.Lo.szn...e.. .‘ e .Hél fflx :4- .......r... . . .3... Turk: TSHQ. . c... E. .2; . .53. w yr . ,Lié .60”... ..).\.§.u .1. ‘u a... t...( 3.3: .. 3.1.1. 1... .2... 47;. a. ‘ 5‘33... ....:...3. , , .‘ ‘ , ‘ ‘ .9; . . ‘ . . . . . , §.,r......,....r....,....n....‘.I...u ..:.<.&.».............; .‘2 .I. -3 UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES fummu mug mm m 3 00910 1 7 M|CH| mm W 31 i This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study of Hesosysten Compatibility: Parents' and Teachers' Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Control and Acceptance of Child Conduct (An Exploratory Study) presented by Helen Edla Hagens . i has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Fanily and Child Ecology degree in Major pWsor Date § " L3 / ’ 993 MS U i: all Alf-"native Action/Equal Oppa'tuu'ly Inuit-lion 012771 LIBRARY Michigan State ; University F7 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE tiilflsi‘izzfifi _ 2 - (T T ,5 flfflgtzrw fli-fi L f l. -“ ., 1 1 1'1“?“ W1 11;?) MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ,,,,, , , mammograms-pd A STUDY OF MESOSYSTEM COMPATIBILITY: PARENTS' AND TEACHERS' ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING CONTROL & ACCEPTANCE OF CHILD CONDUCT (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) BY Helen Edla Hagens A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1992 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MESOSYSTEM COMPATIBILITY: PARENTS' AND TEACHERS' ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING CONTROL AND ACCEPTANCE OF CHILD CONDUCT (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) by Helen Edla Hagens This study served as an exploratory effort aimed at investigating the socialization of young children in the microsystems of home and school. It described and compared parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected socialization practices and actual socialization practices. The participants in the study were 18 female kindergarten and first grade teachers and 36 mothers of children from their classes. The participants were volunteers from school districts in suburban communities surrounding a medium sized midwestern city. Attitudes of acceptance of children were measured using the Porter Acceptance Scale, a multiple choice instrument I measuring adults' attitudes regarding children as separate and independent individuals. Proj ected behaviors were measured using the Sensitivity to Children Survey which asks adults to write down what they hypothesize they would say or do in difficult socialization situations. Actual socialization behaviors were measured using the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Adults were asked to help two children complete a difficult task. Their actions wereivideotaped and then coded for control and acceptance behaviors. Within group comparisons using Chi-square indicated that the attitude measure was not a good predictor of either projected or actual behaviors for teachers or parents. MANOVA.(repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance) was used for the between group (teachers by parents) comparisons of projected and actual behaviors. The analysis resulted in support for the following hypotheses: 1. There was no difference between parents' and teachers' attitudes of acceptance of children. 2. The measure of attitude was not a good predictor of either projected or actual behaviors. 3. Both parents and teachers used more positive statements than negative statements in both the projected behaviors and the actual behaviors. However, teachers were less likely to use power and non- acceptance statements. There was considerable congruence among the adults in the children's mesosystem regarding attitudes toward children. However teachers' training and/or experience appears to have led them to use fewer power and non-acceptance statements than parents. Copyright by HELEN EDLA HAGENS 1993 To my mother, Dottelle Hagens, who taught me that I could do whatever I chose to do. To my daughters, Jennifer and Frances, who can hardly remember when I wasn't a student. And to my husband, John, who sustained me through the process. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to members of my committee, Dr. Anne Soderman, Dr. Lillian Phenice, Dr. Dennis Keefe and Dr. Steve Yelon for their’ help and guidance throughout my graduate program. Special thanks go to my chairperson and mentor, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, who inspired me to continue my education and will continue to serve as a role model as I begin my career. It is with much appreciation that I thank Barbara Ripper and Judy Pfaff for their skilled help with the research. Barbara spent many hours coding data and cheerfully accepted the unpredictable schedule of the project. Judy's expertise with computers and statistics and her ability to make difficult tasks seem more manageable were much appreciated. I would like to thank the teachers, parents and children who volunteered their time to participate in this study. Without their willing cooperation, the study would have been impossible. Finally a very special thanks to my friends and fellow graduate students; Lynn Darling, Susan Ekstrom, Wendy Esmailka, Diane Genshaw, and Kelly Hazel. They provided invaluable support and encouragement and I wish them well in their future endeavors. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT.......................................... 11 LIST OF TABLES.................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES................................... x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT...... 1 Introduction....................... 1 Conceptual Definitions............. 4 Purpose 5 Limitations of the Research................. 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................ 9 Introduction and Theoretical Foundations.. 9 The Socialization Process.......... 12 Effective Socialization Practices.. . 13 Parents as Socializers: ‘ The Family System........ 16 Teachers as Socializers: The School System........ 18 Cultural Expectations: The Exosystem............ 20 The Issue................ 22 CHAPTER III METHODS................................. 25 Subjects........................... 25 Procurement of Subjects....... 26 Description of Instruments......... 27 The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale.................... 28 The Sensitivity to Children Survey................... 30 The Sensitivity to Children Observation.............. 33 Demographic Information....... 34 Coder Training and Reliability for Each Instrument............... 35 Field Testing...................... 36 Research Questions and Hypotheses.. 38 Data Analysis...................... 42 Data callectionOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....O 44 CHAPTER IV viii ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... CHAPTER V Results...OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... Demographics. 0 O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O 0 Questions and Hypotheses...... DISCUSSION, PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS & DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..... Discussion......................... Summary of Hypotheses.............. Personal Observations.............. Directions for Future Research..... BIBLIOGMPHY...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.000 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: COMMUNICATIONS WITH TEACHERS.......... Introductory Letter................ Project Information Sheet.......... COMMUNICATIONS WITH PARENTS........... Introductory Letter................ Project Information Sheet.......... Acceptance Letter.................. Thank You Letter................... PERMISSION SLIPS...................... INSTRUMENTS........................... Porter-P........................... Porter-T........................... Sensitivity to Children-P.......... Sensitivity to Children-T.......... UCRIHS Approval.................... 50 50 50 54 68 68 72 74 76 80 85 85 86 88 89 91 92 93 95 95 104 113 118 123 Table ix LIST OF TABLES Page Field Testing............................ 36 DemographiCSOOOOOOOC0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 51-53 Percent of Groups on the Sensitivity to Children Survey....................... 55 Percent of Groups on the Sensitivity to Children Observation.................. 56 Sensitivity to Children Survey power by Sensitivity to Children Observation power by Subject Group................... 64 Sensitivity to Children Survey acceptance by Sensitivity to Children Observation acceptance by Subject Group.............. 65 Sensitivity to Children Survey non- acceptance by Sensitivity to Children Observation non-acceptance by Subject Group.................................... 66 Percent of Groups on the Sensitivity to Children Survey and The Sensitivity to Children Observation.................. 68 Summary of Hypotheses.................... 71-72 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The Human Ecological System........ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT INTRODUCTION Even though human infants are social beings born with the capacity and the need to interact with others of their species, they are not born socialized. It is only through ongoing interactions with persons in their near environment that young children learn appropriate social behavior as defined by the culture in which they live (Rosenblith & Sims- Knight, 1985; Yarrow et a1, 1971). It is primarily adult attitudes and behaviors that communicate societal expectations to children. For example, children learn much of what they know about their society's standards indirectly by observing and imitating the behavior and attitudes of significant others. Adults also engage in more direct instruction by reinforcing and coaching appropriate behavior. How effective adults are in influencing children's long term behavior depends not just on the specific information presented to the child but also on the manner in which the socializing information is communicated (Baumrind, 1972; Brookover et a1, 1979; Goffin, 1989; Hoffman, 1979; Kostelnik et a1, 1988). 2 During their early years, children's primary socializing system is their family system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) . Even for children who are cared for outside the home during the workday, parental figures remain the predominant influence (Rosenblith & Sims-Knight, 1985). Parents and other family members are the first arbiters of appropriate behavior. As children grow older, they begin to participate in additional systems outside the family (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) . In the United States, school is the second most important socializing institution. Most American children spend a large proportion of their time in formal school settings. While school provides children with opportunities to interact with peers it also requires that they learn to interact on a sustained basis with adults other than their parents. Throughout the primary school years, children's classroom teachers act as important socializing agents (Goffin, 1989: Shaffer, 1985). PROBLEM STATEMENT In order to better understand the development of young children it is important to look at them in an ecological manner. Examining and comparing the settings in which children must function is basic step in this process. Children act as 3 the linking agents between the home and school environments, interacting' directly' in. both. the family system. and. the educational system. The adults in the family system and school system on the other hand, seldom participate actively in both settings and may have very disparate ways of communicating their differing expectations to children. In order for children to function successfully they must understand and meet the requirements of both systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This study will make an initial investigation of the role demands made on young children in the microsystems of home and school. The compatibility of role expectations has a direct effect on the successful development of young children. Bronfenbrenner (1979) states that "the developmental potential of settings in the mesosystem is ‘enhanced if the role demands in ‘the different settings are compatible and if the roles, activities, and dyads in which the developing person engages encourage the development of mutual trust, a positive orientation, goal consensus between settings and an evolving balance of power in favor of the developing person." Many studies have investigated socialization in the home (Baumrind, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1977: Hart, et a1, 1990: Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975; Kucznski, 1984; Parke, 1969; Yahraes, 1978) and some work has been done describing the social climate in 4 classrooms (Prawat, 1985, Prawat, 1988: Soloman et al, 1988, Wittrock, 1986). However, since there have been few studies involving a simultaneous investigation of the socialization practices utilized both at home and at school, professionals have little information about the compatibility of these two systems which have such an effect on the successful development of young children. CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS In order to clarify the terminology used in this study a number of terms are defined in the following section. 1. Socialization: Adult behavior influences how children learn to become functioning members of society. Socialization includes a relationship dimension which helps children form a personal identity and a behavior management dimension which teaches children how to interact appropriately with others in the society. 2. Acceptance: In this study the relationship dimension of the socialization process was acceptance. Accepting adults recognized children as separate and unique individuals. They respected and supported children's feelings and ideas. Non- 5 accepting adults denied or played down children's feelings and points of view and often treated children with coldness or disapproval. 3. Control: The behavior management dimension of the socialization process in this study was power. The two poles of this dimension are induction and power. Inductive control includes giving children clear statements of expectations, reasons, and self-disclosure. Power includes commanding, moralizing or threatening with children expected to submit without choice or question. In order to explore the socialization dimensions of acceptance and control, three different manifestations of socialization were measured in this study. They are attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors which are defined as follows. 4. Attitudes: Adults' affect for or against the acceptance of children as individuals. 5. Projected Behaviors: The actions and/or words that individuals say they would use if confronted by particular hypothetical situations involving the socialization of children. 6 6. Actual Behaviors: The actions and/or words that adults employ when confronted by real children in a socialization situation. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH This study served as a exploratory effort aimed at investigating the socialization of young children in the microsystems of home and school. It described and compared parent and teacher attitudes, projected parent and teacher socialization practices, and actual parent and teacher socialization behaviors. The information gathered will serve as a first step in understanding whether the expectations for children's behavior at home and at school are communicated in a similar or dissimilar manner. In order to describe the expectations of the young child's mesosystem the following three research questions were investigated. 1. What are parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors toward child socialization? 7 2. What are the relationships between socialization attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors among parents and teachers? 3. What is the degree of congruence between parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected, behaviors and actual behaviors toward the socialization of children? The primary limitations on the study as proposed were due to the necessity of using a volunteer sample. The subjects, both teachers and mothers, were self selected. Volunteer samples such as this, tend to be better educated, have higher social class, and be more sociable than non-volunteer samples. Of particular interest in this study is that volunteer samples tend to be less authoritarian than non-volunteers (Borg & Gall, 1983). The effect of the volunteer sample on this particular study is twofold. First, careful attention must be paid to the demographic data in order to acknowledge the nature of the sample. Consequently, generalizations to other populations must be limited. Secondly, since these volunteer subjects are likely to be less authoritarian than the general population they may not represent the entire spectrum of control and acceptance attitudes or behaviors. Differences between 8 teachers and parents are likely to be small. In order to look at these small differences and because of the exploratory nature of this study, a relatively high alpha level (alpha 8 .10) has been chosen. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Individual persons do not exist in isolation but function within an interconnecting web of systems. In order for human beings to grow and develop there must be an ongoing mutual adaptation of the individual and the settings in which he or she functions. Human Ecological systems theory helps us to consider individuals in these contexts. Bronfenbrenner's theory of the ecology of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) postulates that each individual functions within a set of systems. These systems are nested within one another and can be represented by a set of concentric circles with the individual at its center as illustrated in figure 1. The environments where face-to-face interactions take place make up the layer closest to the individual and are called the microsystem. Microsystem environments include patterns of activities, roles and interpersonal relationships. Families are generally the first microsystem within which children function. 10 Figure 1 The Human Ecological System Exosystem ‘ Microsystem —— Individual Mesosystem Macrosystem The second layer of the human ecological system is the mesosystem. The mesosystem consists of the interrelations between the environments within the microsystem. For example, when children begin to participate in a school setting (another microsystem) the school-family relationship is a part of the child's mesosystem. When interrelations in the mesosystem are harmonious or compatible the potential for human development is enhanced. The exosystem includes settings in which the individual does 11 not directly participate but which impact on the settings in which the individual does participate. For a child in school, these could include the teachers' union or the local school board. For the child in a family microsystem, the parents place of employment is an example of an exosystem. The outer most layer is identified as the macrosystem. The macrosystem refers to the belief systems or ideology that lead to consistencies within a culture or subculture. For example, in the United States at the present time a predominant set of beliefs exists emphasizing the value of treating students as individuals and allowing them certain kinds of freedom within classroom groups. This belief system leads to the creation of different kinds of classrooms than those created in cultures that do not hold those beliefs (Tobin et al, 1989) . The ideology of the macrosystem impacts on all other levels of systems within the cultural or subcultural group. Few studies have been carried out addressing the various elements in the young child's mesosystem (Grossman, 1992). This study focuses on the congruence of adult behavior and expectations within the mesosystem of kindergarten and first grade children. The socialization practices of the family microsystem and the classroom microsystem are described and compared. Consequently literature in the areas of the 12 socialization process and effective socialization practices, parents and teachers as socializers and exosystem influences on socialization have been reviewed. THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS Socialization is the process by which social beliefs, values and behaviors are instilled in members of a social group. Socialization takes place through the efforts of social institutions such as the family, the educational system, the church and other less formal groups such as peers. The institutions which contribute most to the socialization of children under the age of eight are the family and school (Curry 8 Johnson, 1990: Shaffer, 1985). Socialization serves two primary purposes. First, it teaches people how to become effective, functioning members of society, including learning how to regulate one's behavior in keeping with the roles and mores of one's culture, and how to interact with others in a socially acceptable manner. Secondly, socialization facilitates the formation of each individual's personal identity. This includes developing a sense of self and a sense of how the unique self fits into the social order. Both of these functions serve to perpetuate the 13 social order since well socialized adults pass on to the next generation the skills and values they have learned (Damon, 1983: Shaffer, 1985). In this day and age there is great concern about how parents and teachers can more effectively contribute to the development of young adults who are self-reliant and independent while still being able to relate to others in a responsible and cooperative manner. Addressing this concern requires scientists to gather more information about the attitudes and.behaviors of the two most important socializers of young children, parents and teachers. EFFECTIVE SOCIALIZATION PRACTICES In studies of group behavior and parenting styles, the adult behaviors that foster long—term affective and social goals such as self-discipline and helpfulness are variously called democratic (Lewin et al, 1939), inductive (Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975), or authoritative (Baumrind, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1977). These adult behaviors include high expectations for children and clarity of communication, as well as the involvement of children in appropriate, reasoned decision- making. Inductive methods appeal to the child's pride, desire 14 for mastery, concern for others. Power assertion and love withdrawal are other widely used socialization techniques. They have proven less effective in terms of helping children achieve self-discipline and helpfulness. Power assertive discipline includes deprivation of privileges or material objects, or the threat of or actual application of physical force. It focuses on the physical power and control of material resources by the adults rather than relying on the inner resources of the child. Love withdrawal is a direct but non-physical expression of the parents' anger or disappointment in the child's behavior but is similar to power assertion in that it contains a punitive element. Love ‘withdrawal techniques include ignoring or isolating the child, threatening abandonment, or overt statements of dislike for the child (Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975). Power assertion and love withdrawal may lead to compliance over short periods of time but since they rely on the children's fear of the adults' behavior'they are.not likely to be internalized into the children's moral system (Baumrind, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1973: Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975 Parke, 1968) . On the other hand the use of inductive discipline appeals to children's cognitive abilities, helping them to 15 understand the situation and control their own behavior accordingly. This cognitive element also allows children to independently apply the principles learned in one situation to another similar situation. Inductive discipline is an important component of promoting long term prosocial behavior and self-discipline in children (Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975: Parke, 1969: Rothbaum, 1986: Yahraes, 1978). While recognizing that all human relationships are reciprocal and therefore the inborn characteristics of children as well as their previously learned behaviors may influence the behavior of the socializing adults, the general direction of moral internalization is from adult to child. This is because of the inherent power differences between adults and children. The behavior of the adult especially the parent or other authority figure has a greater influence on the dependant child's behavior than the reverse (Goffin, 1989: Hoffman, 1975). In. the study' of the adults ‘who influence child socialization, certain configurations of parent behavior are related to differences in the behavior of their children (Baumrind, 1967, 1970, 1977: Rothbaum, 1986). While most studies of parent influences on child socialization look at the outcomes in childhood, there is evidence that parental behavior related to the themes of socialization has long term effects. For example, Crook, Raskin and Eliot (1981) found a 16 relationship between clinical depression in adults and parental rejection during childhood and Holmes and Robins (1988) found a strong relationship between adult alcoholism and harsh punishment by caregivers in childhood. The most effective methods of socialization are democratic or inductive discipline combined with high levels of warmth (Baumrind, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1973: Hoffman, 1967, 1970, 1975). Inductive discipline practices are child-centered- They focus on mutual problem solving and the principles underlying the rules. Not only do parents of competent children use these methods (Baumrind, 1970) but competent teachers as defined by Kounin (1970) are more likely to use guidance and discipline strategies which incorporate these Ademocratic/inductive behaviors than are teachers rated as less competent (Solomon et al, 1988). PARENTS AS SOCIALIZERS: THE FAMILY SYSTEM The first socializing institution in children's lives is the family. Through the processes of attachment, infants become emotionally linked to their parents (Bowlby, 1969) . This intensity and the duration of the parent-child relationship, makes it the primary socializing influence. Even if children spend a portion of their days in group child care, the family 17 microsystem remains primary (Rosenblith & Sims-Knight, 1985) . Studies of childrearing have identified several themes that underlie decisions regarding how to teach children to be appropriate and effective members of their society. In western societies including ours, there is a conflict between the traditional Calvinist belief and the more positive views espoused by John Locke and John Dewey. The Calvinist tradition holds that children are inherently evil and must be forced to accept societal order. The more liberal view is that children are basically good or at least neutral and therefore must be guided towards acceptable behavior with kindness and reason. These underlying attitudes towards children color adults' interpretations of children's behavior and misbehavior and influence their responses to that behavior (Hoffman, 1975: Howick, 1984). A second theme in the parenting literature is the underlying quality of acceptance or rejection of children as persons. This dimension of socialization, also called warmth, is often defined as the amount of affection and/or approval parents display for their children but also includes acceptance of the child as a separate individual with needs and a viewpoint that may differ from the adult's. Accepting parents show their affection and respect for their children and invite closeness 18 in return. Parental warmth especially in the early years binds children to their caregivers and makes them care what these significant others think of them. Parental warmth also provides children with the emotional security necessary to eventually be able to consider the needs of others. (Fisher 8 Fisher, 1986: Hart et al, 1990: Shaffer, 1985). The third theme is that of adult control. Adults who expect children to obey without question or explanation and assume that the child should think and feel as the adult does, are intrusive. Non-intrusive adults may still expect conformity with rules but give explanations for their requests and include the child in age appropriate decision making (Baumrind, 1966: Fisher 8 Fisher, 1986). TEACHERS AS SOCIALIZERS: THE SCHOOL SYSTEM In the United States the school is the second most influential socializing institution for most children (Curry 8 Johnson, 1990). School is generally compulsory after age six and 90% of children attend school for at least one year before the compulsory age (Spodek, 1986) American children typically spend about five hours per day, five days each week in school (Shaffer, 1985). In the early grades, most of this time each year is spent with a single teacher. Given the amount of time 19 spent with the classroom teacher and their authority, teachers become powerful socializing agents (Curry 8 Johnson, 1990). While there has been much interest in how teachers beliefs impact on their classroom behavior, the behaviors studied most often are in the area of academic decision making (Solomon et al, 1988). Wittrock's WM (1986) includes only a few studies on the social climate in classrooms. However, teachers recognize that fostering intra- personal goals such as self-esteem and positive attitude towards learning, as well as inter-personal goals such as cooperation and positive interactions with others are an important part of their role as teachers of young children. For instance, teachers' assessments of children's progress in the early grades focus heavily on classroom conduct (Curry 8 Johnson, 1990) and half of the elementary teachers interviewed by Prawat (1985) indicated that affective goals for children were their most important concern. Socialization may not be a formal part of the curriculum, but teachers recognize and value their influence on children's social development (Prawat, 1985). Teachers find that the focus on the affective outcomes of their work leads to role conflict which is not present to the same degree in other professions (Rasche et al, 1985). Other 20 helping professions such as lawyers, physicians, and social workers are encouraged to keep a "professional" distance from their clients and not to become too emotionally involved with them. For example, lawyers are not expected to personally like or respect their clients. Yet teachers' sincere liking for children is seen as a prerequisite for entering the teaching field. Teachers, especially those who work with young children, must be emotionally involved with their students in order to be effective (Grace, 1972). Additionally, while teachers may recognize the importance of affective outcomes, school systems do not often measure them (Raver 8 Zigler, 1991). The success of students, and by inference the success of their teachers, is most often measured by student scores on standardized tests of academic skills. Given the institutional focus on academic outcomes , it is no wonder that teacher education.programs spend little time teaching future teachers how to effectively foster positive social outcomes in their students (Goodwin, 1987). CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS: THE EXOSYSTEM The specific attitudes and behaviors that socializing agents attempt to teach vary from family to family and teacher to teacher but also depend to a large extent on the culture and time in which the child lives. In the Middletown studies in 21 1924 researchers Lynd 8 Lynd found that parents most valued obedience, conformity and respect for home and church as attributes for their children. Early studies on teachers (Harvey, 1970) found that the general U.S. population and teachers especially, valued authoritarian behaviors and had a strong rule orientation. When the middletown study was replicated in 1978 (Caplow, 1978) the particular traits that American adults wished to instill in children had changed dramatically. Parents endorsed very different values. Instead of obedience they wanted their children to be independent, tolerant and socially minded. This radical shift in desired outcomes has complicated the tasks of families and teachers leading to some contradictions between attitudes and behaviors (Oakes 8 Caruso, 1990: Raffini, 1980) . Indeed Prawat (1985) found that teachers who most valued affective goals were also those with the most rules regarding "quietness". This seemingly contradictory finding may indicate that while holding democratic beliefs, adults have difficulty implementing them and therefore rely on more traditional autocratic methods. Parents are at a disadvantage in dealing with these changes in cultural attitudes because few parents receive training in how to best influence the social development of their children. 22 They ‘must rely on the knowledge they have gained. from observing their own and other parents or on other informal sources of information. Teachers on the other hand are expected to be professional socializers of the children in their classrooms. Although many teachers receive little or no training in social development (Goodwin, 1987) , training alone does not necessarily change teachers' behavior. Solomon et al (1988) provided training for teachers in facilitating prosocial behavior. Although the teachers in the experimental group did somewhat better in general, the more competent teachers in both the experimental and control groups were more likely to use inductive discipline practices than were the less competent teachers in either group. It can be concluded therefore that both teachers' and parents' attitudes and choices of socialization techniques include elements of their own attitude system rs well as training. THE ISSUE Attitude can be defined as "affect for or against a psychological object" and it is usually measured by a survey instrument asking the subject to respond to a particular statement or proposition (Thurstone, 1928).‘ However, a person's attitude towards a particular thing is not necessarily a good predictor of 'behavior. Even survey 23 questions that ask for hypothetical behaviors or what one thinks one's behavior will be in a particular situation, do not necessarily predict what one will actually do in a particular circumstance (LaPiere, 1934). Situational variables intervene (Mueller, 1986) . This study was designed to consider separately the adults' attitudes towards child behavior, adults' projected behavioral responses to open-ended situations focusing on child socialization, and adults' actual behaviors as observed in a laboratory situation. Projected and actual behaviors will be evaluated in terms defined by the previously cited literature. The Acceptance and Induction constructs represent the democratic directions in the socialization process. The Power and Non-acceptance constructs illustrate authoritarian attitudes or behavior. Of particular interest was the congruence between adult attitudes and behaviors as represented by the primary actors in the home and school microsystems. These comparisons of teachers and parents indicate the compatibility of the role requirements in the children's mesosystem. The information gathered in this study is a rudimentary step in understanding the complex interplay of the beliefs and behaviors of parents and teachers. The results may eventually contribute to systems of childrearing and teaching that will 24 lead to more positive affective outcomes for children. CHAPTER III METHODS SUBJECTS The subjects of the study were 36 mothers and 18 teachers of kindergarten and first-grade children. They were recruited from five school districts surrounding a medium sized city in Michigan. The individual districts vary in size but all serve as bedroom communities for the larger city. Since the vast majority of teachers in the early grades are female it was decided not to include male teachers or fathers in order to reduce the variability of the population. All of the subjects (teachers, parents, and children) were caucasian. The majority of the adult participants were married with the exception of two parents who were divorced and one teacher who had never married. Additional demographic data can be found in Chapter IV. In order to limit variability the following steps were taken in the selection of subjects. 1. All adult subjects (teachers and parents) were women. 25 26 2. Each adult subject worked with a pair of children, one male and one female. 3. Each pair of children was acquainted with each other since they were classmates. 4. Adults were familiar with the children. A. Teachers interacted with children from their own classrooms. B. Parents interacted with their own child and one of her/his classmates. Procurement of Subjects Permission to contact teachers was sought from the superintendents of the school districts who informed the researcher of the appropriate research procedures for their district. Generally the principals of the elementary schools were contacted next and again the researcher followed the procedure suggested by the principal. In one district the researcher was invited to make a presentation at a staff meeting requesting participation. In three others, a special meeting was set up between the kindergarten and first grade teachers and the primary researcher to discuss the project. In the remaining district, the principal distributed the information and the researcher was contacted directly by the 27 interested teachers (refer to Appendix A for a copies of the information provided to teachers). When a teacher expressed interest in participating in the project, a day and time for videotaping were scheduled. Parent participants were recruited by contacting families in each of the volunteer teachers' classrooms and inviting them to participate at the time and date selected by their child's teacher. The number of volunteer parents varied from six in one class to two in several others. From each class, one family with a male child and one family with a female child were selected from among those willing to participate. Families were sent reminder letters one or two days before the research session. Other willing families were thanked and placed on a waiting list in case one of the selected families was unable to participate (refer to the Appendix B for copies of the information sent to parents). In two cases alternate parents were called when the original volunteer was unable to attend due to illness. DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS Two survey instruments were administered to all the selected subjects: The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale and the 28 Sensitivity to Children Survey. These instruments measured the adults' attitudes towards children and how the adults believed they would behave in rule setting situations. In addition all subjects were videotaped participating in an activity with children in a classroom in their child's school. The focus of the videotaping was each adult's actual behavior with children in a socialization oriented situation. A criterion referenced instrument entitled the Sensitivity to Children Observation was developed to measure these adult behaviors. The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale (Porter, 1954) was used to measure the adult participants' attitudes about appropriate child behavior. Copies of the Porter-P and the Porter-T can are located in Appendix C. This scale was designed in 1954 to measure four constructs related to adult acceptance of children as individuals. The four constructs include 1) respecting the child's right to have and express feelings, 2) valuing and fostering the uniqueness of the child in a positive manner, 3) recognizing the child's need for autonomy, and 4) providing unconditional love. The wording of the instrument was slightly modified by the researcher for the version administered to teachers (”my child" was changed to "a 29 child"). The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale consists of 40 multiple choice questions. Participants choose from a set of five possible answers to each question. There are 10 questions pertaining to each of the constructs: feelings, uniqueness, autonomy and unconditional love. Some questions are repeated with two sets of answers. One set of answers asks the adults to express their feelings towards the child's behavior and the second type of answer determines the adults' proposed course of action. Responses are weighted from 1 to 5 representing least accepting to most accepting. Answers are all phrased in positive terms and.are arranged randomly in.order'to avoid.the impression that they are a part of a continuum of more and less desirable responses. A total score is determined by totaling the weights of the chosen responses. Scores can range from 40 to 200. The Porter Parent Acceptance Scale was field tested by its authors using 100 parents who had at least one child between the ages of 6 and 10. Reliability was assessed using the split-half method and a correlation of 0.766 raised by the Spearman Brown Prophecy formula to 0.865 was obtained (Porter, 30 1954) . Validity was determined by the ratings of expert judges. The judges rank ordered the answers from most.to least accepting. At least three out of five judges agreed on the rating for all of the questions. The Porter has also been used with parent substitutes such as Cub Scout leaders (Conter et al, 1980) and foster parents (Guerney, 1977) and was found to yield satisfactory data related to adult acceptance of child behavior. The Sensitivity to Children Survey The Sensitivity to Children Survey (STC-S) measure (Stollak, 1968) consists of 16 vignettes describing children's behavior. The vignettes represent rule setting situations ranging from children interrupting an adult, to children expressing racism, to children experimenting with sexual behavior. Respondents are asked to imagine that they are an adult who is responsible for the children in question and to write down the actual words and behaviors they think they would use in such a situation. In previous research (Conter et a1. , 1980: Guerney, 1977: Kostelnik, 1978:) the STC-S's 16 vignettes were divided into two separate versions of eight vignettes each. The two versions were found not to differ significantly and therefore to adequately represent the responses one would obtain using 31 the entire battery. In order to shorten the time necessary for the administration of this instrument, one of the shortened forms, the STC-S-II was used. Copies of the STC-S-II are located in Appendix C. The STC-S was scored using categories set forth by D'Augelli and Weener (1975) . This is a criterion referenced system based on positive and negative communication techniques as identified by researchers studying interactions between parents and children (Baumrind 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1973 8 1977: Hoffman 1967, 1970, 1975) and between teachers and children (Curry 8 Johnson, 1990: Prawat, 1985) Each statement in the responses is placed into one of 10 categories: 1) empathic responses, 2) ”I” messages, 3) structuring, 4) limit setting, 5) supporting, 6) probing, 7) logical responses and rational requests, 8) adult power, 9) evaluation, 10) exhorting. In addition to a score for each category each respondent's answers were grouped into two larger classifications: 1) control, and 2) acceptance. The control and acceptance groups are further subdivided into two subgroups each. The control subgroups are a) induction and b)power assertion. The acceptance group was divided into a)accepting and b)non-accepting behaviors. The composition of these groups and subgroups is as follows: 32 1) CONTROL a) Induction 10) W ”1" messages parent power responses structuring exhorting responses limit setting logical responses 2) ACCEPTANCE ”5&me MW empathic responding probing responses supporting responses evaluative responses The inductive responses include statements that provide children with information regarding the consequences of their actions and with reasons for compliance with adult requests. This category also includes the adult's owning their own feelings and clear behavioral expectations for the child. Power assertive responses include deprivation of objects or privileges, application of force, or direct or indirect threats of any of these. Accepting responses include recognizing the child's feelings, encouraging communication and expressing acceptance. Non- accepting responses are invasive, brusque, critical or autocratic. They are not sensitive to the child's point of 33 view nor are the requests justified with reasons (Peters 8 Kostelnik, 1981). The Sensitivity to Children Observation Actual adult-child interactions were assessed using the Sensitivity to Children Observation (STC-O) . Observations were conducted.in.pre-arranged video-taping sessions at elementary schools in the participating districts. Sixteen of the observation sessions took. place right after school or in the early evening at thejparticipants' convenience. The remaining two sessions took place during the day (one in the morning and the other in the afternoon) during scheduled half days. Adults completed the survey instruments during a portion of the same session. The goal of the videotaping was to observe the control and acceptance behaviors of the adults, consequently tasks had to be difficult enough to force the adults to participate with the children. If the children found the tasks exciting and could complete them easily, the adults could become observers rather than interacting with the children. Consequently tasks were chosen to be slightly difficult and not particularly interesting to kindergarten and first grade children. 34 Three adults and two children were invited to come to the school for a 90 minute period. Each adult was videotaped for ten minutes, participating individually in a task with the two children. The other two adult participants waited in another room until it was their turn to participate. Since the children participated with all three adults in the triad, three tasks were designed. All three tasks required the adult to help the children use a drawing as a model to recreate a three dimensional construction. All of the sessions were videotaped to minimize observer effect on the adults and children engaged in the task. The videotaped information was later coded using the same categories developed by D'Augelli and Weener (1975) that were used to code the Sensitivity to Children Survey. The use of the same coding system for both instruments allowed for comparisons between adults' projected behavior and adults' actual behavior with children. Demographic Information In addition ‘to 'the ‘written and. recorded. data. described demographic information was collected from the parents and teachers participating in the study (see Appendix C). The 35 following information was requested in order to be able to describe the sample more completely. Parents: Teachers Year of birth Marital Status No. of Children at Home Ages of Children at Home Level of Education Income Age child entered daycare Years in daycare/school Year of Birth Marital Status No. of Children at home Ages of Children at home Level of Education Grade taught Number of Years Teaching Number of children in class Coder Training and Reliability for Each Instrument The coders were trained in the following manner. The coders reviewed the D'Augelli and Weener coding manual. Next they coded STC-Ss that were completed by MSU students untrained in child development or early childhood education. The codes were compared and discrepancies discussed. The coders also practiced coding with videotapes of adult-child interactions in a pilot use of the Sensitivity to Children Observation. 36 In order to establish intrarater reliability the coders re- coded five of the STC-Ss several weeks after the original coding. The two trial codings were compared using Cronbach's Alpha to determine intrarater reliability. Cronbach's alpha is particularly appropriate for computing reliability for instruments where items have many possible answers such as the open-ended responses to the STC-S or observation instruments (Borg 8 Gall, 1983). The alpha correlations for the two sets of responses yielded the following results: acceptance (.9111), non-acceptance (.7407), induction (.8308), power (.9485). Cronbach's Alpha was also used to determine interrater reliability. When the coders had become confident in the coding system, a final set of 18 STC-Ss was coded and compared. The fOllowing correlation coefficients were calculated for each of the subgroups: accepting (.8799), non- accepting (.8200) , induction (.8631) , power assertion (.8175) . Field Testing Different materials (blocks, tinker toys and geometrically shaped plastic tiles) were used in each trial. All three tasks had been field tested with first grade children. Five first 37 graders attempted each task. None of the children were able to complete the task unaided in less than 10 minutes. The procedures were also field tested by the researcher and three M.S.U. students in order to determine if the children would be willing to participate sequentially in all three tasks without undue frustration. One pair of children engaged in all three tasks with the researcher. Each of the other two pairs of children engaged in each of the three tasks with a different adult. See Table 1. Table 1 Field Testing T TASK A TASK B TASK C CHILD PAIR A Researcher Researcher Researcher CHILD PAIR B Adult 1 Adult 2 Adult 3 CHILD PAIR C _ Adult 4 _ _._ Adult 5_ 47 Adu1t6' -1 . The tasks were introduced to the adults at the beginning of each 10 minute session as follows: "Here is a drawing of a block (or tinker toy or tile) construction. Your job is to help the children build an exact replica of this drawing using these materials. Please encourage the children to work 38 together. You have ten minutes to complete this task" These field testing situations were videotaped for coding practice. During the field test it was discovered that although children could not complete the tile design by themselves, it was easy for the adult to give directions allowing for the completion of this task in considerably less than ten minutes. Consequently another task, crystal builders, was substituted for the tiles. This replacement task was field tested by the researcher with three five year old children in their classroom. While cooperative, none of the children were able to complete the task in’the allotted time even with the help of the researcher. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The objective of this research was to investigate questions regarding the relationship between adults' attitudes and behaviors regarding the socialization of children. The degree of congruence between parents' and teachers' attitudes and behaviors was also of interest. Specifically, answers to the following questions and hypotheses were sought. ng§§19n__1. What are parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors toward child 39 socialization? ng§;19g_g. What are the relationships between socialization attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors among parents and teachers? fiypg§h§§i§_1: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P‘will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. fiypg§h§§1§_z: Parents who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P*will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. Hypothg§1§_1: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Hypothg§i§_1: Parents who are less accepting of children 40 as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. nypgtng§i§__§: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. flypgtng§1§__§: Teachers who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. nypgthgsis 7: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Hypothg§1§__§: Teachers who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher 41 percentages of responses in the categories of power and non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Hypoth§§i§__2: There ‘will be no difference between parents' projected behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and their actual behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Wis—Lg: There will be no difference between teachers' projected behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and their actual behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. 9119512129.;- What is the degree of congruence between parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors toward the socialization of children? Hypothesis 1;: There will be no difference between the parents' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-P and the teachers' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-T. WM: There will be no difference between 42 . parents' and teachers' levels of induction as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. W: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of power as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. WM: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. mm: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. DATA ANALYSIS This study was descriptive and comparative in nature. Its first purpose was to identify the attitudes, projected behaviors and actual observed behaviors of parents and 43 teachers of young children in the areas of control and acceptance of children's behavior. Descriptions of attitudes towards appropriate child behavior were measured by the two forms of the Porter Parent Acceptance Scale (Porter-P and Porter-T) . Higher levels of acceptance result in higher scores on this measure. Projected behaviors were measured using the Sensitivity to Children Survey (STC-S). Frequencies were calculated for the ten scoring categories as well as for the behavior groups of control (power assertion and induction) and acceptance (acceptance and non-acceptance) . Proportional scores for acceptance and control were obtained by dividing the number of responses in each group by the total number of responses creating a percentage of responses in each group. Actual behaviors were measured using the Sensitivity to Children Observation (STC-O). Frequencies for the ten scoring categories and the behavior groups were calculated in the same manner as the projected behaviors. The second purpose of this study was to compare attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors within the parent and teacher groups. In order to accomplish these goals Chi- square analysis and dependent paired T-tests were used to 44 compare the scores from the Porter Parent Acceptance Scale, the Sensitivity to Children Survey groups, and the Sensitivity to Children Observation groups. Finally, in order to compare teachers and parents projected and actual behaviors MANOVA (repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance) was used to compare the parents and teachers scores on the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation in each of the constructs: induction, power, acceptance and non-acceptance. DATA COLLECTION Three measures were used in this project: two written survey instruments (The Porter Acceptance Scale and the Sensitivity to Children Survey) and one observational measure, The Sensitivity to Children Observation. Participating adult triads were selected and scheduled as previously described in this chapter. An adult triad consisted of a female teacher and two mothers from her classroom. One triad participated in each session. Each adult completed all three measures during the testing session. To avoid having the adults participate in the observation 45 session in a particular order,(for example teacher, parent 1, parent. 2) a color' rotation (red, yellow' and. blue) for participation was established before the study began. Upon their arrival, one of the children was asked to pass out the name tags to the adults. For each session there were three name tags (one red, one blue and one yellow) with the session number marked on them. The order in which the adults would be videotaped was set by the predetermined color rotation and the assignment of name tag color by the children. A toy rotation had also been established before the beginning of the research so that the order of the tasks varied for each participant group. Both the color rotation and the toy rotation were instituted in order to control for any effect that might be caused by participating first, second or last. All three adults also filled out permission slips for themselves and the parents also completed permission slips their children before the videotaping began (see Appendix C) . The two adults who had been assigned the second and third positions for the observation tasks waited outside the room where the videotaping was taking place most often in another classroom but occasionally in the hall. All adults were instructed not to discuss what they have done during the 46 observation task until the taping was finished. The third adult and the two children associated with the triad were taken to a classroom where the video equipment was set up. The children were not the actual subjects of the study but acted as stimuli to elicit adult behavior. The children in each observation session were the natural or adopted children of the participating parents and the students of the participating teacher. All the children who participated were considered developmentally normal. Each pair of children included one boy and one girl. Before the videotaping began, the researcher talked to the children explaining that they would be engaged in three separate tasks with each of the three different adults. They were told that the tasks were very difficult and that it was alright if they were not able to complete them in the time allotted. When each adult entered the taping room, they were shown the building material and given the following instructions: Here is a drawing of a block (tinker-toy, crystal builder) construction. Your job is to use these materials and help the children build one as much like this drawing as you can. Please encourage the 47 children to work cooperatively. You have ten minutes to complete this task. The videotape equipment had been set up in advance. It was turned on before the instructions were given. After the instructions, the researcher and the video assistant left the room . After ten minutes had elapsed the researcher interrupted the construction task, thanking the children for their hard.work. The materials were put away. Adult A was taken out of the room and reminded not to discuss the task until the other adults had.a chance to finish. Adult.B‘was taken into the observation room and presented with the second construction task and the same oral instructions. After the allotted time had elapsed, the process was repeated, and adult C was brought into the observation room. When. the adults had. completed. the interaction ‘with. the children, they were asked to complete the two survey instruments. They were instructed to read the written instructions which accompanied each instrument and to do them in the order in which they were presented (Porter followed by the STC) . They were given as much time as necessary to complete all the items. All the adults finished the written 48 instruments within the planned time period. The survey instruments and permission slips were coded with the session number, and color. The color and session number matched the adults' name tags. Survey instruments, permission slips and videotapes were also dated. For example the adult wearing the yellow nametag was recorded on the videotape marked with a particular date and session number. This individual then completed the survey instruments with the same date and session number which were marked in yellow. This allowed the coder to identify the adult on the videotape using only the nametag color, the date and the session number while maintaining the participants' confidentiality. This system also allowed all three instruments to be re-grouped for entry into the computer without including the participants names on anything other than the permission forms. The children *were thanked for ‘working so Ihard. on such difficult tasks and asked if they have any questions. As a small thank you for their participation, they were then invited to choose two books from a selection appropriate for kindergarten and first grade children. During the time that the adults were completing the survey instruments children could play with the materials if they were not being used by another triad. 49 The participating teachers were given a $25 gift certificate from.a local teacher store as a token of appreciation. All the participants were thanked, reassured of their anonymity and given an opportunity to ask questions. A summary of the results of the study was also offered to all the adults and will be sent to those who expressed interest. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION RESULTS This section is devoted to a presentation of the results in relation to each of the research questions and hypotheses. First, the demographic data regarding the sample will be presented. Secondly, results from.each of instruments will be presented in Answer to question one. Finally, comparisons will be made within and between the parent and teacher groups in answer to questions two and three. Demographics The sample consisted of 18 female teachers and 36 female parents. All of the participants were white including the children who took part in the videotaped sessions. The teachers were an experienced group with an average of between. 11 and. 15 years of“ classroom. experience. Eight teachers were teaching kindergarten and ten were teaching first grade. The average.class size‘was 22 children. Of course all the teachers had college degrees, in fact all but three held advanced degrees. The average age was 40 and none were 50 51 under the age of 30. All the teachers were married at the time of the study with one exception and she was engaged to be married within the year. The parents were somewhat younger with an average age of 34. All were married with the exception of one divorced parent. The vast majority (34) had other children besides their kindergartener or first grader at home. The families were middle class with incomes averaging between $30,000 and $45,000 per year. The mothers' educational levels were more varied than the teachers although all had completed high school and most had attended college. Two-thirds of the children (24) had attended daycare or nursery school before entering kindergarten most often for one or two years begining at age three. Complete demographic data is provided in table 2. 52 Table 2 Demographic Data Variable Teachers Mean Parents Mean Total Mean llAge 25-29 0 2 30-34 3 12 34 35-39 3 14 36 40-44 3 4O 3 45-49 7 0 50-54 1 0 55-59 1 0 Marital Status Married 17 35 Divorced 0 1 Never Married 1 0 No. of Children at Home 0 5 0 1 8 1.11 2 2 3 17 2.58 2.09 3 2 13 4 0 2 5 0 2 Education Hi School Grad 0 8 Some College 0 15 College Grad 3 11 Graduate Degree 15 2 Variable 53 Table 2 (cont'd) Teachers Mean Parents Mean Total Mean L Income Under $15,000 $15,000-30,000 $30,000-45,000 $45,000-60,000 $60,000-75,000 $75,000 andup; $30,000 to $45,000 Did Child Attend Daycare Yes No 1‘ Age Child Began Daycare less than 1 1 years old 2 years old 3 years old 4 years old aNumber of years ? in Daycare less than 1 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 5 H wonwmw 54 Table 2 (cont'd) Total Mean Variable Teachers Mean Parents Mean Grade Taught Kindergarten 8 First 10 I Number in Class 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22.28 ooh-ucnh9Hr-c>ora Years of Teaching 5 or less 1 6-10 years 6 11-15 years 3 16-20 years 4 21-25 years 3 1 Questions and Hypotheses Qgg§3193__1: What are parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors toward child socialization? In order to describe parents' and teachers' attitudes regarding the acceptance of young children, the ranges and 55 means on the Porter-P and Porter-T were calculated. The range for parents was 117 through 176 with a mean of 149.389. For teachers the range was 125 through 176 with a mean of 153.667. Only one teacher and four parents fell into the low acceptance group as described by Porter (1954). Adult projected.behaviors were measured.using the Sensitivity to Children Survey (STC-S) (Stollak, 1968) and scored using the categories delineated by D'Augelli 8 Weener (1975). These categories were than grouped as described earlier into statements expressing induction, power, acceptance or non- acceptance. Since the STC-S consists of open ended socialization situations, the number of statements written in response to each of the situations varied. In order to be able to compare subjects the raw scores in each group (induction, power, acceptance and non-acceptance) were converted to a percentage of the total number of responses. Means were then calculated for each group and are reported in table 3. Parents' responses in the positive groups (induction 8 acceptance) accounted for 68.8% of the total and negative responses (power and non-acceptance) for 31.5%. Teachers' positive responses made up 74.8% of the total and negative responses 25.2%. 56 Table 3 Percentages of Groups on the STC-Survey INDUCTION POWER ACCEPTANCE NON- ACCEPTANCE PARENTS 25.1% 14.7% 43.5% 16.8% 24.3% 12.7% 50.5% 12.5% In all cases positive statements (induction and acceptance) were more frequent than less positive statements (power and non-acceptance). Teachers' and parents' actual control and acceptance behaviors were determined by using the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Since the observations were 10 minutes long, many more statements were made than were written on the STC-Survey. The Sensitivity to Children Observation was scored using the same D'Augelli 8 Weener (1975) categories applied to the STC- Survey The responses were also divided into four groups (induction, power, acceptance and non-acceptance) and a percentage of the total number of statements was calculated for each group. The mean percentages for each group are reported in Table 4. Parents' responses in the positive groups (induction 8 acceptance) accounted for 95.1% of the total and negative responses (power and non-acceptance) for 4.8%. Teachers' positive responses made up 98.9% of the total and 57 negative responses 1.2%. Table 4 Percentages of Groups on the STC-Observation INDUCTION POWER ACCEPTANCE NON- ACCEPTANCE PARENTS 53.8% 3.9% 41.3% 0.9% TEACHERS 47.3% 0.7% 51.6% 0.5% Again in all cases induction and acceptance statements were more frequent than were the less positive groups of power and non-acceptance. Questign_z: What are the relationships between socialization attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors among parents and among teachers. In order to compare the scores on the Porter Acceptance Scale with the groups on the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation, the scores on the Porter were divided using the levels described by Porter (1975). Porter considered a total score lower than 129 to indicate low acceptance. Scores between 130 and 157 were considered mid-acceptance and scores of 158 and above were catagorized as high acceptance. Given the small number of subjects in the study and the very few scores in the low acceptance group (1 teacher and 4 parents), two groups (lower 58 acceptance and.higher acceptance) were formed.by dividing the medium group in at its midpoint. Scores above 144 constituted the higher acceptance group. Six teachers and 13 parents fell below the midpoint into the lower acceptance group and 12 teachers and 23 parents had higher acceptance scores of 144 or more . Scores on each group (induction, power, acceptance and non- acceptance) in the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation were divided at the mean to create two groups: one higher and one lower on each construct. In this manner, lower and higher acceptance as measured by the Porter could be compared with the constructs on the STC-S and the STC-O. The Porter was compared to the groups on the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation using the Chi-square statistic. flypggn§§1§_1: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured.by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the catagories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. No significant realtionships were found.between the scores on the Porter-P and the percentage of inductive or acceptance statements made by parents on the STC-Survey (alpha = 0.10). 59 Hypothe§1§_z: Parents who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. No significant relationships were found between the level of acceptance on the Porter and the percentage of power or non- acceptance statements made by parents on the STC-Survey. flypg§h§§;§_;: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured.by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured 'by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Parents who made more inductive statements to children during the observation period were more likely to score in the medium to high range on the Porter-P (Chi-square .08896 alpha :- 0.10). Similarly parents who made more acceptance statements to children during the observation period were more likely to score in the medium to high range on the Porter-P (Chi-square = .05241 alpha = 0.10). 60 fiypgthg§i§_4: Parents who are less accepting of children as measured.by the Porter-P*will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. No significant relationships were found between the scores on the Porter-P and the percentage of power or non-acceptance statements made by parents on the STC-Observation (alpha = 0.10). fiypgthg§1§__§: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. Given the small number of teachers who participated in this project, there were often chi-square cells with fewer than the requisite number to make a statistical projection. Therefore the directional trends will be reported. Teachers who made more inductive statements on the STC-Survey were more likely to score in the higher acceptance group on the Porter-T (Chi-square .01842 alpha = 0.10). Teachers who made more acceptance statements on the STC-Survey were more 61 likely to score in the higher acceptance group on the Porter-T (Chi-square .06281 alpha = 0.10). Hypothg§1§__§: Teachers who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey. No significant relationships were found between the scores on the Porter-T and the percentage of power or non-acceptance statements made by parents on the STC-Survey (alpha = 0.10). Hypgtng§1§__1: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. No significant relationship was found between the scores on the Porter-T and the percentage of inductive statements made by teachers on the STC-Observation. The trend for teachers measured as high acceptance on the Porter-T was to produce more acceptance statements on.the STC-Observation.(Chi-square = 03390 alpha = 0.10). 62 Hypg§h§§i§__§: Teachers who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. No significant relationships were found between the scores on the Porter-T and the percentage of power or non-acceptance statements made by parents on the STC-Observation (alpha = 0.10). Paired t-tests were performed between each of the groups (induction, power, acceptance and non-acceptance) on the STC and the same group on the Observation Rating Scale. Separate tests were performed within each of the subject groups: teachers and parents. Hypothesis : There will be no difference between the parents' projected behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and their actual behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Significant (alpha = 0.10) differences were found between the parents' projected behaviors and their actual behaviors on all of the groups except Acceptance (f = .404). 63 nypgtng§1§_1g: There will be no difference between the teachers' projected behaviors as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Significant (alpha 2 0.10) differences were found between the teachers' projected behaviors and their actual behaviors on all of the groups except Acceptance (f = .785). Questign_;, What is the degree of congruence between parents' and teachers' attitudes, projected behaviors and actual behaviors toward the socialization of children. flypgtng§1§_11: There will be no difference between the parents' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-P and the teachers' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-T. A t-test indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean for parents and the mean for teachers on the Porter Acceptance scale. This finding indicated that the attitudes stated by the parents and teachers in this group were equally accepting of children as separate individuals. 64 The Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance or MANOVA was used to determine congruence between parents and teachers on the STC-Survey and STC-Observation for each of the constructs (induction, power, acceptance and non-acceptance) . The repeated measures test is particularly appropriate because the scoring systems for the STC and the Observation Rating Scale were identical, providing two measures for each of the constructs. First it was determined that there was homogeneity of variance between the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation within each subject group (teachers and parents) which indicated that the Manova was an appropriate statistic. Each Manova compared the scores on the STC and the scores on the Observation Rating Scale for both teachers and parents and determined whether there was a significant difference between the subject groups. W12: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of induction as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. There was no significant (alpha = 0.10) difference between parents and teachers regarding induction. Parents and teachers used similar proportions of inductive statements such as "I" messages, structuring , limit setting and logical responses. 65 W: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of power as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Parents were significantly (alpha = 0.10) more likely to use power responses than were teachers. Power responses include lecturing, threatening, directing and offering no choices to the child (see table 5). Table 5 STC-S Power x STC-O Power x Subject Group [ MEAN STD.DEV. N IPARENT - observation .039 .058 36 TEACHER-Observation .007 .018 18 IENTIRE SAMPLE-Observation .028 .051 54 I PARENT-STC .147 H TEACHER-STC .127 I ENTIRE SAMPLE-STC .140 _ a p a = .06 66 W41: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. The were significant differences (alpha = 0.1) between teachers and parents levels of acceptance. Teachers were more likely to use the empathic and supporting responses which make up the acceptance construct than were parents (see table 6). Table 6 STC-S Acceptance x STC-O Acceptance x Subject Group MEAN STD.DEV. N ; PARENT - observation .413 .136 36 fl TEACHER-Observation .516 .170 18 , ENTIRE SAMPLE-Observation . 448 . 154 54 =PARENT-STC .435 .113 36 1 TEACHER-STC .505 .096 18 | ENTIRE SAMPLE-STC 7.458 1 .112 54 aa: .3. 67 Hypothesis—15: There will be no difference between parents' and teachers' levels of non-acceptance as measured by the Sensitivity to Children Survey and the Sensitivity to Children Observation. Teachers were less likely than parents to use non-acceptance statements. Non-acceptance includes criticism, denial of feelings and abrupt or brusque responses (see table 7). Table 7 STC-S Non-Acceptance x STC-O Non-Acceptance x Subject Group MEAN STD.DEV. N PARENT - observation .009 .019 36 . TEACHER-Observation .005 .012 18 ENTIRE SAMPLE-Observation .008 .017 54 : PARENT-STC .168 .091 36 TEACHER-STC .125 .074 18 i-ENTIRE SAMPLE-STC .154 .087 54 ap a {6‘ CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH DISCUSSION Porter defined acceptance as including four dimensions. These were: respecting children's feelings, valuing children's uniqueness, recognizing children's need to separate themselves from their parents and giving unconditional love. When dealing with an abstract valuing of children, both the parents and the teachers in this sample were equally accepting of children. There was little congruence between acceptance scores on the Porter-T or the Porter-P and either the projected or actual behaviors of the parents or teachers. This indicates that adult attitudes toward children are not necessarily related to either their projected or actual behaviors toward children. This finding must be thought of as tentative given the small size of the sample and the lack of variability on the Porter. However, it does indicate that when looking for information about behavior regarding control and acceptance, instruments which more specifically ask about behavior are more likely to yield valid information regarding actual performance. Comparisons between. projected and actual behaviors were difficult because it was not possible to impose a situation 68 '— 69 for the observation that was as demanding as those described in the STC-S. Situations in the STC-S dealt with emotion laden predicaments such as sex play and stealing, which were impossible to duplicate in an experimental setting. Although the observed tasks were hard and the children rarely completed them, the adults did not feel a great deal of pressure to change the children's behavior. The children ‘were very cooperative. The unusual nature of being a part of a research study and their established role as student contributed to their willingness to cooperate. Consequently very few power or non-acceptance statements were elicited from.the adults. Both parents and teachers used a higher percentage of power statements and non-acceptance in the hypothetical situations on the STC-Survey than on the STC-Observation even though inductive and accepting statement were always more common (see table 8). Table 8 Percentage of Groups on the STC-Survey and STC-Observation r j INSTRUMENT INDUCTION POWER ACCEPTANCE NON- ACCEPTANCE I STC-S 24.8% 14.0% 45.8% 15.4% 51.6% 44.8% 0.8% 70 The three instruments in this study measured slightly different constructs. While the Porter has previously been found useful in assessing adult acceptance of children as autonomous individuals, in this case it was not a good predictor of either actual or projected adult behavior towards children. It may indicate a willingness on the part of adults to behave in an inductive manner but does not necessarily indicate how an individual will behave in a difficult situation. The fact that the adults in this study generally scored in the middle to high acceptance on the Porter may be related to the high level of positive responses on the STC- Survey and the STC-Observation but without considerably more variability’ on. the Porter, we are ‘unable to» draw* this conclusion. In order to compare the projected behavior with actual behavior, observations must be made in situations that more closely approximate the challenge of the situations on the STC-Survey. This would be difficult to manage in contrived circumstances. Kostelnik (1978) found that adults in a skills training program for child care workers gave more positive responses on the STC-S than they did in actual interactions with children in their classrooms. It is interesting that in this study the opposite was found. Adults gave a larger percentage of negative responses on.the STC-S than.they'did in actual interactions. This may be attributed to the difference 71 between the observed situations in the two studies. In the Kostelnik study the observed adults were in their regular classrooms where they were responsible for the children. In this study the adults were not in a situation where the children were likely to challenge them or where the adults found it necessary to require compliance from the children. The most interesting finding was that the teachers were somewhat less likely to use power and non-acceptance statements with children than were the parents. This supports the assumption that teachers' training or experience facilitates positive interactions with children. It is important to note that the teachers in this sample had an average of over 10 years of experience in the classroom and it may be that experience rather than training is the significant factor. Although some differences were found between teachers and mothers use of the more negative statements, in general the two microsystems, school and home, as measured by this study were not vastly incongruent. This indicates that at least for children in the type of families who participated in the study (white, middle-class, suburban) who attend schools in middle class suburban communities, social expectations are not widely discrepant within the mesosystem of school and home. Consequently the developmental potential of the mesosystem of 72 school and home is enhanced for these children. 73 Table 9 Summary of Hypotheses Hypothesis Supported/Not Supported 1: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the STC-Survey. not supported 2: Parents who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measuredby the STC-Survey. 3: Parents who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in Ithe categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the STC- Observation. 4: Parents who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-P will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the STC- Observation. not supported supported not supported 5: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the STC-Survey. supported by trend 6: Teachers who are less accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the STC-Survey. not supported 7: Teachers who are more accepting of children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of induction and acceptance as measured by the STC- Observation. supported by trend 74 Table 9 (cont'd) I I 8: Teachers who are less accepting of not supported children as measured by the Porter-T will have higher percentages of responses in the categories of power and non- acceptance as measured by the STC- Observation. 9: There will be no difference between not supported the parents' projected behaviors as measured by the STC-Survey and their actual behaviors as measured by the STC- Observation. 10: There will be no difference between not supported the teachers' projected behaviors as measured by the STC-Survey and their actual behaviors as measured by the STC- Observation. 11: There will be no difference between supported the parents' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-P and the teachers' attitudes of acceptance of children as measured by the Porter-T. 12: There will be no difference between supported parents' and teachers' levels of induction as measured by the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation. 13: There will be no difference between not supported parents' and teachers' levels of power as measured by the STC-Survey and the STC- Observation. 14: There will be no difference between not supported I parents' and teachers' levels of acceptance as measured by the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation. 15: There will be no difference between not supported parents' and teachers' levels of non- acceptance as measured by the STC-Survey and the STC-Observation. 75 PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS The most difficult part of this study was recruiting the teachers to participate. The researcher began by contacting larger school districts assuming that large numbers of teachers could be recruited in a few districts. In reality, it was more difficult to gain entry into larger districts than into smaller ones. The smaller districts often had only one elementary school which meant working directly with a single principal. This was also true when a larger district had grouped all of its young children in a single building. Districts in which an Early Childhood Coordinator or Curriculum Director acted as gatekeeper were the most difficult.4 Policy allowed the researcher to contact only the administrator who then took it upon him or herself to act as intermediary with the principals who then talked to the teachers. Since the sample was limited to kindergarten and first grade teachers the administrator was often dealing with several principals each with only two or three teachers in the appropriate grades. The more direct contact the researcher had with the principal and teachers, the more likely teachers were to volunteer. Another variable in the success of recruiting was the enthusiasm shown by the principal in a particular building. 76 When the principal expressed interest in the project, teachers were much more likely to volunteer. Colleagues also encouraged each other to participate. Almost without exception, if one teacher in a building was willing to participate, other colleagues would also be willing to give it a try. After the teachers were recruited it was not difficult to recruit parents and their children. Since teachers decided who to send the letters home with, they often chose parents that they knew would be available or likely to participate. There was always a good response to the letters. It appears that when parents knew that their child's teacher was interested in participating in the study it alleviated any anxiety that parents might have felt about taking part on their own. One parent did express concern about whether she would be able to understand the written instruments. She indicated that she had difficulty dealing with printed material. The researcher offered to read the instruments to her but when she saw them she was able to complete both written instruments without assistance. All the participants, including the children, found the tasks interesting and even fun. Many of the children asked if they could continue to use the materials after the videotaping was completed. They did not continue to work on the assigned tasks that had been videotaped but instead experimented with using 77 the materials to construct other things. Using books as incentives for the families' participation worked extremely well. The children were always presented with a selection of books and allowed to choose the ones they wanted. The children were excited and pleased with this choice. They often spent considerable time pouring over the books while their parents filled out the written instruments. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Given the results of this study, there are two major recommendations for replication of this research. First, in order to study actual behavior, one must observe that behavior in settings that are as close to natural as possible. I believe that more accurate assessments of teachers could be obtained by recording their everyday classroom interactions on either video or audio tape. Spontaneous family interactions would be more difficult to record but worthwhile in order to get a truer picture of parents' behavior in real life situations. Secondly, efforts should be made to recruit a more diverse group of subjects. This small volunteer sample was very homogeneous on many variables. All of the participants were white, middle class and suburban. Future comparisons should 78 look at a much broader range of subjects. including adults of other ethnic and racial groups, different socio-economic levels and in different settings (urban, rural). It would be beneficial to repeat all or portions of the study with a much more varied sample. To limit the bias of self-selection, school wide participation or the random selection of teachers and parents should be sought. All of the teachers in this group had many years of experience and were confident enough in their practices to volunteer for the study. Parents were also confident and comfortable with the school setting. Many of them participated routinely in classroom activities. Randomly selected teachers and parents might demonstrate a broader range of control and acceptance behaviors. Related research could investigate teacher groups to try to determine whether the teachers' use of fewer control and non- acceptance strategies resulted from training or experience. The measures could be repeated comparing less experienced teachers such as first and second year teachers or even practicum.students with teachers with five, ten or more years of experience. It could be hypothesized that beginning teachers' behavior relies on their more recent training and that teachers with years of practice rely on their experience. In a similar way, comparisons between families with a single 79 child and families with several children could explore the role of experience in parenting practices. Teachers may also self-select during their careers. Teachers who are able to manage their classrooms using positive controls may find teaching more rewarding and consequently remain in the profession longer. The present research effort has indicated that there are some interesting comparisons to be made within childrens' mesosystems. Further exploration into the compatibility of home and school socialization practices could include comparing parents' and teachers' expectations of appropriate behavior, their long term and short term goals for children, strategies for handling conflict between peers or siblings, and approaches to the development of healthy self-esteem. Mesosystem studies could contribute information that professionals and family members could use to design systems that support optimal growth and development for children. 8 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baumrind, D. (1966) Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. W, 31, 887-907. Baumrind, D. (1967) Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. W. 15, 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1970) Socialization and instrumental competence in young children. 193mm, 2_6_, 104-119. Baumrind, D. (1972) Socialization and instrumental competence in Young children- In W z_,_, ed. W.W. Hartup, National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington D.C. Baumrind, D. (1973) The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In ed. A. D. Pick, MW W, 1, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Baumrind, D. (1977) Socialization determinants of personal agency. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, April, 1977. Borg. W-R- & Gall. mm (1983) MW Introduction. 4th Edition, Longman, Inc., New York. Bowlby. J- (1969) WWW Basic Books, New York. Bronfenbrenner. U- (1979) MW. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Brookhover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., 8 Wisenbaker, J. (1979) o S t e W Praeger. New York N. Y. Caplow, T., Bahr, H.M., Chadwick, B.A., Hill, R., 8 Williamson, M.H. (1982) ' ° ' t , University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Conter, K.R., Hatch, C.L., 8 D'Augelli, A.R. (1980) Enhancing the skills of cub scout den leaders: training, generalization, and maintenance. c o o EEYQDQlQQY. fi. 77-85- Crook, T., Radkin, A., 8 Eliot, J. (1981) parent relationships and adult depression. W, 52, 950-957. 81 Curry N-E- & JOhnSOD. C-N- (1990) BSYQEQ__§§lI:E§L§§m1 , National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington D.C. D'Augelli, J.F. 8 Weener, J.M. (1975) Scoring manual for sensitivity to children. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Damon. W- (1983) W. New York. NY, W.W. Norton 8 Company, Inc. Fisher. 8. & Fisher. R-L- (1986) MW Qn11g_3§gzing. Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson, Inc. Goffin, S. G. (1989) How'well do we respect the children in our care- W20. 9.9. 68-74- Goodwin, A. L. (1987) Vocational Choice and the realities of teaching. I W W. New York NY. Teachers College Press. Grace, G.R. (1972) The teacher and role conflict. Approaches Waist. London. Routledge & Kegan Paul - Grossman, S. (1992) Examining the mesosystem of the young child: an analysis of the communication between kindergarten teachers and child care providers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Guerney, L. (1977) Description and evaluation of a skills training program for foster parents. W W. 3.. 361-71. Hart, C.H., Ladd, G.W. 8 Burleson, B.R. (1990) Children's expectations of the outcomes of social strategies: Relations with sociometric status and maternal disciplinary styles. Women. 9.1. 127-137- Harvey, O. J. (1970) Belief systems and education: Some implications for change. In.J. Crawford., The‘Affggtiy§_ngmgin, Washington D. C., Communications Service Corporation. Hatch, C.L. (1977) A skills-training program for cub scout den leaders: An exploratiory study. Unpublished master's thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Hoffman, M.L. (1967) Parent discipline and the child's moral development- WW. 5. 45-57. 82 Hoffman, M.L. (1970) Moral development. In Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology: Vol.2; ed. P. Mussen. John Wiley 8 Sons, New York. Hoffman, M.L. (1975) Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent-child interactions. mm; 25121121931. 11. 223-239- Holmes, S.J. 8 Robins, L.N. (1988) The role of parental disciplinary practices in the development of depression and alcoholism. Reyehjetry, 51, 24-36. Howick, W. H. (1984) . fo. ' Wm. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, November Kostelnik, M.J. (1978) Evaluation of a communication and group management skills training program for child development personnel. A doctoral dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, University Park, PA. Kostelnik, M. J., Stein, L. S., Whiren, A. P., 8 Soderman, A. K. ( 1988) W South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH. Kuczynski, L. (1984) Socialization goals and mother-child interaction: Strategies for long-term and short-term compliance. WM. 2.9. 1061-1073. LaPiere, R.T. (1932) Attitudes versus actions. Seem, 13, 230-37. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., 8 White, R.K. (1939) Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates". W. 33.. 271-299- Lynd. H-M- & Lynd. R-S- (1929) W lehgze, Harcourt-Brace and World, Inc., New York. Meuller, D. J. (1986) MW fie: Res seerehezs ehg Practitiehers, Teachers College Press, New York. Oakes, P.B. 8 Caruso, D.A. (1990) Kindergarten teachers' use of developmentally appropriate practices and attitudes about authority- WW. 1. 445-457- Parke, R.D. (1969) Effectiveness of punishment as an interaction of intensity, timing, agent nurturance and cognitive structuring. W, 4h, 213-236. 83 Peters, D.L. 8 Kostelnik, M.J. (1981) Current research in day care personnel preparation. in S. Kilmer (ed) mm W (Vol-2) - Greenwich. Connecticut: JAI Press. Porter, B.R. (1954) Measurement of parental acceptance of children. WM. 4.0. 176-182. Prawat, R.S. (1985) Affective versus cognitive goal orientations in elementary teachers. We], 89mm. 2.2. 587-604. Prawat, R.S. 8.Anderson, A.L.H. (1988) Eitht teachers' control orientations and their students' problem-solving ability. The 8W1. 3.2. 99-112- Raffini, J.F. (1980) ' ° Tedey's gigg, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Raschke, D.B., Dedrick, C.V., Strathe, M.I. 8 Hawkes, R.R. (1985) Teacher stress: The elementary teacher's perspective. WW1. 3.5. 561-562 . Raver, C.C. 8 Sigler, E.F. (1991) Three steps forward, two steps back: Head Start and the measurement of social competence- W920. 4.6. 3-8- Rosenblith, J.F. 8 Sims-Knight, J.E. (1985) In;§he_fieg1nn1ng; MAW. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, CA Rothbaum, F. (1986) Patterns of maternal acceptance. enetic, Social and General Psychology Monographsh_112, 535-558, Shaffer, D.R. (1985) v o o ° 0 Monterey, CA, Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company. Solomon, D., Watson, M.S., Delucci, K.L. Schaps, E. 8 Battistich, V.(1988) Enhancing children's prosocial behavior in the classroom. W. 2.5. 527-554. Spodek, B. (1986) od ' ' de ° o W. New York. Teacher's College Press. Stollak, G. (1968) A. measure of ‘teacher sensitivity' to children. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Thurstone, L.L. (1928) The measurement of social attitude. W. 3.3. 529-54- 84 Tobin, J.J., wu, D.Y¢H. 8 Davidson, D. (1989) 2;eeeheel_1n . New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press. Wittrock. M-C- (1986) EaEEp92k_Ef_Besearcn_En_Teaching. New York, Macmillan Yahraes, H. (1978) 8 ° 0 ' U.S. Department of Mental Health (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 622. Yarrow, M.R., Waxler, 0.2., 8 Scott, P.M. (1971) Child effects on adult behavior. Dexelopmental_zsxcholosx. S. 300-311. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COMMUNICATIONS WITH TEACHERS 84 September 15, 1992 Dear Teacher: I am.a graduate student at Michigan State University pursuing a Ph.D. in Family and Child Ecology. I am especially interested in the education of children in the early grades. Currently I am studying communication patterns between young children and their parents and teachers. Ms. Pastuszka, your principal, has given me permission to contact the kindergarten and first grade teachers in your district to ask for participation in my study. Participation will take place at your convenience after school, in the early evening or on a Saturday. Participation in.the project.will take about an hour and a half. In exchange for your time you will be given a $25.00 gift certificate for classroom supplies from The Michigan Products Teacher Store. Each teacher will participate with two mothers and their children. who will be recruited from the teacher's classroom. Participation involves meeting with the two parents and their children either at your school or at the MSU Child Development Laboratories. During the meeting, you will fill out two survey forms and engage in a short activity with the children. Teachers who have already participated in this study have found the participation to be fun and not difficult. I have enclosed a project information sheet with additional details about the project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Helen E. Hagens, M.A. 1243 Lilac Ave., East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 337-8259 85 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET PARENT AND TEACHER COMMUNICATION RESEARCH WHAT IS THIS PROJECT ALL ABOUT? The goal of this project is to describe the communication that takes place between young children and the adults who are most important to them: their parents and teachers. I!!! SHOULD I BOTHER? Although there are no guaranteed personal benefits, your participation is this study will add to our knowledge of how children interact with their teachers and parents. Such information along with the findings of other studies can.help Early Childhood Education.professionals develop programs that optimally meet the needs of all children. In addition, as a small thank you gift for your participation, you will be given a twenty-five dollar gift certificate from a local teacher supply store. WHO IS RUNNING THIS PROJECT? This research is being conducted by Helen Hagens who is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family and Child Ecology at.Michigan State University. All doctoral candidates must conduct original research as a final requirement for their degrees. Ms. Hagens' project is being supervised by a committee of MSU professors led by Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, Department of Family and Child Ecology. She can be contacted at (517) 355-1900. HOW MUCH TIME WILL THIS TAKE? Your participation in this study should take approximately one and a half hours. The research will be conducted at a time arranged.to suit.you and.the other'members of‘your’group. Your group will consist of yourself, two children from your class (one boy and one girl) and their mothers. WHAT WILL I BE EXPECTED TO DO? During the hour and a half that you spend with the researcher, you.will be asked to do three things. Two tasks require you to respond to written questions about how you communicate with young children. In the third task, you will be asked to help the two young children to complete a simple project. During this phase of the research the children's communications with you will be videotaped. 86 WHO ELSE WILL BE PARTICIPATING? You will be participating with two children from your class and their mothers. At other days and times different groups will complete the same tasks.but.you will not.meet.or interact with the other participating groups. WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION? As with.all research, the results of this project are strictly confidential. The videotaped interactions will be coded and then erased. All the data will be reported in an aggregate form so that no individuals can be identified. Only the researchers directly involved in the study will ever have access to the names of the participants. If you.wish, we will send you a report of the study's conclusions. WHAT IF I CHANGE MY MIND? Although we would like all of the participants to complete all oi'the parts of the study, it is your right to withdraw at any t me. It is important that during each testing period we have one teacher, two parents and their children present. Therefore, if you decide to withdraw please let me know as soon as possible so that the other members of your group can be notified of the cancellation. WHERE WILL THE RESEARCH BE HELD? In order to make your participation as easy as possible, we will come to your school building after school hours, in the evening or on a Saturday, whichever is most convenient for you and the mothers in your group. If you would prefer a different location, the research can also be done at the MSU Child Development Laboratory School on the Michigan State campus. WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? If you think you would be interested in this project, please contact Helen Hagens. She will then provide you with letters and information sheets to send home to some of the parents in your class. When we have recruited 2 mothers and their children, the session will be scheduled at your convenience. WHO SHOULD I CONTACT IP I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? You may contact the primary researcher, Helen Hagens (337-‘ 8259) or Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, Program Director of the Child Development Laboratories (355-1900) if you have any concerns or questions about your participation or about the study in general. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE! APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS WITH PARENTS 88 October 4, 1992 Dear parent: I am.a graduate student at.Michigan State University pursuing a Ph.D. in Family and Child Ecology. I am especially interested in the education of children in the early grades. Currently I am studying communication patterns between young children and their parents and teachers. Your child's teacher has expressed interest in being a part of this study. In order for'a teacher to take part in the study, two children from her class (one boy and one girl) and their mothers must also volunteer to participate. Participation involves filling out two survey forms and participating in a short activity with the children. This participation will take place at a time convenient to you and your child's teacher and will take about one and a half hours. In exchange for your time your child will be given a two children's books. Parents and children from neighboring districts who have already taken part have found this project to be fun and not at all stressful. Your child's teacher has suggested a day and time as indicated on the attached form. If you are available at that time and would be interested in participating, please take a few minutes to fill out the attached.response letter and return it to your child's teacher as soon as possible. Expressing interest at this time does not obligate you to complete the project. I would very much appreciate your cooperation and assistance with this project. I have enclosed a project information sheet with additional details about the project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Helen E. Hagens, 1243 Lilac Ave., East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 337-8259 89 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET PARENT AND TEACHER COMMUNICATION RESEARCH WHAT IS THIS PROJECT ALL ABOUT? The goal of this project is to describe the communication that takes place between young children and the adults who are most important to them: their parents and teachers. WHY SHOULD I BOTHER? Although there is no guaranteed personal benefits, your participation is this study will add to our knowledge of how children interact with their teachers and parents. Such information along with the findings of other studies can.help Early Childhood Education.professionals develop programs that optimally meet the needs of all children. In addition, as a small thank you gift for your participation, your child will be allowed to choose two books from a selection appropriate for kindergarten and first grade children. WHO IS RUNNING THIS PROJECT? This research is being conducted by Helen Hagens who is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family and Child Ecology at.Michigan State University. All doctoral candidates must conduct original research as a final requirement for their degree. Ms. Hagens' project is being supervised by a committee of MSU professors led by Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik, Department of Family and Child Ecology.She can be contacted at (517) 355-1900. HOW MUCH TIME WILL THIS TAKE? Your participation in this study should take approximately one and on half hours. The research will be done at a time arranged to suit you and.the.other’members of your'group. Your group will consist of your child's teacher, you and your child, and another mother and her child. WHAT WILL I BE EXPECTED TO DO? During the time you spend on the project, you will be asked to do three things. Two tasks require you to respond to written questions about how you and your child communicate. In the third.task:you will be asked to help your child and one of his or her classmates to complete a simple project. During this phase of the research the children's communications with you will be videotaped. 0 ML 1." 90 WHO ELSE WILL BE PARTICIPATING? You will be participating with your child's teacher and another mother 8 child from your child's class. At other times different groups will complete the same tasks but you will not interact with the other participating groups. WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION? Like all research, the results of this project are strictly confidential. The videotaped interactions will be coded and then erased. All the data will be reported in a combined form so that no individuals can be identified. Only the researchers directly involved in the study will ever have access to the names of the participants. If you wish, we will send you a report of the study's conclusions. WHAT IF I CHANGE MY MIND? Although we would like all of the participants to complete all of the parts of the study, it is your right to‘withdraw at any time. It is important that during each testing period we have one teacher, two parents and their children present. Therefore, if you decide to withdraw please let me know as soon as possible so that a replacement can be found. WHO SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? You may contact the primary researcher, Helen Hagens (337- 8259) or her faculty supervisor, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik (355- 1900) if you have any concerns or questions about your participation or about the study in general. 91 October 19, 1992 Dear Parent: Thank you so much for volunteering to participate in the Parent and Teacher Communications Project. I am looking forward to meeting you and your child at the time listed below. We will meet at the elementary school near your teacher's room. I really appreciate your willingness to participate in this study and hope that you will find it to be both interesting and fun. If you have any questions or concerns about your participation please feel free to call me at any time. Sincerely, Helen E. Hagens 1243 Lilac Ave., East Lansing, MI 48823 (517)337-8259 92 October 1992 Dear parent: Thank you so much for volunteering to participate in the Parent and Teacher Communication project. So much interest was shown that we had more volunteers than we can use. Consequently we drew lots to select those who will participate. Unfortunately your name was not chosen. To show how much.we appreciate your'willingness to volunteer, we are sending a small token of our appreciation for your child. I hope you will enjoy the book and accept our sincere thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Helen E. Hagens 1243 Lilac E.Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 337-8259 APPENDIX C PERMISSION SLIPS 93 ADULT PERMISSION SLIP I have read.andnundefstand.the information sheet regarding the Parent and Teacher Communication project. I understand that I can withdraw at any time without explanation or penalty. I voluntarily agree to participate in this research project. (signature 8 date) I choose not to be involved in this project at this time. (signature 8 date) 94 CHILD PERMISSION I have read and understand the information sheet regarding the Parent and Teacher Communication project. I hereby give permission for my child to participate in this project. I understand that I can withdraw this permission at any time without explanation or penalty. I agree voluntarily to allow my child to participate in this research project. (signature 8 date) I choose not to allow my child to be involved in this project at this time. (signature 8 date) APPENDIX D INSTRUMENTS 95 Date: PORTER - P Listed below are several statements describing things which children do and say. Following each statement are five responses which suggest ways of feeling or courses of action. Read each statement carefully and then place a circle around the letter in front of the m response which most nearly describes the feeling you usually have or the course of action you most generally take when your child says or does these things. It is possible that you may find a few statements which describe a type of behavior which you have not yet experienced with your child. In such cases, mark the response which most nearly describes how you think you would feel or what you think you would do. Be sure that you answer every statement and mark only one response for each statement. While responding to the questions please think of your kindergarten or first grade child. Please answer all questions. If you cannot give the exact answer to a question, answer the best you can. 96 1. When.my child is shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet, it: a. makes me feel annoyed. b. makes me want to know more about what excites him. c. makes me feel like punishing him. d. makes me feel that I will be glad when he is past this stage. e. makes me feel like telling him to stop. 2. When my child misbehaves while others in the group he is with are behaving well I: a. see to it that he behaves as the others. b. tell him it is important to behave well when he is in a group. c. let him alone if he isn't disturbing the others too much. d. ask him to tell me what he would like to do. e. help him find some activity that he can enjoy and at the same time not disturb the group. 3. When my child is unable to so something which I think is important for him, it: a. makes me want to help him find success in the things he can do. b. makes me feel disappointed in him. c. makes me wish he could do it. d. makes me realize that he can't do everything. e. makes me want to know more about things he can do. 4. When my child seems to be more fond of someone else (teacher, friend, relative) than me, it: a. makes me realize that he is growing up. b. pleases me to see his interest widening to other people. c. makes me feel resentful. d. makes me feel that he doesn't appreciate what I have done for him. e. makes me wish he liked me more. 5. When my child is faced with two or more choices and has to choose only one, I: a. tell him which choice to make and why. b. think it through with him. c. point out the advantages and disadvantages of each, but let him decide for himself. d. Tell him that I am sure he can.make a wise choice and help him foresee the consequences. e. make the decision for him. 6. When a. b. c. d. 97 my child makes decisions without consulting me, I: punish him for not consulting me. encourage him to make his own decisions if he can foresee the consequences. allow him to make many of his own decisions. suggest that we talk it over before he makes his decision. tell him he must consult me first before making a decision. 7. When a. b. c. d. my child kicks, hits or knocks his things about, it: makes me feel like telling him to stop. makes me feel like punishing him. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel that I will be glad.when.he is past this stage. makes me feel annoyed. 8. When my child is not interested in some of the usual activities of his age group, it: a. b. c. d. 9. When b. c. d. e. makes me realize that each child is different. makes me wish he were interested in the same activities. makes me feel disappointed in him. makes me want to help him find ways to make the most of his interests. makes me want to know more about the activities in which he is interested. my child acts silly and giggly, I: tell him I know how he feels. pay no attention to him. tell him he shouldn't act that way. make him quit. tell him it is alright to feel that way, but help him find other ways of expressing himself. 10. When my child prefers to do things with his friends rather than with his family, I: a. b. c. d. e. encourage him to do things with his friends. accept this as a part of growing up. plan special activities so that he will want to be with his family. try to minimize his association with his friends. make him stay with his family. 98 11. When my child disagrees with me about something which I think is important, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me feel like punishing him. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like persuading him that I am right. makes me realize he has ideas of his own. makes me feel annoyed. 12. When my child misbehaves while others in the group he is with are behaving well, it: b. c. d. e. makes me realize that he does not always behave as others in his group. makes me feel embarrassed. makes me want to help him find the best ways to express his feelings. makes me wish he would behave like the others. makes me want to know more about his feelings. 13. When.my child is shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet, I: a. b. c. d. e. give him something quiet to do. tell him that I wish he would stop. make him be quiet. let him tell me about what excites him. send him somewhere else. 14. When my child seems to be more fond of someone else (teacher, friend, relative) than me, I: a. b. try to minimize his association with that person. let him have such associations when I think he is ready for them. do some special things for him to remind him of how nice I am. point out the weaknesses and faults of that other person. encourage him to create and maintain such associations. 15. When my child says angry and hateful things about me to my face, it: a. b. C. d. e. makes me feel annoyed. makes me feel that.I will be glad.when he is past this stage. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like punishing him. makes me feel like telling him not to talk.that way to me. 99 16. When my child shows a deep interest in something I don't think is important, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me realize he has interest of his own. makes me want to help him find ways to make the most of this interest. makes me feel disappointed in him. makes me want to know more about his interests. makes me wish he were more interested in the things I think are important for him. 17. When my child is unable toldo some things as well as other in his group, I: a. b. c. d. e. tell him he must try to do as well as the others. encourage him to keep trying. tell him that no one can do everything well. call his attention to the things he does well. help him make the most of the activities which he can do. 18. When my child wants to do something which I am sure will lead to a. b. c. d. e. disappointment for him, I: occasionally let him carry such an activity to its conclusion. don't let him do it. advise him not to do it. help him with it in order to ease the disappointment. point out what is likely to happen. 19. When my child acts silly and giggly, it: b. c. d. e. ‘makes me feel that I will be glad.when he is past this stage. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like punishing him. makes me feel like telling him to stop. makes me feel annoyed. 20. When my child is faced with two or more choices and has to choose only one, it: makes me feel that I should tell him which choice to make and why. b. c. d. e. makes me feel that i should point out the advantages and disadvantages. makes me hope that I have prepared him to choose wisely. makes me want to encourage him to make his own choice. makes me want to make the decision for him. 100 21. When my child is unable to do something which I think is important for him, I: a. tell him he must do better. b. help him.make the most of the things which he can do. c. ask him to tell me more about the things which he can do. d. tell him that no one can do everything. e. encourage him to keep trying. 22. When my child disagrees with me about something which I think is important, I: a. tell him he shouldn't disagree with me. b. make him quit. c. listen to his side of the problem and change my mind if I am wrong. d. tell him maybe we can do it his way another time. e. explaining that I am doing what is best for him. 23. When my child is unable to do some things as well as others in his group, it: a. makes me realize that he can't be best in everything. b. makes me wish he could do as well. c. makes me feel embarrassed. d. makes me want to help him find success in the things he can do. e. makes me want to know more about the things he can do well. 24. When my child makes decisions without consulting me it: a. makes me hope that I have prepared him adequately to make his decisions. b. makes me wish he would consult me. c. makes me feel disturbed. d. makes me want to restrict his freedom. e. please me to see that as he grows he needs me less. 25. When my child says angry and hateful things about me to my face, I: a. tell him it's all right to feel that way, but.help him find other ways of expressing himself. b. tell him I know how he feels. c. pay no attention to him. d. tell him he shouldn't say such things to me. e. make him quit. aw u"- 101 26. When my child kicks, hits of knocks his things about, I: a. b. C. d. 8. make him quit. tell him it's all right to feel that way, but help him find other ways of expressing himself. tell him he shouldn't say such things to me. tell him I know how he feels. pay no attention to him. 27. When my child prefers to do things with his friends rather than with his family, it: a. b. c. d. 6. makes me wish he would spend more time with me. makes me feel resentful. pleases me to see his interests widening to other people. makes me feel he doesn't appreciate us. makes me realize that he is growing up. 28. When my child wants to do something which I am sure will lead to disappointment for him, it: a. b. c. do makes me hope that I have prepared him to meet disappointment. makes me wish he didn't have to meet unpleasant experiences. makes me want to keep him from doing it. makes me realize that occasionally such an experience will be good for him. makes me want to postpone these experiences. 29. When my child is not interested is some of the usual activities of his age group, I: try to help him realize that it is important to be interested in the same things as others in his group. call his attention to the activities in which he is interested. tell him it is all right if he isn't interested in the same things. see to it that he does the same things as others in his group. help him find ways of making the most of his interests. 30. When my child show a deep interest in something I don't think is important, I: a. b. c. d. e. let him go ahead with his interest. ask him to tell me more about this interest. help him find ways to make the most of this interest. do everything I can to discourage his interest in it. try to interest him in more worthwhile things. 102 INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CHILD Many parents say that their feeling of affection toward.of for their child varies with his behavior and with circumstances. Will you please read each item carefully and place a check in the column which most nearly describes the degree of feeling of affection which you have for you child in that situation. check one column for each item below much more than usual a little more than usual same a little less than usual much less than usual 1. When he is obedient. 2. When he is with me. 3. When he misbehaves in front of special guests. 4. When he expresses unsolicited affection "you're the nicest mommy in the whole world” 5. When he is away from me. 6. When he shows off in public. 7. When he behaves according to my highest expectations. 8. When he expresses angry and hateful things to me. 9. When he does things I have hoped he would not do. 10. When we are doing things together. 103 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - P 1. What year were you born? 2. Which of the following best describes your marital status? Married Divorced Widowed Never Married 3. How many children live in your household? 4. What are the ages of the children living in your household? 5. What is your level of education? Check the highest level attained. Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Graduate or Professional degree 6. Which of the following most closely matches your yearly family income? Under $15,000 $15,000 to $30,000 $30,000 to $45,000 $45,000 to $60,000 $60,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $90,000 $90,000 and above 7. Did your child who participated in this study attend daycare or nursery school? YES NO 8. If yes, at what age did.your child begin daycare or nursery school? 9. How many years did this child attend daycare or nursery school? 5 years or more 4 years 3 years 2 years 1 year less than one year 104 Date: PORTER - T Listed below are several statements describing things which children. do and say. Following each. statement are five responses which suggest ways of feeling or*courses of action. Read each statement carefully and then place a circle around the letter in front of the ehe response which most nearly describes the feeling you usually have or the course of action you most generally take when a child says or does these things. It is possible that you may find a few statements which describe a type of behavior which you have not yet experienced with children. In such cases, mark the response which most nearly describes how you think you would feel or what you think you would do. Be sure that you answer every statement and mark only one response for each statement. Before responding to the questions please think of a particular child in.your class. Keep this particular child in mind while you respond to the questions. Please answer all questions. If you cannot give the exact answer to a question, answer the best you can. 105 1. When a child is shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet, it: a. b. c. d. makes me feel annoyed. makes me want to know more about what excites him. makes me feel like punishing him. makes me feel that I will be glad when he is past this stage. makes me feel like telling him to stop. 2. When a child misbehaves while others in the group he is with are behaving well I: b. c. d. e. a. see to it that he behaves as the others. tell him it is important to behave well when he is in a group. let him alone if he isn't disturbing the others too much. ask him to tell me what he would like to do. help him find some activity that he can enjoy and at the same time not disturb the group. 3. When a child is unable to do something which I think is important for him, it: b. c. d. e. 4. When makes me want to help him find success in the things he can do. makes me feel disappointed in him. makes me wish he could do it. makes me realize that he can't do everything. makes me want to know more about things he can do. a child seems to be more fond of someone else (another teacher, aide,) than me, it: a. b. c. d. makes me realize that he is growing up. pleases me to see his interest widening to other people. makes me feel resentful. makes me feel that he doesn't appreciate what I have done for him. makes me wish he liked me more. 5. When a child is faced with two or more choices and has to choose only one, I: a. b. c. d. tell him which choice to make and why. think it through with him. point out the advantages and disadvantages of each, but let him decide for himself. tell him that I am sure he can make a wise choice and help him foresee the consequences. make the decision for him. 106 6. When a child makes decisions without consulting me, I: a. punish him for not consulting me. b. encourage him to make his own decisions if he can foresee the consequences. c. allow him to make many of his own decisions. d. suggest that we talk it over before he makes his decision. e. tell him he must consult me first before making a decision. 7. When a child kicks, hits or knocks his things about, it: a. makes me feel like telling him to stop. b. makes me feel like punishing him. c. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. d. makes me feel that I will be glad when he is past this stage. e. makes me feel annoyed. 8. When a child is not interested in some of the usual activities of his age group, it: a. makes me realize that each child is different. b. makes me wish. he were interested in the same activities. c. makes me feel disappointed in him. d. makes me want to help him find ways to make the most of his interests. e. makes me want to know more about the activities in which he is interested. 9. When a child acts silly and giggly, I: a. tell him I know how he feels. b. pay no attention to him. c. tell him he shouldn't act that way. d. make him quit. e. tell him it is alright to feel that way, but help him find other ways of expressing himself. 10. When a child prefers to do things with his friends rather than with the class as a whole, I: a. encourage him to do things with his friends. b. accept this as a part of growing up. c. plan special activities so that he will want to be with the whole group. d. try to minimize his association with his friends. e. make him stay with the group. 107 11. When a child disagrees with me about something which I think is important, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me feel like punishing him. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like persuading him that I am right. makes me realize he has ideas of his own. makes me feel annoyed. 12. When a child misbehaves while others in the group he is with are behaving well, it: a. b. c. d. 8. makes me realize that he does not always behave as others in his group. makes me feel embarrassed. makes me want to help him find the best ways to express his feelings. makes me wish he would behave like the others. makes me want to know more about his feelings. 13. When a child is shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet, I: a. b. c. d. e. give him something quiet to do. tell him that I wish he would stop. make him be quiet. let him tell me about what excites him. send him somewhere else. 14. When a child seems to be more fond of someone else (another teacher, aide) than me, I: a. b. try to minimize his association with that person. let him have such associations when I think he is ready for them. do some special things for him to remind him of how nice I am. point out the weaknesses and faults of that other person. encourage him to create and maintain such associations. 15. When a child says angry and hateful things about me to my face, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me feel annoyed. makes me feel that.I will be glad when he is past this stage. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like punishing him. makes me feel like telling him not to talk that way to me. 108 16. When a child shows a deep interest in something I don't think is important, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me realize he has interest of his own. makes me want to help him find ways to make the most of this interest. makes me feel disappointed in him. makes me want to know more about his interests. makes me wish he were more interested in the things I think are important for him. 17. When a child is unable to do some things as well as other in his group, I: a. b. c. d. e. tell him he must try to do as well as the others. encourage him to keep trying. tell him that no one can do everything well. call his attention to the things he does well. help him.make the most of the activities which he can do. 18. When a child wants to do something which I am sure will lead to disappointment for him, I: b. c. d. e. occasionally let him carry such an activity to its conclusion. don't let him do it. advise him not to do it. help him with it in order to ease the disappointment. point out what is likely to happen. 19. When a child acts silly and giggly, it: b. c. d. e. makes me feel that I will be glad.when.he is past this stage. pleases me that he feels free to express himself. makes me feel like punishing him. makes me feel like telling him to stop. makes me feel annoyed. 20. When a child is faced with two or more choices and has to choose only one, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me feel that I should tell him which choice to make and why. makes me feel that i should point out the advantages and disadvantages. makes me hope that I have prepared him to choose wisely. makes me want to encourage him to make his own choice. makes me want to make the decision for him. 109 21. When a child is unable to do something which I think is important for him, I: a. b. c. d. e. tell him he must do better. help him.make the most of the things which he can do. ask him to tell me more about the things which he can do. tell him that no one can do everything. encourage him to keep trying. 22. When a child disagrees with me about something which I think is important, I: a. b. c. d. e. tell him he shouldn't disagree with me. make him quit. listen to his side of the problem and change my mind if I am wrong. tell him maybe we can do it his way another time. explaining that I am doing what is best for him. 23. When.a child is unable to do some things as well as others in his group, it: a. b. c. d. makes me realize that he can't be best in everything. makes me wish he could do as well. makes me feel embarrassed. makes me want to help him find success in the things he can do. makes me want to know more about the things he can do well. 24. When a child makes decisions without consulting me it: b. c. d. e. makes me hope that I have prepared him adequately to make his decisions. makes me wish he would consult me. makes me feel disturbed. makes me want to restrict his freedom. please me to see that as he grows he needs me less. 25. When a child says angry and hateful things about me to my face, I: a. tell him it's all right to feel that way, but help him b. c. d. e. find other ways of expressing himself. tell him I know how he feels. pay no attention to him. tell him he shouldn't say such things to me. make him quit. 110 26. When a child kicks, hits of knocks his things about, I: a. b. c. d. e. make him quit. tell him.it's all right to feel that way, but.help.him find other ways of expressing himself. tell him he shouldn't say such things to me. tell him I know how he feels. pay no attention to him. 27. When a child prefers to do things with his friends rather than with the whole group, it: a. b. c. d. e. makes me wish he would spend more time with the group. makes me feel resentful. pleases me to see his interests widening to other people. makes me feel he doesn't appreciate us. makes me realize that he is growing up. 28. When a child wants to do something which I am sure will lead to a. b. c. d. disappointment for him, it: makes me hope that I have prepared him to meet disappointment. makes me wish he didn't have to meet unpleasant experiences. makes me want to keep him from doing it. makes me realize that occasionally such an experience will be good for him. makes me want to postpone these experiences. 29. When a child is not interested is some of the usual activities of his age group, I: try to help him realize that it is important to be interested in the same things as others in his group. call his attention to the activities in which he is interested. tell him it is all right if he isn't interested in the same things. see to it that he does the same things as others in his group. help him find ways of making the most of his interests. 30. When a child shows a deep interest in something I don't think is important, I: a. b. c. d. e. let him go ahead with his interest. ask him to tell me more about this interest. help him find ways to make the most of this interest. do everything I can to discourage his interest in it. try to interest him in more worthwhile things. 111 INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CHILD Many' adults say' that. their feeling' of affection 'toward children varies with their behavior and with circumstances. Will you please read each item carefully and place a check in the column which most nearly describes the degree of feeling of affection which you have for a child in that situation. check one column for each item below much more than usual a little more than usual a little less than usual much less than usual 1. When he is obedient. 2. When his is with me. 3. When he misbehaves in front of special 3 guests. 4. When he expresses ‘ unsolicited affection ”you're the nicest i teacher in the whole world” 5. When he is away from 6. When he shows off in public. 7. When he behaves according to my highest expectations. :8. When he expresses angry and hateful , things to me. 9. When he does things I have hoped he would not do. 10. When we are doing things together. 112 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - T 1. What year were you born? 2. Which of the following best describes your marital status? Married Divorced Widowed N e v e r Married 3. How many children live in your household? 4. What are the ages of the children living in your’household? 5. What is your level of education? Check the highest level attained. Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Graduate or Professional degree 6. What grade are you teaching this year? kindergarten first grade kindergarten/first grade split second grade first/second grade split other - explain 7. How many years have you been teaching? 8. How many children are in your class this year? 113 Date: STC - P Instructions: A series of situations will be found on the following pages. You are to pretend or imagine you are the adult in charge of the child or children described. All of the children in the following situations are considered to be of elementary school age. Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond to the child or children in each of the situations, in a word, a sentence or a short paragraph- Woman: 3.9111985 but please do he; explain why you said or did what you described. Again, write down you exact words or actions as if you were writing a script for a play or movie. For example, do not write "I would reassure or comfort him" instead write " I would smile at him and in a quit voice say, 'Don't worry Billy, you'll do better next time.'" 114 1. Just before school is to begin, you are having a friendly talk with another adult. Carl rushes up to you and begins to interrupt your conversation with a story about a friend. 2. After hearing a great deal of giggling coming from the basement, you go there and find Mary, Clark and Sharon with their underwear off. It appears that they were touching each other's sexual parts before you arrived. 115 3. Barbara, who is normally bright-eyed and gay, has just arrived silent, sad-faced and dragging her feet. You can tell by her manner that something unpleasant has happened to her. 4. There have been complaints of children missing some money. Upon returning to the classroom after recess, you find Lillian putting down another student's wallet with a quarter in her hand. 116 5. You are helping Bruce with his arithmetic homework and he seems to be having difficulty with a particular problem. He suddenly exclaims: ”I am so stupid. I never know the answers to the questions. I don't want to go to school anymore." 6. As the children are leaving, Fred comes over to you and asks in a quiet concerned voice, ”Do you love me?" 117 7. Al is full of anger. His class has been scheduled to go to the zoo for weeks and he was very eager to go. However, it rained today and the trip had to be rescheduled. He angrily exclaims in front of a number of children, "I hate school. Just because it rained we couldn't go." 8. Upon arriving home, Joe excitedly tells you about how his friend Gary, who is in another class, was pushed into a rain- filled.puddle by some older'boys. Joe says that they were just ‘walking to school when all of’a sudden three sixth graders ran up from behind and shoved Gary into the puddle and ran away laughing. 118 Date: STC - T Instructions: ‘ A series of situations will be found on the following pages. You are to pretend or imagine you are the adult in charge of the child or children described. All of the children in the following situations are considered to be of elementary school age. Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond to the child or children in each of the situations, in a word, a sentence or a short paragraph- WW em but please do he; explain why you said or did what you described. Again, write down you exact words or actions as if you were writing a script for a play or movie. For example, do not write "I would reassure or comfort him" instead write " I would.smile at.him.and in.a quit voice say,'Don't worry Billy, you'll do better next time.'” 119 1. Just before school is to begin, you are having a friendly talk with a fellow school teacher in your room. Carl rushes in and begins to interrupt your conversation with a story about a friend. 2. After hearing a great deal of giggling coming from a rear corner of the gymnasium during recess, you go there and find Mary, Clark and Sharon with their underwear off. It appears tha: they were touching each other's sexual parts before you arr ved. 120 3. Barbara, who is normally bright-eyed and gay, has just arrived silent, sad-faced and dragging her feet. You can tell by her manner that something unpleasant has happened to her. 4. There have been complaints of students missing some money. Upon returning to your classroom after recess, you find Lillian putting down another students wallet with a quarter in her hand. 121 5. You are helping Bruce with an arithmetic problem and he seems to be having difficulty. He suddenly exclaims: ”I am so stupid. I never know the answers to the questions you ask. I don't want to come to school anymore.” 6. As the students file out after class, Fred comes over to you and asks in a quiet concerned voice, "Do you love me?" 122 7. Al is full of anger. The class has been scheduled to go to the zoo for weeks and he was very eager to go. However, it rained today and the trip had to be rescheduled. He angrily exclaims in front of a number of children, "I hate school. Just because it rained we couldn't go.” 8. Upon arriving in school, Joe excitedly tells you about how his friend Gary, who is in another class, was pushed into a rain-filled puddle by some older boys. Joe says that they were just walking to school when all of a sudden three sixth graders ran up from behind and shoved Gary into the puddle and ran away laughing. APPENDIX E UCRIHS APPROVAL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OI’I‘ICE OI‘ VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48.24.1046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL March 3, 1992 Helen E. Hagens Department of Family and Child Ecology Central School-MSU RE: A COMPARISON OF PARENTS' AND TEACHERS' ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING CONTROL AND ACCEPTANCE OF CHILD BEHAVIORS, IRB #92-004 Dear Ms. Hagens: UCRIHS' review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise you that since reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the conditional approval given by the Committee at its February 3, 1992 meeting has now been changed to full approval. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to February 3, 1993. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If‘we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, David E. Wright Chairman University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects DEW/deo cc: Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik MS U is an til/inactive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution "7'1? lfli’flllifllfl'flll'LilflTilES