Staffing Study (Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989) has also found that the quality of the teacher-child interactions and teacher behaviors were related to children’s development. Likewise, Bryant et al. (1994) found a positive correlation between the Appropriate Caregiving factor of the ECERS (Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale) and children’s communication abilities measured with teacher ratings at the end of preschool (Bryant, Burchinal, Lau & Sparling, 1994). Smith and Connolly (1980) found mixed effects for two types of teacher involvement in British playgroups. With minimal teacher involvement during free play (teachers interacted with children primarily when children imitated it), there was more peer interaction, rough and tumble play, and fantasy play. With greater adult involvement (adults took a facilitator role requiring them to respond to and initiate involvement with children), there were more adult-child interactions and longer activity spans. The researchers pointed out that teacher involvement does not necessarily diminish fantasy play and, handled appropriately, can even increase it. In conclusion, verbal interaction with caregivers affects children’s language development, particularly the development of communicative competence, cognitive development and social development of children. Particularly, frequent verbally stimulating teacher interaction with children can enhance children’s language, cognitive and social development. Briefly, children who have more responsive and verbally stimulating teacher interactions and whose teachers’ facilitate children’s learning by play rather than 31

restricting children’s behaviors, seem to have higher self-esteem, higher levels of cognitive, social, and language skills and show fewer stressful behaviors. However, studies (e.g., Burts, et al., 1992; Wittmer & Honig, 1991; Honig and Wittmer, 1982; Stone, 1993) reveal remarkable amount of teacher interactions were not verbally stimulating or responsive. To understand how teachers interact with children, it is necessary to understand the nature of teachers’ interactions with children in classrooms. Nature of Teachers’ Interaction with Children Wittmer and Honig (1991) investigated the frequency of teacher-child interactions, particularly teachers’ use of questions. The participants of the study were 50 three-year-old children from 10 day care centers serving economically disadvantaged families. Teachers’ questions and children’s responses were recorded and analyzed. Children overwhelmingly were asked convergent (i.e., yes-no) questions, even though they were found to be equally capable of answering divergent or convergent questions. The authors suggested that teachers may need to gain better communicative skills and specific training in language development in order to increase their use of divergent questions, because divergent questions are believed to enhance children’s language and cognitive development. Honig and Wittmer (1982) investigated the kinds of affective and cognitive transactions initiated by children and teacher’s responses to these transactions. Participants were 50 children ranging from 24- to 30-months of age. Teachers responded to sixty percent of children’s attempts to seek help or attention by teaching, offering positive reinforcement, or questioning the child. However, one-third of the children’s help-seeking behaviors was ignored by teachers or received negative teacher responses. And one-fourth of the time children were ignored by their teachers when they requested attention (Honig and Wittmer, 1982). Forty percent of the teacher verbalizations with children were found to be restrictive (Burts, et al., 1992). Another study found that 14 of the 30 preschool teachers observed used primarily restrictive language rather than responsive language (Stone, 1993). In brief, children may not be getting enough verbal stimulation from teachers, as well as positive teacher response to their initiation of interaction. Furthermore, the frequency of teacher-child interaction varies from child to child. Teacher attention is not distributed equally among all children. Teachers spend more time with some children, whereas they spend less time with others. 32

The Distribution of Teacher Attention to Children On average, a preschool child interacts with his or her teachers about 11% of the time during free play (Vliestra, 1981). However, all children are not treated equally in an early childhood classroom (Katherine A. Hildebrandt & Teresa Cannan, 1985). The amount of the time each child spends interacting with teachers varies remarkably (Howes, et al., 1994). Although, teachers in Head Start Preschool classrooms were actively involved with children about 71% of the time, 31% of the children had no individual attention during the observations. Also, in 12% of the classrooms, teachers did not interact individually with half of the children (Layzer, Goodson, & Moss, 1993). Kontos and Wilcox-Herzog (1997a) suggested that teachers interact more with children who seek adult attention, whose behavior requires frequent adult intervention, who are engaged with activities that require adult assistance, and who are personally more likable to the individual teacher. In conclusion, not only do teachers tend to spend more time with some children than others, but the quality of their interaction with individual children varies. Teachers have more restrictive, controlling interactions with some children, whereas they have warmer or stimulating interactions with others. Teachers frequently praise some children, while they frequently criticize or discipline others, or mostly ignore others (Brophy, 1974). Furthermore, the quality of teachers’ relationships with children varies, ranging from close to conflictual. Child characteristics play a role in teacher-child interaction and relationships. Child gender is one of the factors related to the inequality in the frequency and nature of teacher-child interaction and quality of relationships between teachers and children.

Gender

Teacher-child relationship and gender differences Birch and Ladd (1998) investigated gender differences in the quality of teacher-child relationship assessed with STRS in first grade. Results indicated that teachers had closer relationships with girls than with boys and more conflictual relationships with boys than with girls. Also, teachers had more dependent relationships with boys than with girls, but the difference was not significant (Birch & Ladd, 1998). In preschool and kindergarten, teacher-child relationship assessed with STRS indicated significant gender difference in closeness and dependency. Findings 33

revealed that girls have closer and more dependent relationships with teachers than boys do (Howes, Phillipsen, and Peisner-Feinberg, 2000). Teacher and child reports revealed that 7-year-old boys had more conflictual relationships with their teachers than girls do. No significant gender difference was found in closeness (Wilson, 2002). Salmon (1998) found that teachers have more conflictual relationships with boys than with girls. However, no significant gender difference was found for teachers’ perceptions of closeness with children (Salmon, 1998). Only one study by Lapp-Payne (2003) found no gender difference in teacher-child relationship quality. In summary, research findings revealed gender difference in teacher-child relationship quality with the exception of a study by Lapp-Payne (2003). Teachers perceived their relationships with boys to be more conflictual. Most studies found that teachers perceived their relationships with girls to be closer. For dependency subscale, only two studies indicated gender difference. Girls had more dependent relationships with their teachers than boys did. Not only are teacher-child relationships influenced by child gender, but also by teacher-child interactions. Child gender can affect the frequency and the nature of teacher-child interaction. Teacher-child interaction and gender differences Recent research provides inconsistent information on how gender affects teacher-child interaction. Although the majority of the studies suggest that teachers adjust their behavior depending on the gender of the child, some research indicates no gender difference. Research (Clawson, 1997; Fagot, 1984; Murphy, 1986; Steinkamp, 1990) has found that teachers use disciplinary techniques more frequently with boys than girls. Boys were given more reprimands than the girls for the same or similar misbehavior in day care. Moreover, boys received more interaction, and more praise and acceptance. They received more instruction and direction in order to complete a task, while girls received more assistance and evensometimes their task was completed by teachers (Murphy, 1986). Preschool boys had more child-initiated interactions, teacher-initiated interactions, directives, physical contact, praise help, instrumental help, and instruction, however only directives and instructions were significant beyond the .05 level (Nelson, 1987). Furthermore, teachers reinforced preschool girl’s dependent behaviors more than boys, whereas they reinforced boys for engaging in tasks more than girls (Serbin, O’Leary, Kent, & Tonick, 1973). Boys were more likely to elicit responses to questions from teachers, whereas girls received more favorable comments from teachers (Galejs and Hegland, 1982). Another 34

research study revealed that teachers express more affection to female children than to male children (Botkin & Twardosz, 1988). Simpson and Erickson (1983) investigated teachers’ verbal and nonverbal communication patterns as a function of race, student gender, and student race in first grade. Boys received more frequent interaction than girls from European American female teachers. Particularly, they received more verbal praise, nonverbal praise and criticism. Furthermore, black boys received more nonverbal criticism. There was no significant gender difference in African American female teachers’ communication patterns (Simpson & Erickson, 1983). In conclusion, research studies that produced significant results regarding the effects of teacher-child interaction on gender suggest that boys seem to take the majority of teachers’ time in the classrooms. Boys are more likely to receive more disciplinary interaction, criticism, praise, instruction, and direction to complete a task, while girls receive more affectionate behavior, favorable comments, help to complete a task, and even completion of their tasks by their teachers. Teachers are more likely to have warmer interactions with girls, whereas they have more task and instruction oriented interactions with boys. However, on the contrary, some research (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997, Simac, 1993) indicates no gender difference in the way teachers interact with children. Kontos and Wilcox-Herzog (1997) found no relationship between gender and two categories of teacher behavior: teachers’ responsive involvement and verbal stimulation. Likewise, Kathleen (1993) found no significant difference in the way preschool teachers responded to girls or to boys. The teacher responses investigated were: teacher gives a soft reprimand, teacher gives praise, teacher gives directions, and teacher comments. Kathleen (1993) suggests that the difference between the findings of her research and previous research can be because of greater awareness of sex equity or inequity by educators. Briefly, although most of the evidence shows gender difference in the way teachers treat children, some recent research reveals no difference, indicating the need for further research on gender and teacher-child interaction in order to find out whether the increase in awareness of sex equity resulted in changes in teacher behaviors. Another child characteristic affecting teacher-child interaction and relationship is temperament.

35

Temperament

In this section, first the theoretical background is provided. Specifically, the history of temperament theory and research, selection of theory for the purpose of the study, and Thomas and Chess’ temperament theory will be reviewed. A section reviewing research on temperament and teacher-child interaction will follow. Finally, research on temperament in relation to teacher-child relationship will also be reviewed. Theory Stella Chess and Alexander Thomas are considered as pioneers of temperament research in childhood (Anderson-Goetz, Worobey, 1984; Bates, 1989; Bates, 2001; Guerin et al, 2003; Rothbart & Jones, 1998). Although the concept of temperament has a long history, which goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans (Rothbart & Bates, 1998), it was ignored in the twentieth century until the end of the 1950s (Hewitt, 2001). Alexander Thomas, Stella Chess, and their research colleagues conducted a longitudinal study, the New York longitudinal Study (NYLS), which stimulated the current research on temperament in the United States. In 1959, they found that the child is an active agent in his or her own development. Child-caregiver interaction is not a one-sided process. The child plays a highly active part in the interaction process by his temperamental traits. Although currently there are many theoretical perspectives regarding temperament, researchers (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Thomas & Chess, 1977; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981) agree on the following definition of temperament: Temperament is a general term referring to “intrinsic tendencies to act or react in specific and predictable ways to stimuli, people, and events” (Teglasi, 1998, p. 475). It is also believed that temperament characteristics are biologically rooted, become apparent early in life, and are relatively stable across various kinds of situation and over time (Bates, 1987; Buss and Plomin, 1984; Carey and McDevit,1978; Goldsmith et al., 1987; Kohnstamm, 1986; Rothbart, 1988; Thomas and Chess,1977). A debate has been going on in the literature regarding the nature and structure of temperament. While some temperament researchers argue that temperament can best be conceptualized as a set of dimensions in a continuum, others believe that temperament can be conceptualized as a set of qualitatively different types. Therefore, some researchers believe children can be ranked based on quantitative differences in 36

behavioral style, whereas others believe that some children can be classified based on qualitative differences in behavioral style, but not necessarily all children (Henderson, & Fox, 1998). Teachers’ application of temperament theory to daily practice in a classroom context can be affected by the choice of approach (using dimensional traits or temperamental types). Teachers may treat children differently if they believe that they have a particular temperamental type instead of viewing them being higher or lower on some dimensional temperament trait. For example, a teacher may react differently if he or she is told that a child is hyperactive instead of being told that the child is more active than the other children in the classroom (Henderson, & Fox, 1998). Thomas and Chess’ model is both dimensional and categorical. They have nine dimensions of temperament. They organized these dimensions under three categories. For the purpose of this study, Thomas and Chess’ model is chosen. Thomas and Chess’ model is chosen for the purpose of this study for the following reasons. 1. The majority of the research on temperament during infancy and childhood has been based on the nine dimensions of temperament derived from detailed parent reports of infant behavior in the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) by Thomas and Chess (Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, & Korn, 1963). 2. The majority of studies examining how temperament relates to school adjustment and teacher-child interaction have been conducted following Thomas and Chess’s dimensional approach to temperament (Henderson and Fox, 1998). 3. The suitability of Thomas and Chess’ dimensions to observable child behaviors in school settings (Henderson and Fox, 1998). 4. Availability of teacher rating forms that have been derived from Thomas and Chess’s Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (TTQ; 1977) (Henderson and Fox, 1998). 5. Its stress on the effect of a child’s temperament on his or her interactions with adults. Thomas and Chess’ Temperament Theory. The NYLS research team defined temperament as “the behavioral style of the individual child—the how rather than the what (abilities and content) or why (motivations) of behavior. Temperament is a phenomenologic term used to describe the characteristic tempo, rhythmicity, 37

adaptability, energy expenditure, mood, and focus of attention of a child, independently of the content of any specific behavior” (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 4). Temperament is the way an individual behaves rather than why he or she behaves or what she is able to do. The NYLS research team identified nine dimensions of temperament from content analysis of parental interviews. The NYLS temperament dimensions and their definitions are as follows: 1. Activity Level: It is defined as “the level, tempo, and frequency with which a motor component is present in the child’s functioning”. Activity level ranges from low to high (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 20). 2. Rhythmicity: It is defined as “the degree of rhythmicity or regularity of repetitive biological functions”, such as sleeping and waking, feeding, or bowel and bladder function (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 20). 3. Approach/withdrawal: “The child’s initial reaction to any new stimulus, be it food, people, places, toys, or procedures” (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21). 4. Adaptability: “The sequential course of responses a child makes to new or altered situations.” The emphasis is not on the initial response, it is on the “ease or difficulty with which the initial pattern of response can be modified in the direction desired by the parents or others”. It ranges from slow to fast (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21). 5. Intensity of Reaction: “In this category, interest is directed to the energy content of the response, irrespective of its direction. A negative response may be as intense or as mild as a positive one”. It ranges from mild to intense (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 21). 6. Threshold of Responsiveness: It refers to “the level of extrinsic stimulation that is necessary to evoke a discernible (response). The explicit form of response that occurs is irrelevant and maybe of any quality, e.g., approaching or withdrawing, intense or mild. What is fundamental is the intensity of stimulus that has to be applied before a response of any kind can be elicited.” It ranges from high to low (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 22). 7. Quality of Mood: It describes “the amount of pleasant, joyful, friendly 38

behavior as contrasted with unpleasant, crying, unfriendly behaviors” It ranges from positive to negative (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 22). 8. Distractibility: “The effectiveness of extraneous environmental stimuli in interfering with, or in altering the direction of, the ongoing behavior”. It ranges from distractible to non distractible (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 23). 9. Attention Span and persistence: It includes two related subcategories. Attention span is “the length of time a particular activity is pursued”. Persistence is “the child’s maintaining of an activity in the face of obstacles to its continuation”. It ranges from short to long attention span (Thomas, Chess, Birch, 1968, p. 23, 24). In addition to the nine categories, they identified three temperament categories through factor analysis and qualitative analysis of the data. These are called as “easy child”, “difficult child”, and “slow-to-warm-up child”. However, these categories were not practical for research in school environment. Researchers (Keogh, 1982; Pullis & Cadwell; 1982; and Martin & his colleagues, 1984) extracted three common factors through factor analysis of teacher ratings of temperament. These factors are: Task Orientation, Personal-Social Flexibility, and Reactivity. 1. Task Orientation (Task attention) is composed of activity level, persistence and distractibility. Task orientation indicates a child’s ability to be seated during a task, to persist on task until completion without being distracted. 2. Personal-Social Flexibility (Social adaptability) includes items from the dimensions of withdrawal/approach, adaptability, and positive mood. Social adaptability is about children’s tendency to react positively to new situation or stimuli and modify behavior easily in the desired direction, and to respond positively during social interactions. 3. Reactivity contains items from the dimensions of intensity, and threshold of response, and negative mood. Children with high reactivity have a tendency to overact to stressful situations and become overly upset when frustrated. According to Thomas and Chess (1977), “temperament is an innate characteristic that continues to evolve with other psychological attributes and interaction with the environment” (Thomas & Chess, 1977, p. 13).These interactions may reinforce, modify, or change temperamental characteristics. Chess and Thomas 39

believe that temperament is relatively, but not absolutely, stable over time. The fundamental principle of this approach is the concept of “goodness of fit” (Thomas et al., 1968). According to Thomas et al. (1968), the child’s optimal development will be achieved if the environment and expectations within the environment are in agreement with the child’s capacity and temperament. If there is a ‘goodness of fit’ between the adults’ attitudes and practices and the child’s capacity and temperament to master these demands, development will proceed smoothly, and foundation of a healthy personality will be established. If the child’s characteristics and environmental demands are inconsistent, the child’s temperament cannot cope with these demands. This causes excessive stress and unhealthy personality basis (Thomas & Chess, 1977). The problems related to “lack of fit” between the child temperament and parenting strategies can be reduced by adjusting parenting strategies suitably to a child’s temperament (Thomas, Chess and Birch, 1968). Parents and caregivers of children with challenging temperaments are often relieved to learn that some children require more effort to rear than others. Once this insight is achieved and self-blame is reduced, caregivers can redirect their energies to resolving the conflict the child has with his or her social environment (Bates, Wachs, & Emde, 1994 cited in McClowry, 1998). The significance of discipline is critical for dealing with difficult children. Use of inconsistent discipline is a major factor in the development of children’s conduct disorders (Brand, Crouse, & Hanehom, 1990). Patterson (1982) and Patterson & Reid (1970) observed that children who exhibited antisocial behavior had families with a coercive or aggressive pattern. The mothers of such children, instead of ignoring minor coercive episodes or engaging in a directed disciplinary action, behaved ineptly by nagging or irritably scolding which often increased the child’s disruptive behavior (McClowry, 1998). Some temperament characteristics can be a risk factor for developing behavioral problems. High negative reactivity, high activity level, low approach, and low task persistence have been related to behavioral problems. On the contrary, low activity level, high approach, and high task persistence have been related to positive self-perception (Klein, 1992). However, involvement of effective and caring adults enhances the flexibility of children and reduces the probability of their developing serious behavioral disorders (Werner & Smith, 1992). Chess (1966) found that when teachers changed their reactions to the problem behaviors of difficult children, adaptation of the children improved (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). 40

Temperament and Teacher-Child Interaction Studies (e.g., Keogh, 1988; Nelson, 1987; Paget, et al., 1984; and Van de Werfhorst, 1986) revealed that teacher-child interactions are influenced partly by children’s temperamental characteristics. To date, studies have examined the frequency of teacher-child interaction, teachers’ monitoring decisions, and specific teacher behaviors directed toward individual children. Keogh and Burstein (1988) investigated the relations between temperament and the frequency of teacher-child interactions with handicapped and nonhandicapped children in three settings: whole-group instruction, small-group activities, an on the playground. Handicapped and nonhandicapped children were in the same classrooms (2 university based preschool classrooms). Analyses were based on a three-factor structure of temperament: Task orientation, Personal-Social Flexibility and Reactivity, which is used commonly in studies of temperament in schools. The frequency of teacher-student interactions was positively related to high task orientation and social flexibility and moderate reactivity for non-handicapped children in all three settings. Although, for handicapped children teachers interacted with children who had more difficult temperament characteristics in center, and particularly circle time, they interacted with children who had more positive temperamental characteristics at outdoor play. The higher number of interactions with handicapped children who had difficult temperament during circle time can be an indication of the teachers’ efforts to control disruptive behavior and continue teaching. In brief, the findings suggest that teachers interacted more with children whose temperament profiles were positive for nonhandicapped children. On the contrary, for handicapped children, teachers interacted more with children with difficult temperaments (Keogh & Burstein, 1988). However, since the study focused on frequency of total interactions regardless of the nature of the interactions and the initiator of the interaction, it is impossible to say if the interactions were negative or positive or what caused the interaction. Hildebrandt and Cannan’s (1985) findings were partly in compliance with Keogh and Burstein’s findings. They found that caregivers spent more time near the difficult children (more negative in mood and lower threshold of responsiveness) than near the easy children at the beginning of the semester. Again, more frequent interactions with children who have difficult temperament can be the result of teachers’ effort to control disruptive or inappropriate behaviors and elicit adaptive behaviors. An incompatible finding is that temperament did not have a significant 41

effect on the frequency of teacher-child interaction at the end of the semester. However, the weakness of this study is that only four 5-minute segments were obtained at the beginning of the semester and the four five-minute segments obtained at the end of the semester for each caregiver were included in the data analysis. So, only a total of 20-minute of observation for each caregiver was used in the data analysis, which is not a realistic representation of teachers’ interaction with children. Coplan and Prakash’s (2003) findings were also not in agreement with Keogh’s (1988) finding, which indicates a positive relation between frequency of teacher-child interaction and social flexibility. Coplan and Prakash (2003) found that children who are more sociable, less solitary, and have fewer behavior problems than peers spent less time with teachers. On the contrary, shy, anxious, and sociallywithdrawn children, who engaged in more solitary-passive play, received the most teacher initiation. Although, this study did not use Thomas and Chess’ temperament dimensions, the child characteristics examined in the study are compatible with the approach-withdrawal dimension and social flexibility factor of Keogh’s short form of Thomas and Chess’ temperament questionnaire (Keogh, 1982). Three studies (Pullis, 1979; Pullis and Cadwell, 1982; Pullis, 1985) have investigated the effects of children’s temperament on teachers’ monitoring decisions. Pullis (1979) found that the three temperament factors (Task Orientation, Social Flexibility, Reactivity), particularly Task Orientation, were related to teachers’ classroom decisions. After controlling for the effect of IQ, Task Orientation and Flexibility were related to teachers’ estimates of children’s ability. The children high on Task Orientation and Flexibility were rated higher than their peers on ability. Teachers overestimated the ability of children with positive temperament characteristics. Temperament was also related to children’s academic performance, and teachers’ classroom management decisions (Keogh, 1982). Pullis and Cadwell (1982) found that task orientation was the most important temperamental factor in teachers’ monitoring decisions. Teacher estimation of frequency of monitoring indicated that students with high task orientation ratings needed less monitoring in all classroom situations. Although Adaptability was not related to first and third grade teachers’ monitoring decisions, it was positively related to kindergarten teachers’ monitoring decisions, in situations involving children interacting in groups (Group Activity, Nonacademic Transition, and Free play). These findings are in agreement with Carey, Fox, and McDevitt (1977) and Thomas and 42

Chess (1977), whose studies showed that extremely adaptable children were rated by their teachers as having difficulties adjusting during the first years of school (Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). Pullis and Cadwell’s (1982) suggested thatsince adaptability is highly correlated to social interaction skills, some highly adaptable children can be overly sensitive to social demands and may not be goal-directed within group situations. Pullis (1985) replicated his study with learning disabled children. He examined the relationships between teachers’ perceptions of learning disabled children’s competence (general intellectual ability, classroom motivation, social interaction skills and academic performance), and temperament and teachers decision-making (how much each child needed monitoring and supervision in various classroom settings). Task orientation factor (composed of persistence, distractibility and activity dimensions of temperament) was related to teacher’s monitoring decision in all classroom settings. The Reactivity dimension of temperament was also associated to mainly regular class teachers’ monitoring decisions particularly in transitions and freetime situations. The contribution of temperament was stronger than the contribution of cognitive and achievement variables on teachers’ monitoring decision (Pullis, 1985). The limitation of these three studies is that teachers’ monitoring is measured by teacher ratings rather than observations. What teachers think they do can be different than what they actually do. Therefore, further studies are needed that utilize observational methods. Briefly, task orientation was found to be the most important temperamental factor in teachers’ monitoring decisions. Student with high task orientation ratings needed less monitoring in all classroom situations. Reactivity was an important factor in monitoring during nonacademic transition. (Pullis and Cadwell, 1982, Pullis 1985). The contribution of temperament was stronger than the contribution of cognitive and achievement variables on teachers’ monitoring decisions (Pullis, 1985). These findings provide further support for the importance of children’s temperamental characteristics in teachers’ management and instructional decisions. Other studies investigated the relationships between temperament and specific teacher behaviors toward children, such as behavior management and teaching behaviors. A review of this research is presented below. Nelson (1987) examined relations between preschooler’s temperament, gender, and the frequency of naturally-occurring teacher interactions with individual children. Teacher interaction behaviors included Child-Initiated Interactions, Teacher-Initiated 43

Interactions, Directions to Do, Directions to Stop, Redirection, Physical Contact, Praise, Comfort, Instrumental Help, and Instruction. Boys had more teacher interactions in all categories except Comfort. However, only Directives and Instruction categories were significant beyond the .05 level. Further correlation analysis was conducted between six temperament dimensions and teacher interactions. (a) Activity level was correlated positively with the Total Number of Interactions (α=.10), Teacher-Initiated (α=.10), Physical Contact (α=.10), Directives to Do (α=.01), Redirection (α=.01), and negatively correlated with directive to stop (α=.10). Physical Contact did not differentiate between positive and negative contact. It includes contacts such as, restraining, hugging, or patting the child. Therefore it is not clear if Activity level is related to positive or negative physical contact. (b) Intensity was correlated positively with Praise (α=.05) and Comfort (α=.10); and negatively with Directive to Stop (α=.10). (c) Mood was negatively correlated with Redirection (α=.05), Teacher-initiated interaction (α=.10), Directives to do (α=.10). (d) Adaptability was negatively correlated with Redirection, Directives to do, Teacherinitiated interactions, Physical Contact, Help, and the total number of interactions. (e) Persistence was related to Child-initiated interactions (α=.5), Teacher-initiated interactions (α=.10), Directive to stop (α=.10), Redirection (α=.10). (f) Approach was not significantly related to any of the teacher interaction behaviors. The teacher interaction behavior “Instruction” was not significantly related to any of the temperament dimensions. In this study, the category “Instruction” was defined as “verbal explanation or information, one-on-one teaching” (Nelson, 1987, p. 350). This description is too broad and it does not differentiate between elaborating or nonelaborating interaction. Furthermore, observations do not include teaching behaviors or how teachers scaffold children’s play and learning. Paget et al. (1984) studied the relationships between the teacher-rated temperament to observed dyadic interactions between first-grade students and their teachers. 105 students attending 10 first grade classes were observed using the The Brophy and Good (1969) observation system. Using a criterion of P < .01, the number of Response Opportunities, the number of Child-Initiated Contacts, and TeacherInitiated Work Contacts (helping a child with work without child’s request for help) were not significantly predicted by temperament ratings. Therefore, teacher interactions related to instruction were not directly influenced by temperament characteristics of first graders. However, Behavior Contacts were significantly 44

predicted by temperament ratings. Behavior contacts are interactions between teacher and child that focused on the teacher’s management of a child’s nonacademic behavior for discipline or classroom control. They involve the use of praise for appropriate behavior and criticism for inappropriate behavior. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were generated. The Social Adaptability factor was entered first into the model and accounted for 15% of the variance in number of contacts praised and 14% of the variance in the total behavior contacts. The Task Attention factor combined with the Social Adaptability factor accounted for 23% of the variance in number of contacts praised. The negative beta weights of these two factors indicate that teachers responded with praise more to children who are more socially withdrawn and more distractible than their peers. The Task Attention factor (distractibility, and persistence) was the only significant predictor of behavior contacts criticized, accounting for 10% of the variance. The teachers responded with behavioral criticism more to less persistent and highly distractible children. The reactivity factor (activity, intensity, and sensory threshold) was positively correlated to total number of behavior contacts. Together, temperament variables accounted for around 25% of the variability in teacher-student interactions involving behavior management (Paget, Nagle, & Martin, 1984). Van de Werfhorst (1986) studied the effect of temperament on teacher behaviors in an instructional setting while the children worked on a classification task. The participants of the study were 4 to 7 years old learning disabled children attending special schools for the learning disabled in the Netherlands. Teachers’ instructional behaviors were categorized as instructions, giving orders and restrictions, asking questions, giving help, positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcements. Factor analysis on the teacher behaviors resulted in two factors: directive (giving orders and restrictions, instructions, and negative reinforcement), and non-directive teaching style (asking questions, giving help and positive reinforcements). Four dimensions of temperament, activity, persistence, distractibility and approach-withdrawal were significantly related to the different teacher behavior categories. Activity, persistence, and distractibility (Task Orientation factor) were negatively correlated with the category of asking questions. Furthermore, these temperament dimensions were positively related to more directive approaches. Activity level was correlated with the category of giving instructions, and Persistence was correlated with the category of giving orders and restrictions. On the contrary, the approach/withdrawal dimension 45

was negatively correlated with giving orders and restrictions, and positively correlated with asking questions. Findings support that task orientation is an important factor affecting teachers’ instructional and management interactions with children. Teachers have more controlling and directive interactions with children low in task orientation. However, participants of the study were children with learning disabilities attending special schools. For generalizability of the results to typical children, a replication of the study with typical children is needed. In conclusion, the findings to date suggest that child temperament is an important variable affecting interactions between teachers and children. Findings in the studies reviewed above suggest that children’s temperament characteristics are related with the frequency of their interactions with teachers, with teachers’ decisions about classroom management, and with teachers’ instructional strategies. Temperament and Teacher-Child Relationship Flynn (2000) examined the relationship between child temperament and teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with developmentally disabled preschool children. Positive relationships were found between closeness of teacher-child relationship and Task orientation, Personal and Social Flexibility dimensions of temperament. She concluded that some temperamental characteristics of children can influence teacher-child relationships. The most influential temperament characteristics to teacher-child relationships are Activity, Persistence, and Distractibility. Martin, Nagle and Paget (1983) have investigated the relations between temperament and teacher attitudes toward first graders. Teacher attitudes toward children were measured with Silberman’s (1969) procedure. Although it is not directly measuring the teacher-child relationships, it has similar groups: attachment, concern, rejection, and indifference. Attachment group is parallel to close teacher-child relationships, and rejection group is parallel to conflictual relationships. The findings are in agreement with Flynn (2000). The attachment group was more adaptable, more approaching, and more persistent. The rejection group was more active and distractible. The indifference group was less active, less approaching, and less intense. Martin, Nagle, and Paget (1983) described children in the indifference group as shy and passive. The indifference group received fewer teacher contacts than their peers did (Silberman, 1969). Briefly, the findings of these two studies suggest that teachers have closer relationships with more adaptable, more approaching, and more persistent children, 46

and they have more conflictual relationships with children who are more active, more distractible, and less persistent. However, further research investigating teacher-child relationships with typical children is needed for generalizability of the results.

Summary

Relationships with teachers are a crucial part of the classroom experience for children, as well as a critical resource for the development of children’s social, emotional, and academic competencies in the preschool, elementary, and middleschool years (Burchinal et al., 2002; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Dick, et al., 1998; Pianta, 1999; Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Wentzel, 1996). Teacher-child relationships can enhance children’s development by providing children with social support and emotional security. Children with more positive teacher-child relationships appear more able to exploit the learning opportunities available in classrooms (Howes & Smith, 1995), construct positive peer relationships (Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994), and adjust to the demands of formal schooling (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Furthermore, young children can listen, focus and learn better from teachers with whom they have close relationships than from teachers with whom they have detached or conflicted relationships (Pianta, 1999). Therefore, conflictual and dependent teacher-child relationships can interfere with school adjustment, children’s ability to learn, and achievement. Evidence reveals that the quality of teacher-child relationships is related to young children’s emotional, social, and language development, aggressive behavior, and school adjustment (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997; Burchinal, et al., 2002; Hamre & Pianta 2001; Howes, 1997; Howes et al., 1994; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992; MitchellCopeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Furthermore, conflict in the teacher-child relationship was related to a decrease in children’s prosocial behavior and increase peer-perceived aggressive behavior one year later (Birch & Ladd, 1998). On the contrary, when children’s primary child-care teacher changed, if the change was from insecure to secure relationship, children’s aggression with peers decreased (Howes & Hamilton, 1993). Furthermore, a preschool child’s secure attachment relationship with his or her preschool teacher may partially compensate for an insecure relationship with his or her mother (Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Another crucial factor affecting children’s developmental outcomes is teacher47

child interaction. Because young children learn basic skills and knowledge (e.g., language, social competence) through interactive experiences, the quality of teacherchild interactions contributes significantly to children’s development (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 2002). Teachers are the most capable social partners for scaffolding young children’s learning and social interaction in early childhood classrooms. Frequent verbally stimulating teacher-child interactions, specifically interactions which expand children’s ideas and conversations by asking open-ended and cognitively challenging questions, giving information, encouraging, and helping children elaborate on their activities facilitate the language, cognitive, and social development of children (Dunn, 1993, McCartney, 1984; 2002; NICHD, 2000; 2003; Philipsen et al., 1987; Smith, 1996; Trawick-Smith, 1994). On the contrary, teachers’ restrictive, controlling interactions were found to be negatively related to children’s language development (McCartney, 1984). Teachers’ relationships and interactions with children can enhance child development. However, teachers have different types of relationships with children. They have closer relationship with some, more dependent with others, or more conflictual with others. Furthermore, the frequency and nature of teachers’ interactions with individual children varies. Teachers have more restrictive interactions with some children, whereas their interactions are more stimulating with others. Furthermore, the distribution of teachers’ attention with children is not equal among all children. Teachers’ differential relationships and interactions are influenced in part by child characteristics. Gender has been found to be related to the way teachers interact with children. Boys are more likely to receive more disciplinary interaction, criticism, praise, instruction, and direction to complete a task, whereas girls receive more affectionate behavior, favorable comments, help to complete a task, and even completion of their task by their teachers (Clawson, 1997; Fagot, 1984; Galejs and Hegland, 1982; Murphy, 1986; Nelson, 1987; Serbin, O’Leary, Kent, & Tonick, 1973; Steinkamp, 1990). In conclusion, teachers are more likely to have warmer interactions with girls, whereas they have more task and instruction oriented interaction with boys. However, recent research (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997, Simac, 1993) indicated no gender difference in the way teachers interact with children. Kathleen (1993) suggests that the difference between the findings of her research and previous research can be because 48

of greater awareness of sex equity or inequity by educators. Further research investigating the relationship between gender and teacher-child interaction is needed in order to determine whether an increase in awareness of sex equity does indeed result in changes in teacher behaviors. Another factor affecting teacher-child relationships and teacher-child interaction is child temperament. Children’s temperament characteristics were found to be related to the frequency of teachers’ interactions with children, teachers’ decisions about classroom management, and teachers’ instructional strategies (Nelson, 1987; Pullis 1985; Paget, Nagle, & Martin, 1984, Pullis & Cadwell, 1982; Van de Werfhorst, 1986). However, to date, no research has investigated the relationship between temperament and teachers verbally stimulating and restrictive interactions with children. Only one study (Flynn, 2000) investigated the relationship between temperament and teachers’ relationship with developmentally disabled preschool children. Positive relationships were found between closeness of teacher-child relationship and the Task orientation, Personal and Social Flexibility dimensions of temperament. However, to date, there is no research investigating the relation between temperament and teachers’ relationship with typical children. In conclusion, the review of research suggests that teacher-child interactions and teacher-child relationships are important aspects of quality in the classroom and both of them are related to child outcomes. Frequent verbally stimulating teacher-child interactions facilitate language, cognitive, and social development of children. In contrast, teachers’ restrictive, controlling interactions can harm children’s language development (McCartney, 1984). The quality of relationship between teachers and children can also enhance or harm children’s development. A close teacher-child relationship can increase children’s engagement in classroom activities, achievement, and positive interactions with peers, whereas a conflictual teacher-child relationship can decrease children’s engagement, achievement, prosocial skills, and increase aggressive behaviors toward peers. The research reviewed in this chapter reveals that teacher-child interactions can be influenced by child gender and temperament. However, although research clarified the effects of verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction on child outcomes in preschool years, how child characteristics affect verbally stimulating teacher-child interaction remains unexplored. This is the case with teachers’ relationships with 49

typical children too. How teachers’ relationships with typical children relate to child temperament also remains unexplored. In light of these gaps and flaws in the research, this study is designed to examine the relationships between teacher-child interaction, teacher-child relationships, temperament, and gender.

50

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations between child temperament, gender, teacher-child relationships, and teacher-child interactions. Children’s temperament and teacher-child relationships were assessed by teacher ratings. Children’s temperament was measured using the short form of Thomas and Chess’ (1977) Teacher Temperament Questionnaire revised by Keogh (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of teacher-child relationship were measured using the StudentTeacher Relationship Scale (STRS) developed by Pianta (1999). Teacher-child interactions were assessed using a classification system developed by the researcher, based on the research findings relating teachers’ verbally stimulating interaction with children to positive developmental outcomes for children, and controlling and directive interaction to negative developmental outcomes. Pearson Product Moment Correlations and Multiple Regression Analyses were computed to examine the relationships between temperament, gender, teacher-child relationships, and teacherchild interaction. This chapter describes the design and methodology employed in the present study. The chapter is presented in five sections: participants, setting, procedures, instruments, and data analysis.

Method

Participants The sample consisted of 61 (29 boys and 32 girls) 4- to 5-year-old children who attended one of the four classrooms which participated in the study. One of the classrooms was part of a laboratory preschool of a southeastern university. The other classroom was part of a housing complex preschool at the same university. The other two classrooms were private preschool classrooms whose directors and teachers

51

agreed to participate in the study. The university preschools were ethnically diverse (e.g., Hispanic, Chinese, Turkish, Arabic, African, African American, and Anglo). At least one of the parents was a graduate student. With the exception of one Chinese, two Hispanic, and one Polish, the children in the private preschools were Anglo. Family backgrounds were middle to upper middle class. Except one child from one of the classrooms, whose parents did not give permission to participate in the study, all children in each classroom participated in the study. There were 18 children in the classroom 1; 16 children in the classroom 2; 13 children in the classroom 3; and 14 children in the classroom 4. Four children from the classroom 1, 1 child from the classroom 2, 1 child from the classroom 3, 1 child from the classroom 4 were dropped from the analyses of teacher-child interactions because of absenteeism more than 3 times during the observations. However, they were included in the analyses of teacher-child relationships, gender and temperament. Setting The setting for the study was four preschool classrooms serving four and five year old children. Two of the preschools were university-based preschools serving children of parents who are currently enrolled in the university as graduate students. The university preschools operate on the university's academic calendar from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm on weekdays. The other two preschools are private preschools located in Tallahassee. One of the preschool is a church preschool which operates on the Leon County calendar from 9:00 to 12:00. The other preschool is a part of a private school serving from preschool to 12th grade children. This preschool operates on the Leon County calendar from 8:00 to 3:00. Procedures Approval of the Study. The researcher applied to the Florida State University Human Subjects Committee to obtain permission to conduct the study. Further to obtaining approval, the director of University Housing was contacted to obtain permission to conduct the study with preschool children who were attending to the two university preschools and their teachers. The directors of the private preschools located in Tallahassee were contacted to obtain permission to conduct research with their preschool children. Five directors agreed to participate in the research. Three preschools were dropped; two of them due to the low rate of parental permissions; and one of them due to the teacher’s health problems. During the first visit, a one-page summary of the study and a letter of consent for adults, asking their permission to 52

participate in the study, were given to the teachers. Also, parental consent letters were given to the teachers and they were requested to distribute the parental consent forms to the parents of the children in their classrooms. Procedures for Preliminary Analysis and Getting the Subjects comfortable with the Observer’s Presence. The observer conducted preliminary observations prior to collecting the data. Preliminary observations took place in two of the classrooms, for a total of 4 hours. In addition, the researcher videotaped one free play session. The purpose of the preliminary observations was to determine if the observation categories were observable, homogeneous, and mutually exclusive, as well as to train the observer in using the observation system. The observation categories were modified during the preliminary observations. The presence of a stranger in a preschool classroom can be intrusive to the natural flow of the classroom. It can be obtrusive to the teachers or some of the children. Therefore, in order to prevent this, the observer visited the classrooms for three times and observed the classrooms at least an hour each time. These visits had two purposes: (1) getting the subjects comfortable with the observer’s presence, and (2) further preliminary observations. During the visits, the observer coded teacher interactions with individual children. The purpose of these observations was to get the children and teachers comfortable with the observer’s coding of behavior, as well as, further training of the observer. Data Gathering Procedures. The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta, 2001) was administered to the teachers by the researcher. Similarly, the short form of Thomas and Chess’ (1977) temperament questionnaire by Keogh (1982) was administered to the teachers and each teacher was requested to complete the questionnaires for each child in their classroom for whom parent agreement to participate was obtained. The researcher observed each classroom for eight 50-minute segments during indoor free play/centers time. The observations were completed in 6 weeks. Detailed procedures related to observations are provided in the “Instruments/Measures” section of this chapter. Table 1 provides a timeline for the research procedures. The section following the table provides information about instruments used in the study.

53

Table 1. Timeline for Research Procedures Week # 1.

Task ƒ

Researcher provided information about the study to the teachers.

ƒ

Researcher gave the parental consent forms to the teachers.

ƒ

Teachers distributed the parental consent forms to the parents.

ƒ

Researcher conducted preliminary observations for 1 hour in each classroom to (a) accustom the teacher and the children to observer’s presence and (b) train herself in using the observation system.

2.

ƒ

Accustoming the subjects to observer’s presence and conducting preliminary observations continued by spending one more hour in each classroom.

3.

ƒ

Training of the second observer.

ƒ

Researcher got the parental consent forms back from the teachers.

ƒ

Preliminary analysis and accustoming the subjects to observer’s presence continues by spending 1 more hour in each classroom.

4.

ƒ

Training of the second observer.

ƒ

First week of observations- natural observations of teacher interactions received by children during indoor free play/centers time.

ƒ

Reliability check- The second observer observes two of the classrooms with the researcher for 50 minutes in each classroom (6.25% of the total observations).

5.

ƒ

Second week of observations

6.

ƒ

Third week of observations

7.

ƒ

Fourth week of observations

ƒ

Reliability check- The second observer observes the other two classrooms with the researcher for 50 minutes each classroom (6.25% of the total observations).

8.

ƒ

Fifth week of observations

9.

ƒ

Last week of observations

54

Instruments/Measures

Temperament Selection of the instrument. This study relied on teachers as raters of the children’s temperamental characteristics. Since preschool teachers spend six to eight hours a day with children in their classes, they are a good source for data on individual differences of children. Teachers can quickly observe and compare the behaviors of a child with his or her peers as they have an automatic norm group. Two temperament questionnaires; Keogh (1982) and Martin (1988) have been used widely by researchers in early childhood programs. Keogh’s temperament questionnaire was derived from original Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Martin’s temperament questionnaire was originally based on Thomas and Chess’ temperament theory and temperament dimensions. However, Martin has recently revised TABC, referred as Temperament Assessment Battery for Children-Revised (TABC-R) (Martin, 1998), and based on his new temperament theory (Martin, 2001). The usability of his new theory and questionnaire in school context has not been tested by many researchers yet. TABC-R has been used by AtayTurhan (2004) to investigate the effects of temperament type on kindergarten students’ use of literate language and by Dolly (1999) to examine the relation of temperament type to behavior problems of preschool children. On the other hand, the Short Form of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire by Keogh (1982) has been widely used by researchers (e.g., Flynn, 2000; Keogh, 1982, 1986, 1989, 1996; Keogh & Burstein, 1988; Keogh & Kornblau, 1980; Klein, 1991; Mobley & Pullis, 1991; Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). Therefore, the Short form of Thomas and Chess’ (1977) temperament questionnaire by Keogh (1982) was selected for the purpose of this study. A Short Form of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (TTQ-SF) (Keogh, Pullis, Cadwell, 1982). This temperament questionnaire is a revised, shortened form of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (TTQ) which was used in the New York Longitudinal Study by Thomas and Chess (1977). TTQ has eight dimensions of temperament: Activity Level, Adaptability, Approach/Withdrawal, Distractibility, Intensity, Persistence, Quality of Mood, and Threshold of Response. The TTQ has a 55

total of 64 items and each dimension is represented by eight items. Rate-rerate reliability for the eight dimensions ranged from .69 to .88. Since it was not practical enough to use in educational contexts; Keogh, Pullis, and Cadwell (1982) have shortened it while maintaining its measurement properties. Factor analysis of eight dimensions yielded in three factors: task orientation, personalsocial flexibility, and reactivity. Task orientation was made up of the dimensions of Persistence, Distractibility, and Activity. Personal-Social Flexibility composed of approach-withdrawal, positive mood, and adaptability. Reactivity was comprised of negative mood, threshold of response, and intensity of response. After establishing the three-factor structure of the original scale, Keogh (1982) revised it by examining the factor loadings for the 64 items. Only items with substantial weights were retained. The 64-item questionnaire was reduced to 23 items in which all eight dimensions were represented. The teacher rates each item on a 6-point scale from “hardly ever” to “almost always”. Each item describes child behavior in a school setting such as “If child’s activity is interrupted, he/she tries to go back to the activity”, “Child will initially avoid new games and activities, preferring to sit on the side and watch”, “Child seems to have difficulty sitting still, may wriggle a lot or get out of seat”. The TTQ-SF yields two types of scores: individual dimensions of temperament, and the three factors. Pullis (1979) examined the psychometric properties of the scale and the verified factor structure of the short form was consistent with the factor structure of the original TTQ. Internal consistencies for the factors were tested. Alpha coefficients for the factors were: (Task Orientation) .94, (Personal-Social Flexibility) .88, and (Reactivity) .62. The Short form of Teacher Temperament Questionnaire has been found to be a reliable technique for assessing teachers’ perceptions of children’s temperament (Keogh, Pullis & Cadwell, 1982). Test-Retest Reliability. In this study, estimates of test-retest reliability of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire were obtained from a subsample of 61 children. After a 2-week interval, teachers rerated temperament of a subsample of the children in their classrooms. The first two teachers rerated the temperament questionnaire for 3 children and the last two teachers rerated the TTQ for 2 children in their classrooms. Estimates of test-retest reliability of the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire were obtained from a total of 10 children. Test-retest correlations were as follows: Activity, .89 (p < .01); Persistence, 89 (p < .01); Distractibility, .93 (p < .01); 56

Approach/Withdrawal, 72; Adaptability, 53; Mood, 80 (p < .05); Threshold, 86 (p < .05); Intensity, 87 (p < .05); Task Orientation, 96 (p < .01); Personal/Social Flexibility, 75 (p < .05); Reactivity, 84(p < .05).

Teacher-Child Relationship Selection of the Instrument. Teacher reports of relationship quality were used for the purpose of this study. Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta, 2001) was completed for each child by the teacher to assess the relationship between the child and the teacher. The reason for using teacher assessment of relationship quality was that a teacher’s perceptions of her relationship with a child have been found to shape her perceptions of the behaviors she intends to use with the child. Also, teacher’s perceptions of relationship quality were highly correlated with observed relationship quality (Howes & Ritchie, 1999). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS). The STRS measures a teacher’s perception of his or her relationship with a student in his or her classroom. The STRS measures three aspects of the relationship: (1) teacher’s perceptions of his or her relationship with a particular student (2) “a student’s interactive behaviors with the teacher” (3) “a teacher’s beliefs about the student’s feelings toward the teacher” (Pianta, 2001, p.1). The STRS has one total scale and three subscales: Conflict; Closeness; and Dependency. (a) The Conflict subscale measures the degree to which a teacher feels that he or she has a negative or conflictual relationship with a particular child in her classroom. The Conflict subscale includes items such as “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other” and “Dealing with this child drains my energy”. (b) The Closeness subscale measures the degree to which a teacher believes his or her relationship with a particular child as affectionate, warm, and open. The Closeness subscale includes items such as “This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me” and “My interactions with this child make me feel effective and confident”. (c) The Dependency subscale measures the degree to which a teacher believes a particular child is overly dependent on him or her. The Dependency subscale includes items such as “This child expresses hurt or jealousy when I spend time with other children.” and “This child reacts strongly to separation from me” (d) The Total scale measures the degree to which a teacher believes that his or her relationship with a specific child is in general positive and effective. Each of 28 items

57

are rated on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = definitely does not apply, to 5 = definitely applies) by the teacher. Test-retest reliability estimates of the STRS are: Closeness, .88; Conflict, .92; Dependency, .76; Total, .89. Internal consistency reliability estimates for the total normative sample are: Conflict, .92; Closeness, .86; Dependency, .64; Total, 89. The STRS can be used for children in preschool through Grade 3. The STRS is the only measure that assesses the teacher’s perceptions of his or her relationship with a student between the age 4 and 8. The STRS has been widely used by researchers to measure the quality of the teacher-child relationships. The administration of the STRS takes about 5 to 10 minutes for each child. Test-Retest Reliability. In this study, estimates of test-retest reliability of the STRS were obtained from a subsample of the sample. After a 2-week interval, teachers completed STRS questionnaires for the second time for a subsample of children in their classrooms. The first two teachers rerated the STRS for 3 children and the last two teachers rerated the STRS for 2 children in their classrooms. Using a subsample of 10 children, estimates of test-retest reliability of the STRS were obtained. Testretest correlations were as follows (all significant at p