"if: 4 d - ..fl -‘_ :J’Jti. -< in. 2X“ I fit; M . 6!“; .III 1'1““ .L”:X hunt 7 I u 5:27.“; 'WII'II I I'll? n.3, .1: ‘457 “1'“.2'1 3.3.10le “Ch! ”Y' .. 99.3 2‘6” "3.: .G‘: Ik‘r‘fl w 1.. 3 “3' 134?, I II3 WI ‘XQM $33315 3333(5II 943 3.33.6 " I“. éxfti I'I , . j 'I‘T‘H' e?) 11": 3:2 "Wm 13“ 3 .13'“ 314 (I3 I II! xiv")? Elk" “PM 3'33? 3'41: II Iw £333? ‘4‘ 2"": '~"J WM" . '_I"|f1II‘.’$§‘}$.WH .I . 4 . M 1 ' 4 ._ II .1143 Ry“?! ‘- Ir i‘}: 8 b.2327?) 33323.“ . . I ‘1 ~ 3 _, 'I.'lI,1 '1:va {2“ L 1:1. I. 1w. Ex: :. I‘Eix :83” $339 ' -. u. - I. 1"} .I 6351.51“ '-." “533$?!” 31“ I' ..“ fit 112:2?5‘1 xfifig fiydftk I‘y. "HLCLH Kigiw"; :‘- avg 351:3 $333? $3.53? "$331523 Mi. ;; W W 14 " "W ‘I’U'. ‘I. ,2? .m'MI‘ L‘Jv ' I 3. .I I. .... I 3133“}? " ' 2"" I'I‘IEI'upI' “h A. \ “Law REE?! V '1. .1; 32“? " . ‘4} :u‘;‘ W352? ”Y. WW “4‘91"? ‘ ‘1":ka III‘I'ESS 4321'? . ' W‘w..-'I?§If§ ‘ Xsflm 33;} “I “.3." '5'1':"""'§"' 1...: ‘1"‘7. 3.” p.21 " IW‘ [‘4 I .‘f‘mfi 1‘71"?" W1" 58c 1:13?th a. LI. '41."? . ‘3 I, .‘hIILEXF “am. '4. ~e'!‘ ".fifi'éflé’myfi L *ckxx. 3% " In“... 3.. 53,ng '1. fitifi“ W ,' m? ‘3 " 3%: it (“‘31 M ‘13::3’1313"'I" {WEE .5. WW? ‘I. “‘1. “I 15%.. 533% ”£43k: $214 .~I ILUIX‘C II v.3... W‘wifi . £333 "$1.3"r \I t'hfig ,_ I'M“: '3??? 337:3. " 33W I...I.I.:E§L ”has.“ 3 2&2; 7" W .I. 2213.4 Wu, IIIl‘LA 3‘: "'1. 3333 '54:} x 3'15 EU 3 A W " ' R“ "'1 iL. “fix. “1‘ ' «31. " . 3,. ‘2 Wfiii‘figfia gm Wk gamfidi $12 WQEWWIWW: ‘42 “Balm; ":3 . ' ' _ "m ‘4‘» "‘3‘ ““fifieflfigfi‘k .3. .73 ink L. ‘1 :wa; .3:“§'t‘ L gage“: -- 5 WW 0 . ...:,\§I’."ii“‘“""““ u. ‘ ' graft I}: ‘u%‘ 913131 5!. , .«I .IEI'V' 4. i 2 a , ‘k .I 11% 2' I3}: .I 1.. ukdai 1'3." Tina“ - “'- :3} igfiifiu ‘ 3. .ka- VIII- I. {L :I "V 12:. f}? :31 a 1:13.71} ‘1 ‘H‘n 1' 'I‘3333I‘V‘Tm: , "l M .1333 ~L 333"“ .4321. q :-\(I‘fhl 1‘ ’- Afg'fi‘fljgsw'vk‘ :34ng 3‘)“ 4 I 3W3 ’34??? ‘fi IW' *Iw I ['E‘I‘m 3..-: 2.3.7. . . : . I? m :54?“ . :4' r. ' IR": ‘7'. '33:,1..YII';I 4" m I .232 II I: ' I‘Ifi‘: I 'f' 3:" .3233 "M .‘ fair} M3 'my“ 4 .4234“ U . I4_I»‘,J II3I ”'3 II I,, J" “1331KL3133L ..; II, 33 'L ‘ 34,51 [4 x .2313" . 43333; EM": 544 3,. {'34 I 33:33:33} ‘,I'I[l I . ' .J‘IJP‘H III ‘ 1.32m “:33: , 533‘!“ Ifit ’III-It'h 3‘3"} . M“ l f'aui I":333I$§3 ,‘3 . 1 ,1; WEE-€313. ' 1‘: ‘5 "13:“ (J. I 1‘ 1 W; “(and 3. 'IIH Qt}; ' 4" :. 23334.3 ‘33'3JMI I II ‘3 3?. . 1‘ I ." ‘3, ('0'; ' INI’HEI qt” :1 \lllllllllllllll \lllll lllll «1px! \ A .‘r. J‘dzt-m “ ’v-J‘hlvt“ . a This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF INTERACTION TECHNIQUES TO FACILITATE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AMONG PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN presented by JAMES HAF has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH . D. degree in EDUCATION Major professor Date April 27, 1981 0-7639 \ mammal OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per Item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place In book return to remove charge from circulation records A STUDY OF INTERACTION TECHNIQUES TO FACILITATE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AMONG PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN By James Joseph Haf A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY [kapartment of Counseling and Educational Psychology 1981 63/7’S”$’$%/ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF INTERACTION TECHNIQUES TO FACILITATE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AMONG PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN By James Joseph Haf Language development and competence in language usage is a critical dimension of early childhood competence. Although many early childhood programs incorporate language development components, much of the research reports either the results of didactic, pattern drill forms of language development tech- niques, or the more casual, undocumented approach to language development of whole-child programs. None of the programs reviewed for this study seemed as effective as they might be. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of two specific adult-child interaction patterns in small group settings. For purposes of this research, a Lan- guage Interaction Model was developed, presented and tested. Audio Tapes and Observational Data were collected over a five-week period. Subjects were 24 three to three and one half year old children attending a day care facility in a lower socio-economic neighborhood randomly selected to be in one of two grouping conditions: those exposed to language interaction techniques and those exposed to more traditional techniques. The program consisted of half hour sessions four days each week for five weeks. James Joseph Haf There were three categories of dependent variables. Child Language Type consisting of the number of child initi- ated communications, the number of responses for the complex- ity of these communications. Child Language Style consisting of the number of direct or interaction types of communications used by the subjects. Child Affective Variables consisting of measures on vari— ables defined as enthusiastic, happy, unhappy, and negative affective display. Significant differences were expected on the following: 1. More unsolicited Initiations and Complex Initiations by treatment subjects than by control subjects. 2. More use of interaction types of language (i.e.. re- flections, interpretations, new ideas/uses, etc.) by treatment subjects than by control subjects. 3. More diSplays of positive affect by treatment sub- jects than by control subjects. A. More Language Interaction techniques used by adults in the treatment groups than in the control groups. A One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test the Observational and Audio Tape data. Several significant find- ings surfaced in this investigation. First, treatment subjects initiated more communications and these communications were more complex than communications by control subjects. This was a major finding in the study since it was considered important to create an environment where children were free to initiate communications with adults and other children in the group. James Joseph Haf Second, control subjects used more responses and complex responses than treatment subjects. Third, treatment subjects had significantly longer state- ments than control subjects and openly expressed themselves in the small groups. Fourth. treatment subjects showed more enthusiasm than control subjects because of the more relaxed atmosphere created. Fifth, treatment group subjects received higher ratings on the Group Interaction Schedule measuring the amount of interaction with the adult and other children. The evidence here strongly suggests that adults can create an atmosphere in which communication can easily take place and that this communication can influence positive growth in lan- guage development. Although some variables were examined that did not show significance, enough evidence exists to warrant further investigation. DEDICATION To Lynne, who inspired and endured, and shares all that is and will be. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is necessary to recognize the help and encourage- ment that allowed the successful accomplishment of this study. The writer is especially indebted to Doctor Helen Benedict who helped formulate and focus this project; to Doctor Don Hamachek who supported, encouraged, reviewed and defended my work throughout not only this research but my entire program; to Doctor Christopher Clark for his many pertinent and rele- vant suggestions: and to Gayle Prause for her endless hours of typing. Special gratitude is extended to my wife, Lynne, for her inspiration, encouragement and persistence, as well as my daughter, Amber, who always tried hard to understand why her dad wrote and studied so much more than he talked and playe d 0 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS a? on m CHAPTER I--STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Rationale . . . . Overview . . Purpose . . . Assumptions . Language Techniques Function . Structure . The Model . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C C O O C O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O I O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O C C C O O O O O ‘QxJOWn£?¢\th l4 CHAPTER II--REVIEW OF THEORY AND LITERACTURE . . o o o H \JJ Two Distinct Research Paradigms: Psycho- linguistics and Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ResearCh in Pragmatics o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 15 Important Dimensions of the Communication SYStem o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o 0 17 Environmental Impact on Language Development . . . 18 Results of Language Deficits in the Child's Early EnVironment o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 19 EXpansion and Extension as Techniques to FaCilitate Language Development 0 o o o o o o o 22 Language and Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Research and Compensatory Programs . . . . . . . . 25 Language Development Emphasis in Four Compensatory Educational Programs . . . . . . . 27 Implications of Interactions Techniques for SOCial success 0 o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o 31 Implications of Interaction Techniques for SOCial Adaptation o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o 32 Implications of Interaction Techniques for self-ESteem o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 34 Enhancement of Self-Esteem Through Language Programs 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e 35 Conditions for Self Development . . . . . . . . . 36 Methodological Problems Encountered in Language Development ResearCh o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 37 Summary 0 o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o “1 CHAPTER III”METHODOLOGY o c o o o o c o o o o o o o o 45 Ptlrpose O C O O C O O O C O O 0 O O O O O O O L‘s Special Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 iv Design . . . . Overview sample 0 o o 0 Measures 0 o o o o o Observational Dat Audio Tape Data . . Observer and Interacto Reliability Estimates Data AnalySiS c o o o o o HypOtheseS o o o o o o c o AnalySiSooooooooo Summaryooooooooo CHAPTER IV--PRESENTATION OF DATA Category 1 Variables: Major Tested for Significance End of Program Analysi Discussion of the Chil Variables o o o o 0 5.0000. 0Q oooooCDoooooo W ooooofioooooo p R 00.00.100.000 8 O O O Hypothesis d Language Type Child Language Usage Variable Child Affective Variab Child Utterance Length Category 2 Variables: Adult Language Implementation . . . . . le 00 Adult Language Type Variables . Adult Language Style Variables Adult Problem Situations Variables General Situation Adult Variables . Utterance Length and Total Dialogue Model Implementation Score . Discussion of the Implementation of Language Model . . Discussion of Rating Schedule Interactions . . . Ratings of Group Interaction Interactions Ratings Positive Affect Rating Problem Ratings . . . O O O O s O O O for 0 0 Group CHAPTER V--SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Child Language Variables Language Type . . . Language Usage . . Affect Variables . Utterance Length . Implementation Data . . Adult Language Data Group Interaction Ratings Discussion and Conclusions Major Findings . . . Model Development and Implementati n Methodology and Instrumentation . o o o o o o o o o o 0 C 67 69 75 77 78 79 81 82 86 88 91 93 95 96 97 101 101 103 106 106 108 109 109 110 111 112 114 115 118 121 Recommendations . . . Modifications of the Present Study Training of Interactors Instrumentation and Procedures Length of Study . Restrictions on Interaction . . Implications for Future Research APPENDICES . Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A--Observation Schedule 0 O O 0 O O O I B--Adult/Child Transcriptions . . . . . C--Ratings . D--Interaction Training Function . . Major Goals Structure . Content . . Session 2 . Session 3 . Session 4 . Session 5 . Conclusion . Appendix E--Assessment Observation Schedule g M n a Explanation of Categories . What Categories . BIBLIOGRAPHY Situation Categories--Problem Situation Categories-~General Who Categories How Categories Session 2 . Sessions 3-5 Session 6 . 9 vi Manual Outline ooHoooooooo c o e o o o o o l O 0 o o o o o o a. U o c e 0 00.00.0000... ST. 0 o o o o o o o o o d-o o c o o o o o l—l o o o o o o o o o 0 [4-0 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a. o o o o o I o Page 123 123 124 126 127 127 LIST OF TABLES Page CHAPTER III Table l--Child language variables 0 o o o o o c c “'7 Table 2--Adult Language variables 0 o o o c o o o #8 Table 3--Differentiating Child Variables: Language Interaction (Treatment) Style and Traditional Interaction (Control) Style . . . . 49 Table 4--Differentiating Adult Variables: Language Interaction (Treatment) and Traditional Interaction (Control) . . . . 50 Table 5--Breakdown of Interactor Dialogue . . . . 57 Table 6--Average Percentage Agreement Across Major Child Variables and Adult Variables . . . 60 Table 7--Average Percentage Agreement Between Two Coders for Audio Tape Transcriptions . . . . 6l CHAPTER IV Table l--Results of Planned Comparisons Analysis for Child Language Type Variables . . . . . . . 70 Table 2--Results of Planned Comparisons Analysis for Child Language Usage Variables . . . . . . . 72 Table 3--Results of Planned Comparisons Analysis for Child Affective Variables . . . . . . . . . 74 Table h--Results of Planned Comparisons Analysis for Child Utterance Length Variables . . . . . . 75 Table 5--Frequencies of Adult Language Type and Language Style Variables for the Four Adult InteraCtorS o o o o o o o o o o o 83 Table 6--Frequencies of Adult Language Style Variables for Language Interaction and Traditional Interaction Adults . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 7--Frequencies of Problem Situation and General Situation Variables for the Four Adult InteraCtorS o o o o c o o o o o o o o 89 Table 8--Total Numbers of Adult and Child Dialogues, Mean Utterance Length and Number of Sessions for Each Adult Interactors . . . . . 90 Table 9--Group Interaction Rating Schedule: InteraCtion QUGStiOHS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 98 Table lO--Group Interaction Rating Schedule: Positive Affect Questions . . . . . . . 99 Table ll--Group Interaction Rating Schedule: Negative Affect Questions . . . . . . . . . . . lOO vii LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER III Figure l--Variable Matrix of Nested Design . . . . CHAPTER IV Figure l--Adult variables 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 viii Page 53 81 .1...- CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Language development in young children has been found by many researchers to be profoundly influenced by what the adult says and does in the communication setting (Cazden, 1970, 1972: Bruner, 1975: Bloom, 1970: Bernstein, 1970: Bates, 1975). It is doubtful, however, in light of the evidence examined and reviewed during this investigation, that adults operating within preschool programs have used the results of the research to maximize their effect on the language development of the child. Furthermore. it seems apparent that teachers could more effectively stimulate the use of language for communication. Preschool programs have incorporated some of these find- ings into language development programs. Bartlett (1972) reported formidable evidence that structured, didactic pro- grams favorably impact language development. One such well- recognized program, however, reported side effects of passivity, dependence, withdrawal and fearfulness (Blank and Solomon's Tutorial Program). Cognitively oriented programs recognize the importance of language and comprehension but do not system- atically provide language stimulation or training opportunities. Finally, whole-child oriented programs, being responsive to the child's activity, do not specifically focus at all on lan- guage development. The general conclusion is that none of these programs is as effective as they might be. Research reported by White (1973) adds an important insight to the problem. He reports that effective mothers respond to their child with shared enthusiasm in ten to thirty second interchanges during which give and take communication takes place. White's research identifies children who are especially competent in language usage and the ability to use others as resources. An interesting observation can be made at this point concerning whole-child preschool programs, White's re- search on early language competence, and research on effective language development programs. Whole-child programs seem to come closest to White's idea of the good home environment. However, Cazden (1972) reported that while interaction with the environment and short language exchanges are important, it is the more didactic programs which are more effective. A solution to the problem might be to make whole-child PrOgrams more effective by increasing the focus on language development. How this might be accomplished is the major thrust of this research. Baa—ones. Language development is a major concern addressed in many research efforts involving early childhood competence. Within this body of language research, there are two distinct reSearch paradigms: research that is specifically focused on Syntax and grammar, and research that is primarily concerned _._. y' with non-cognitive, social and situational variables (some- times referred to as the "pragmatic dimension”). The study reported here is based on the need to develop techniques for stimulating language usage for communication while at the same time influencing language development. The basic paradigm is that of pragmatics. The study focuses on the use of language techniques which adults can employ to facilitate language development and stimulate language usage in early childhood education programs. It is believed that these techniques could be used systematically and informally to enhance children's language development within the frame- work of preschool programs emphasizing the whole-child approach. Since there is a lack of research to study attempts to directly influence children's language usage and development within Whole-child programs, this study will attempt to contribute information concerning language stimulation and modeling techniques that can work within the philosophical framework of such programs. Overview Specifically, the study reported here examines the influence 0f adult language usage on preschool age children in a small Group setting. Two different language styles were used by adults in half—hour communication sessions with each four mem- ber group. The amount of language produced, its length and Complexity, and the affective nature of the interaction in Which it took place, were systematically measured. Purpose This research will attempt to show that an adult can make a difference in such things as the amount of language used by the child, its length and complexity, the nwmber of child initiated statements and other key variables. The Spe- cific purposes of the study are to: 1. Present and examine the implementation of a model of language interaction that can be used by adults with young children in preschool settings. 2. Identify important factors in language modeling by adults which stimulate children's use of language and influence language development. 3. Measure differences in language usage between groups exposed to language interaction techniques presented in the model and those groups exposed to traditional, direct teach- ing techniques. a. Measure differences in children's affect, both non- verbal and verbal, between these same groups. Assumptions The framework of this study is grounded in several basic assumptions concerning language development. These assumptions are examined extensively and grow out of the literature review presented in Chapter II. The goals of this project and the results in relation to those goals presented in Chapter IV can only be understood in relation to these basic assumptions. They are as follows: “’CJ, . 1. Language is a tool of communication and is intrinsi- cally related to the attempt to convey a message-~therefore. the opportunity to express this communication is extremely important. 2. Language development and competence in language usage is a critical dimension of early childhood competence--there- fore, it should be a major component of any preschool program. 3. Situational variables and the context within which language is used influences both the development and usage of language by the child--therefore, careful attention must be paid to the setting and situational context of the teaching condition. 4. As models, adults have the potential to significantly influence children's language development through the way that they elicit, stimulate and react to children's language usage-- therefore, techniques which enhance these factors need to be identified and used by adults. 5. Preschool and compensatory programs can significantly influence language development of young children--therefore, programs should use the research findings that grow from inves- tigations like this which study variables associated with the preceding assumptions. Langgage Techniques The model proposed in this study flows from the assump- tions stated above. This can be better understood by looking at the model's: 6 1. Function, an explanation of how the model was developed, the rationale behind its use, and basic goals, and: 2. Structure, an explanation of the basic steps used in the language interaction, the purpose of each step, and some examples. Function The model itself is an adaptation of Gary Stollak's (1975) system of communication, which is intended for use by parents with young children. His major concerns are to maintain in the child a feeling of psychological safety, love and belong- ingness, while still dealing with the many discipline and mediation duties of parenthood. The parents, he maintains, should also be models of controlled behavior and emotional expression. Most communication should involve: l. Reflecting back the actions or expressions of the child. 2. Offering interpretations of what the child may be thinking or feeling. 3. Telling the child how the adult feels for the purpose of relating the action to other actions and to serve as a model of expression. 4. Setting limits on behavior by telling the child what action is expected in the immediate situation. 5. Offering alternative behaviors and guidelines for subsequent behavior. The language interaction model proposed in this investi- gation follows the above steps, in general, but extends the process for use with small groups. Its major purpose is to stimulate language usage first and second to provide an oppor- tunity for thp adult to teach by labeling. expanding. modeling language usage, explaining concepts, and mediating the environ- ment. It also provides an opportunity for children to practice language they already know and to add to their repertoire by learning new language usage. This language interaction model uses any stimulis situa- tion, especially the child's own language or interests, as the beginning of a two-way language exchange. The adult first stimulates conversation by reacting to the child's actions or communications, and then uses the opportunity to model language usage. Structure The following section is a general description of each of the five different parts of the model. It is important to notice that although the interaction usually begins with re- flection, following that, any of the other four parts of the model can be used. The more parts used in each interchange the better. The Model \— Firsti__§§flection of Action. This involves simply stating What is going on or restating what one or more of the children have said. It usually begins by simply noticing what the child is interested in. The purpose is to show that you are interested in what the children are doing and offering them a chance to ”Next; ‘_‘_1__-". . . react and become involved in a conversation. "You dropped that big block and it made a loud bang and knocked over those dolls. Oh, you're going to try it again." "You're handing me the ball and laughing." In group situations, actions of any member of the group can be reflected. Second: Interpretation. These are explgnaticnsgpi_the child's action. It involves saying what you think the reasons behind them are, what you think the child is feeling or think- ing, etc. Interpretations can also be related to other group members. It can be simple like "You think that's pretty funny," or ”You tried to hurt me,” or "You're angry about that.” It may be more complicated and involve explanations such as "You laughed and are surprised because it made a bang and it sort of scared you at first: but everybody started looking at you so you want to try it again. I think you like to have people look at you." The purpose of this step is to provide labels for what the child is feeling and experiencing and help make sense of what's going on. It models language usage for ex- plaining feelings and emotions and conveys a message that you care and understand. Tpird: Relatipg. This involves relating the action or feeling to the speaker, another adult, to other actions, or to the actions of other group members. This helps the child see that his action or interests are linked to other actions in the past, future and/or present, as well as to others in the group. It shows that they are legitimate because others have also done them and felt that way. The stimulus may be a problem .. “9.1.3111 1.2 _. . . or crisis situation such as a child causing a disturbance to get attention. "It's really nice to get attention. I like people to notice me, too. I think everybody likes people to pay attention to them.” Another example: "I saw you doing that yesterday, too. You threw the blocks down. I think you do that a lot to get attention." If the stimulus is not a problem situation, relating can be about climbing or building with the blocks. "You stacked the blocks up so you could climb on them. John's climbing on them, too." The point is to legitimize the action by relating it to something that is done or felt by other people and to other actions in time. Fourth: Limits and Alternatives--Problem_§;tuation. If the situation is a problem, a limit should be set. A limit is what the adult considers appropriate behavior or how far the child can go. For example, being angry is OK and understandable but hitting is not. A proper time and place for the action may be prescribed, or the action may not be allowed at all.' The child should be told how the adult and/or others feel and an alternative behavior should be offered. The purpose is to handle problems, be firm and authoritative, while still main- taining the psychological safety and belongingness needs of the child. It also serves as a model for handling emotional events, and appropriate behavior and expression during these events. "I know you like to do that and you can get attention that way, but it might hurt the other kids (disrupt the room, etc.) and I don't want you to do that again. You can come to me and tug on my pants or make a sign and wave it at me instead, 10 but no more throwing blocks." A consequence of violating the limit may also be added such as not being able to play with that object or have free time, or some other punishment. How- ever, ideally, punishment should be avoided if possible. Fifth: New Uses/Ideas--Not a Problem. If the situation is not a problem, new ideas and alternate uses of the object, or any additional feature or activity related to the stimulus should be offered. Again, the adult should say how he feels. This is related to Cazden's "Extension" which adds a new idea to the child's comment. "I like how you figured out that if you drop blocks they make noises. You really discovered some- thing: maybe you can do other things with blocks, too, like build bridges (climb on them, make houses, pretend they are cars)." The examples and eXplanations presented were complicated monologues. Included was the problem situation component of the model. However, the general model can apply to more routine and simple stimulus situations. For example, a boy looking at and pushing on a tree: Reflection: "You're really pushing hard on that tree. You keep walking around it and pushing it. It doesn't move at all no matter how hard you push.” Interpretation: "You wonder why it doesn't move. I think you're really surprised because other things move when you push them (chairs, toys, flowers). Trees have roots that go deep down and hold them in the ground, etc.” ll Relating: "I can't even push the tree over (can model same actions as child) and I'm bigger and stronger.” New Ideas: ”I really like trees because they're pretty and they give shade if the sun's too hot. You can sit under them and climb in them. You know the wood in your house? That comes from trees. They cut them down and make boards out of them.” These monologues may appear long and complicated. How- ever, very often the adult does not get a chance to carry one all the way through. Most of the time children interrupt early in the sequence to offer their own interpretation or correct the adult. These provide 32! stimulus situations and the se- quence can begin over or continue. Often, group members add new ideas and the interaction changes direction. Language variables in this study flow from attempts to operationally define the types of adult-child communication expected when this language model is being used by adult inter- actors. The review of related literature will consider per- tinent research in the pragmatic dimension of language develop- ment, as well as research examining language development issues important to this study. The general theme of the chapter is to establish a_;ationale and a needfgpr pgsearch examipipg situational variables, adult communication style and the com- municative intent of language. It reviews literature related to environmental impact on language development, language development programs, the importance of language facility for 12 early competence as well as self-concept development and school success, and finally, methodological concerns in studies of this design. This review is presented in Chapter II. Chapter III presents the methodology used in the study to investigate the variables of concern. Four main factors are accounted for: 1. Procedures used in observation, recording and measure- ment of child language variables. 2. Procedures used in observation and recording of adult language variables and determination of model implementation scores. 3. Procedures used in determining the reliability of observational and audio tape data. 4. Procedures used in the statistical analysis of the data. The results of the analysis of this complex set of data is presented in Chapter IV. The key areas presented are: 1. Findings pertaining to child variables. 2. Adult implementation data. 3. Ratings of group interaction by observers and inter- actors. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THEORY AND LITERATURE The theory and literature review provided in this chapter alglows a more thorough understanding of the complex nature of larnguage research and theory. It also provides a rational for* this research project. The review is structured along these following dimensions: 1. Language development as a component of research on eaz~ly childhood education. 2. The importance of the study of noncognitive components 0f language development in the perspective of pragmatics. 3. The impact of parents and others on language develop- ment. 4. Programs for language development. 5. The importance of language usage ability for school SUCczess, social relations, and self-esteem. 6. Methodological concerns in studies such as the one proposed here . Two Distinct Research Paradigms: Psycholinguistics and Pragmatics Research in the area of language development is complex and diverse. Much of the work done in the recent past has 13 14 involved the systematic study of syntax. The work of Chomsky in the field of psycholinguistics is representative of this type of research. Moerk (197A), however, speaks of a counter movement which developed stressing meaning as an important part of language development. This movement was based on the idea that the child wants to convey a message when he talks, and that these messages are meaningful. Thus, language is seen as a tool of communication and situational and environ- mental variables take on more importance. Cazden (1972) used the word pragmatics to define the paradigm which is concerned with the study of situational variables and suggests that language develops best when moti- vated by powerful munication intent. At the same time, Bloom (1970) demonstrated that language behavior and verbal eXPre ssion are highly dependent upon situational variables in the home. These two studies emphasize the importance of environmental variables to the content and form of language development. Furthermore, Francis (1969), referred to vari- ables which facilitate or restrict communication. This work implies that situational variables and the intent of the com- munication are important concerns that may be partially under the control of those who interact with the child. Certain types of adult communication may actually inhibit language ebeession. Schacter et al. (197A), in a study designed to provide data on developmental and sociolinguistic patterns of inter- pets onal speech usage, reported that research has yet to L the adult . 15 address itself significantly to the more social aspects of speech even though it is generally assumed that young children hanre communication needs which can come under the control of Since children come to school with various levels of‘ ability to use language, it seems more research efforts sh1>uld attempt to determine variables which may impact lan- guaige development in the social setting of the pre-school. In view of these observations, it seems that the examina— tixan of situational, motivational, and interpersonal aspects of speech in the perspective of pragmatics is an important res earch area . Research in Pragmatics The research basis for the pragpatic view of language devellopment is reviewed in an article by Katherine Nelson(l9%a) It is; described in her paper as the "perspective of pragmatics and ssociolinguistics." Noted researchers in this "language as commtlnication" mode are Hymes (197A), Halliday (1973, 1976), EPVin-Tripp (1973), Bernstein (1970), Bloom (1970), Cazden (1970, 1972), Nelson (1973), and Bruner (1975). Nelson states that whett the child has to learn has gone far beyond the complexi- tiEES of grammar as explicated by Chomsky (1968). There are pe1'5‘:t‘ormance rules, rules of address, concern for appropriate- nesgs’ and conversational postulates as well. This view sees thfii child less as a language acquisition device and more as a Ilartner in a two-way communication system with intentions t0 'be expressed and received. 16 Furthermore, Bates (1975) reports research which lends support to the important role of the adult in this communi- caation system. In a review of language research, the almost uruanimous conclusion was reached that pggp speech is less ccuaducive to language learning and mature language use than is speech from an adult. Bates also noted that "first born" or' ”only children" are found to be faster in language develop- mexat than twins or younger siblings. This is probably the ressult of more opportunities for interaction and communica- tixan with the parents as well as increased exposure to modeled laruguage. Unfortunately, past research has concentrated on eitlier the child or the adult. Much would be gained by re- seaarch concerned with process variables--interactions within the dyadic or speaker-listener system as a whole. Shatz and Gelnuan (1973) have reported research which analyzed communica- tiorl interactions and concluded that adults and even four-year olds adjusted their speech to the level of the younger child. Research of this type should investigate two possible diretrtions: the child's language in the interaction and the adult's language. Furthermore, the interaction can then in- Volare what the gpilg knows, is interested in and initiates, or VNhat the partner chooses to talk about. Nelson (1976b) St‘i‘tes that the child learns about the categories of the world thl‘ough his own exploration. and should be allowed to do so. H°"Esver, the adult can play an important role by respondipg to ‘the initiations of the child, and by allowipg the child to §flggp_his knowledge about those categories with a namer who will supply the needed label. (Also see Bruner 1975). 17 Important Dimensions of the Communication System Nelson identifies four major factors that define the communicative context of early child speech and of language learning, which appear to be relevant to this study: I. The situation-~in which she concludes the dyadic interaction and the adult model are important. 2. The function--which should include functional analy- sis of both the adult and the child. 3. The content--what the child knows and understands, what the adult knows, what they share together and most im- portantly, what they derive together. , A. The code--involving the complexity and style of the adult's speech--e.g., length of utterance: sentence structure: and variety of language forms used. Nelson concludes that few studies have been done which Consider all of the above. ESpecially lacking is research examining both members of the communication dyad. This study reruesents an effort to close that research gap by investigat- irm; interactions between adults and children as a system and ta-king into account both the content and code of the inter- actions. Language within this System is seen as an interaction Scimewhat under the control of the adult. For purposes of this Stlzdy a language interaction model has been developed and im- Plemented based on much previous research investigating both environmental impact on language development such as mother- child communication and contrived language techniques and/or Pregrams employing language stimulation techniques such as BXtension, expansion, and pattern drill exercises. l8 Environmental_Impact on Language Development The purpose of the following section is to review research that has concentrated on the impact of environmental factors on language development. There are some basic assumptions in- herent in the research about to be reviewed. They are as fol- lows: 1. That language develops as a result of interactions with the environment--the early environment includes the mother (and father) and child. 2. That this interaction results in language learning attributable in part to peer and adult models as well as situa- tional variables, i.e., opportunity to interact, amount of Stimulation, etc. 3. That the environment becomes increasingly more com- plex:as the child's world and his movement in it expands and the child is exposed to "other" models who also impact lan- guage learning. A. That certain language stimulation techniques have like potential to influence language development. 5. That programs incorporating language development 1Seehniques also have this potential and these programs can be implemented in educational settings with success. These assumptions can be stated more clearly. To put it very simply, what the adult does and says make a differ- ence. 19 Results of Language Deficits in the Child's Early Envippnment Much of the thinking about the impact of the environment on language development was stimulated by research which showed that lower class children were deficient in language ability. (Hess and Shipman, 1965: Bernstein, 196A). This finding sup- ported environmentalist notions of the influence of culture on development. Bernstein's (l96h) research examining family interaction patterns, identified two types of interactions. The first he called the ”Restricted Code," which was charac- terized by short, simple sentences lacking detail. Families using this form of language show little interaction with their children and neither allpp nor expect input by the child. In typical adult-child communication there is no weighing of alternatives, mediating of verbal cues, or relating of events 'UD other events. By contrast, some families were found to tune an "Elaborated Code" which is more complex. Communication 5J1 this mode is related to the individual child, and language is in direct response to the child's input. These families aJJLow verbal give and take and thus foster adult-child inter- actzion. It was theorized that deficits in language ability were related to little language usage in the home as well as feVV gpportunities for interaction. This reinforced the envi- rorunentalist view that experience is a most important determiner “5 development and stimulated the development of more structured language programs which make use of basic learning principles (See Engleman, et. al.. 1972)- 20 Other work examining the influence of adults on language development involved the analysis of mother's speech, called motherese by some researchers (Bates, 1976: Newport, 1976). Motherese is defined as the unique speech of the mother to the child. The focus in much of the research has been on how the mother adjusts-~makes simpler, changes tone--speech to the child in comparison to speech used with an adult. It has been shown that this speech is typically different in pitch and intonation, and is modified to use restricted and concrete vocabulary as well as simpler, shorter sentences. As Nelson (1976) reports, the finding that the length of a mother's sentences tracks the complexity of the child's language pro- duction, is one of the most reliable of findings. These ad- justments of the mother's speech to the level of the child only aid language development, however, when they actually interact with the processing strategies or biases of the child. Since much of adult Speech consists of either impera- Eiyespgth subjects deleted or of questipns as reported in Bates (1975), this adjustment and the use of special speech to children may not actually aid language development. Hub- bell (1977) reports that Questions app a form oggcommands and é§_such are-constpggnts on spontaneous talkipg. In addition, mother's questions do not appear to contribute to the child's acquisition of words. Another factor is that fill mothers are not the same in the way they adjust their speech. Ringler et. al. refers to research with two groups of mothers--one a traditional post natal group and the other an 21 extended contact group. There were differences between the groups on a variety of utterances, use of function words, questions, use of verbs and commands, and mean utterance length. The extended-contact group, it was concluded, had a verbal output distinctly greater in variety, elaboration and length . . . and that these represented more appropriate forms for imparting information, eliciting a response from the child, and for elaborating on simple concepts. As Shatz and Gelman (1973) report, much of adult speech to children involves a "talking down" phenomenon, and this is also found in speech of peers to younger peers. As defined, talking down involves adapting the sentence length and complexity to the level of the listener. In their conclusions they say that young chil- dren receive from adults and from older peers a fairly narrow and simple subset of the varieties of adult speech. They con- clude by saying that for language adjustments to be beneficial, they must add new information from which to build linguistic knowledge, and not just be at the level of the child's pro- duction. The evidence as to the benefit of this restricted Speech for language development is certainly inconclusive. Any language development model such as the one suggested in this project must consider the amount and complexity of the adult's language in view of both Bernstein's ”Restricted" and ”Elaborated" code research and Hess and Shipman's ”Motherese” research. 22 Expansion and Extension as Techniques to Facilitate Language Development Another possible factor in language development has been explored in research on language expansion techniques, first identified by Brown and Bellugi in l96h (Nelson, 1976). Ex- pansions are products of the interaction itself. Use of this technique involves filling in the missingflparts of the child's speech, with the adult imitating the child's speech but ex- panding or altering it into a well-formed adult equivalent. Some examples of expansion: Child: Daddy outside. Adult: Yes, Daddy is working outside. Child: I go. Adult: Oh! You go outside. Child: Ball, mine. Adult: That's your ball. Another form of imitation of the child's speech involves extension. This is more of a comment on what the child says, a reSponse with new ideas, questions and evaluations. Exten- sion, according to Cazden (1972), provides semantic information which extends the meaning of the utterance for the child. An example of extension: Child: Doggie bark (when a dog is barking). Adult: Yes, but he probably won't bite. 23 Cazden found that extension had much more impact than expan- sion in assisting young children in language development. It is useful in communicating information relating to concepts and the many relationships between them. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Stenroos (1979) believes that there is an interaction between thought and language and that the manner in which the child presents his own representation of this interaction might be called "creativity" or creative expression. In school, oral lan- guage experiences too often become artificial and contrived . . . unrelated to the reality of the world or the inner essence of language. Creativity then becomes stilted and learning becomes an obstacle course. Children use language to both interact with other people and to understand the world. Language is used to classify objects and experiences, to relate these eXperiences to others encountered and to con- trol or adapt to them. In short, language is a work of art which involves both affective and cognitive aSpects of exper- ience. It seems that children must encounter environments which allow this creative expression to occur as well as adult models who can provide information which helps to clarify and relate the experiences they encounter. Language and Interaction The research on expansion and extension demonstrates that language techniques which are both a product of the inter- action and which are reactions to the child's initiated speech 2b do impact language development. Studies by Halliday (1973, 1975) went a step further and examined speech production from the view of the functions served by the child's speech and the developmental order in which they emerged. These studies strongly support the gpeech as interaction ideas which are important to this study. Language is used, according to Hal- liday, to express demands and desires, to regulate actions, to form a social bond, to state explanations, to express imagi- nation and most importantly to impart information. These cate— gories of functions show that language is a communication effort and that the ability to engage in dialogue is extremely important for language development. In fact, Halliday believes the ability to engage in dialogue is prerequisite to the attain- ment of the informative function. Bruner (1975) also lends support to the idea that lan- guage develops in the context of an "action dialogue" in which joint action is being undertaken by the infant and adult. Bruner states that in an instance of language interaction the child is grasping initially the requirements of joint action . . . made possible by the presence of an interpreting adult who operates not so much as a corrector or reinforcer but rather as a provider, an expander and idealizer of utterances While interacting with the child. In view of the research reported here which examines the impact of adult models on language development, it can be con- cluded that adults do have an impact and that impact depends to a great extend on the form and style of language used in interaction with thg child. r. W“ -——————'———'———-——— 25 Furthermore, it would be wrong to assume that only parents have an impact. As Bates (1976) pointed out, adult models (not just parents) seem to be superior over peers as language models. In addition, Cazden's research involving expansion and exten- sion techniques was conducted with teachers in preschool set- tings and demonstrated conclusive proof that the language of non-parent adults can indeed impact language development. The movement towards early education, the nursery school eXperience, and day care assumes that "others" are (or can be) extensions of the parent. This gives the teacher and programs in general an important responsibility to provide eXperiences which make the best use of their potential influence. Research and Compensatory Programs If language development depends somewhat on situational variables, it seems that research within the pragmatic frame- work could focus on identifying and examining those variables which are under the control of the adult. This information could then be used to make preschool programs more effective. In the past, a major concern has been the development of c0mPensatory preschool programs of which there have been.mainly three types (Schacter et a1. l97h): (a) didactic programs where the focus is on intensive language training which concentrates on language structure and the cognitive functions involved in language development: (b) cognitively-oriented programs which encourage comprehension, understanding and transfer through understanding relations or interactions between the learner's ..'. 26 cognitive processes and aptitudes such as attribution, motiva- tion, encoding, memory, cognitive styles and cognitive structures (Wittrock, 1979): (c) whole-child programs where the teacher is responsive to the child's activity, where the emphasis is on play and interactions in a free environment, and where language is assumed to be something the child will produce when he feels like doing so. None of these types of programs is as effec- tive as they might be, especially for language development. ‘White (1973), for e.g., reports research concerning effective Inothers and the nature of their interactions. He reports that the most effective mothers resgond to their child with shared enthusiasm, help and an occasional interesting and naturally related idea during 10-30 second interchanges. It is the whole-child programs which come the closest to White's idea of the good home environment for stim- ulating natural development (Schacter et al.). However, Cazden (1972), has suggested that while interaction with the environ- Imnn: and language exchanges as suggested by White is important, it is; the more didactic programs which are more effective. Accorwding to Cazden, a solution to this problem is to make WhOIG-wchild programs more effective by increasing the focus on larnguage development. An important question remains as to how this might be accomplished. It is this question which Provides the major thrust of the research reported here. .As stated in Schacter et a1. (1974), prior research does “Gt Speak directly to the problem because those who adopt a WhOle-Ohild paradigm have not focused their attention Speci- 2? fically on language development, while those who emphasize language development have not been enough concerned with non- cognitive factors. Language Development Emphasis in Four Compensatory Educational Prggrams Much of the research reviewed above also notes that varia- ‘tions exist in the language used by adults with children. As luas been said, the working assumption of compensatory educa- ‘tional programs is that these variations are linked to indivi- dual.differences in language ability and that some children enter the school situation with language deficits. A primary goal of these programs is to ggggg these deficits. Following are brief descriptions of four such programs. In the Distar program. there is a marked departure from traditional development-socialization views involving direct instructional techniques, and coordinated, sequenced learning task£s in language. Basic academic skills, especially language skills considered primary to school success, and instruction are arranged in hierarchies of successive complexity and in- clusinveness centered on mastery of essential objectives. (3iven the basic assumption that the value of a program is baSed on the extent to which it reaches its stated goals-- DiStaIF'szmajor strength is its implementation. Within this framework, several features are important contributions. It i“corporates many concepts from learning psychology such as active :involvement, immediate feedback, sequential learning 28 tasks, transfer techniques, highly specific objectives defined in behavioral terms, and emphasis on academics and content mastery. Of course, depending on basic philosophies regarding early education, the strengths of didactic programs such as those listed may be considered weaknesses. Developmental and humanistic psychologists would probably question the learner's passive role and the teacher's didactic role and others would challenge the lack of emphasis on affective concerns. Blank and Solomon used a tutorial approach to language development. This program is based on the assumption that children need consistent guidance to develop a firm basis for thinking. The purpose is to provide tasks that can be accom- plished successfully, ample practice in order that new skills can be reinforced frequently, and adult instruction Specific to the development of language tools pertinent to the class- room. Questioning and probing skills as well as use of lan- guage in structuring and guiding thought process is emphasized, to enable students to infer, estimate, deduce and classify in- formation. However, some negative side effects were noted by observational methods such as resistance to the tightly or- ganized approach, passivity, dependence, withdrawal, and fear- fulness. Weikert's Cognitively Oriented Curriculum attempts to integrate language development into a developmental frame- work which allows for active participation by the learner and support and guidance by the teacher. It recognizes language as a key experience in development and communication as a 29 primary function of language. Conversing, describing, and expressing feelings are considered highly important to making corrective feedback possible, to reduce egocentrism and to facilitate social transmission of knowledge. Although this emphasis on language development recognizes the importance of language in cognitive development, no systematic method of using language techniques to both stimulate language for communication and relate personal experience to developing cognitive structures have been reported. In programs such as that developed at the Bank Street College of Education, the most important factor is active interaction with the environment--both physical and social. There is an emphasis on interaction with the adult and trying 23: new experiences. This system stresses the educational value of play and playful experiences and is based on the child's spontaneous activity. Structure, drill, specific tasks and instruction is de-emphasized while exploration and interaction are highly encouraged. The child selects the experience, is the active learner, and the teacher is a guides. .Achieving a positive self-image is central to class- rOOHI practices. The teacher's major role is to create a healthy climate for learning. This philosophy and these goals are in contrast to the two programs described previ- ousLy, which strongly emphasize language development. The Bank Street approach to early education is typical of whole- chihd programs and drastically different from didactic ap- ProaChes. Some language stimulation techniques are used in 30 this approach, however, systematic research efforts on lan- guage development or on the implementation of systematic use of these techniques has not been reported. Evidence reported by Cazden (1972) suggests that programs such as Distar and the Tutorial Program reviewed above do have a substantial impact on language development. In a final report to the Office of Education by Abt Associates, Inc., results of a study involving 20,000 third grade students concluded that structured educational approaches seem more beneficial. Kennedy, in a secondary analysis of the data which adjusts for design weaknesses, supported some of these findings. In this report some negative effects (in lan- guage) were reported for the Cognitive Curriculum and no size— able effects were reported for the Bank Street Model. Positive effects (in language)were found in only the Direct Instruction Programs (Distar, etc.). However, Kennedy qualified these findings by suggesting design weaknesses and alternative ex— Plarmations for effects. Two points were made in this research whicli are pertinent to this study: (1) the direct instruction Prognrams may have more systematic, aggressive approach to teaCIIer-training and measurement of program goals and (2) Program variations may be a result of differences in imple- mentation of programs--structured programs are more easily PaCKaged and implemented. It was also suggested that direct programs may have their Primary effect in the early years of school and may produce diminishing returns as the components of instruction move from factual knowledge to application of knowledge. 31 The goals of the Bank Street Model and the active learner approach in the Cognitive Curriculum are seemingly ambitious and appropriate for early education. However, the de-emphasis in language instruction by Bank Street and the non-systematic emphasis of language instruction in the Cognitive Curriculum seem to translate into no-effect at least on research examin- ing Follow-Through data. It seems reasonable, in light of this evidence, that ways of combining the goals for language development as established in these contrasting programs can be found. It should not have to be a choice between one approach or the other. Implications of Interactions Techniques for Social Success A logical argument can be made for the hypothesis that higher-levels of language usage ability aid a child in succeed- ing academically in the school environment. Schools place a Inenrium on verbal ability and in the past several years many Programs have been developed which attempt to influence lan- guage development. The need for these programs was generated by'the belief of educators that marked social class deficits inlhanguage usage exist by age four or even earlier (Evans, 1971). which place some children at an academic disadvantage. Evans states that by the time they go to school, children have arxquired basic knowledge of grammatical features and how to use “them at varying levels, which indicates that the early years are most affected by variations in the language environ- 32 ment. Richness and variety of early language experiences may influence large individual differences in vocabulary size and modes of expression. Language programs for early child- hood have been developed for the express purpose of erasing these early deficits. Language is a means to communicate the knowledge a person has, to gain the attention and help of others, to express feel- ings, ideas, and emotions. It is perhaps the only socially acceptable and effective way to gain the attention of adults for the purpose of using them as resources. Adults are often used by spmg children to answer inquiries and direct their natural curiosity and exploratory behavior. These are factors which often spell success in the school by transmitting enthu- Siasm to the teacher. Many of these factors have been inves- tigated by respected researchers (White and Watts, 1973: Clark- Stewart, 1973) in attempts to identify early competence. Implications of Interaction Techniques for Social Adaptation Another aspect of gpggggg in the school environment in- volves the child's ability to adapt socially. language usage ability also appears to be a major factor in this process. The:social world of a person for a good portion of life ig the school. The interactions within the school system form the foundations for later social interactions. Many re- searchers have included interpersonal skills as measures of cOllipetence. Stollak (Reif and Stollak, 1971) called them 33 "emotional skills” in research which identified four major categories as indicative of positive mental health and early competence, two of which deal expressly with skills which are basic to interaction with others. These are: 1. Awareness of the feelings, thoughts, desires, emo- tions and behavior of others and ability to express evalua- tions of these. 2. Interpersonal skills, which are capabilities that enable one to eXperience mutually satisfying and constructive relationships with peers and authority figures. White and Watts (1973) listed the following social abil- ities: 1. To get and maintain the attention of adults in socially acceptable ways. 2. To use adults as resources. 3. To express affection and hostility to adults. 4. To express affection and hostility to peers. 5. To praise oneself and/or show pride in accomplish- ments. If social adaptation can be defined as the ability to £33.31l235 and interact with others in society in a way which brings about positive feelings, then language usage ability must be an important factor. If positive mental health and ade81nment involves the ability to be involved in social inter- aCtions which allow people to meet their needs, then language usage aJrS'the "ability to express" must be key factors in social adaptation. 34 Implications of Interaction Techniques for Self-Esteem There can be little doubt that social interaction is an important part of "school life." Most of the things that are done in school are done with others. There can be up to 1,000 interpersonal interchanges per day between teachers and children and many more peer interchanges (Jackson, 1968). These interchanges can be thought of as "opportunities" for success in interpersonal skills. They can help build up one's self-image or they can tear it down. Kelly (1962) has defined the s31; as consisting of the accumulated experiential background, or backlog, of the in- dividual . . . what has been building since his life began, through unique experience. Kelly continued: "This self is built almost entirely . . . in relationship to others . . . Since the self is achieved through social contact, it has to be understood in terms of others." Much of the self is deter- nfixued by the history of success in a person's background, which acts as feedback to the person about the adequacy of 'UK: self to perform the "task at hand" (Coopersmith, 1959). Tt.is reasonable to believe, given this description of the Self, that the numerous interchanges mentioned above do, in 1'9:th have an influence on self-image development. Since interaction depends upon communication, it is also logical t0 conclude that high language usage ability may allow more Opportunity for feelings of success within these interchanges as a result of positive feedback from others. 35 Language ability has been included in measures of the psychological construct of "locus of control" which attempts to measure the feelings of power one has over the environment. This seems important because power over the environment, a feeling of "I can do it" is essential to the "fully function- ing self" (Kelly, 1962). Language can be considered a tool that helps a person gain success experiences and thus confi- dence in the self. Enhancement of Self-Esteem Through LangugggrProgpgmg There is another aspect of self-esteem that is important to this study. So far the concern has been for language's impact on self-image. Also important is the enhancement of Self-esteem through language programs, or the importance of a cormern for self-concept in language programs. Thus inter- charuges which are purposely structured to allow success exper- ien<:es, to allow and even enhance self-concept development, may be a critical component of language usage programs. In a report on the lasting effects of preschool programs Wit}: language emphasis, these programs were cited to positively impact low-income children. These children more often met the minimum standards of schooling--less special education required, 1888 retention, and fewer dropouts. In addition, preschool was found to impact low-income children in non-cognitive ways. They were more likely to express pride in specific achievements and rated themselves as better students. Furthermore, mothers 36 held higher aspirations for their children. This has direct implications for the development of self image. ”The self,"Kelly says,'looks out upon the surrounding scene largely in terms of its own enhancement or defense. It extends in the direction of that which promises to make it better off . . . and withdraws from that which seems likely to endanger it." Kelly speaks further about the development of a "psychological shell" or "selective screen" to hide be- hind in order to protect the self. This can be a barrier to communication and a protection that is really isolation and withdrawal. This inhibits, of course, self-growth because the self needs feedback to continue to develop. It also inhibits the opportunity for language usage and development in that the person will not become involved in the interaction. Those Who are open to the experience will have an opportunity to prac- tice: using language already a part of their repertoire and to learn new language. Conditions for Self Development Theorists have identified several conditions for self devefilopment which seem to be of importance to language pro- grams, Many of these are based on the conviction that the self seeks out enhancing experiences and withdraws from "per— ceiVed" endangering ones. Carl Rogers (1951) has said that "trust" is the impor- tant ingredient which the interactor provides. Of major im- POrtance to communication is the ability to be open and free 37 to express. This results from pppgp that it is not harmful to eXpose oneself. Hamachek (1977) speaks of "empathic listen- ing" as another important component for self development. This type of listening responds to the person's feelings as well as his words. It implies not evaluation, no judgment . . . and conveys an effort to communicate the notion that a person's feelings and ideas are valid for pip if not for us. It is important for interaction that adults convey a feeling of acceptance. This includes acceptance of personal feelings which may disturb the adult. It also seems important to convey empathic understanding which does not evaluate, rather is sensitive to the concerns of the other (Rogers, 1951). The above discussion has strong implications for programs which involve interaction with others. Specifically, it is 1Hua responsibility of the adult to create a non-threatening. accepting atmOSphere. Such an atmosphere should increase the Emcnant of interaction and language usage, as well as maintain and promote healthy mental growth. Methodological Problems Encountered in Lapguage Development Research There are several methodological problems that need to be dealt with in a study which occurs in a natural setting and is an attempt to measure the dimensions and effects of a treatment or program. It is becoming increasingly more evi- dent that there must be a concern for both process and product. Evidence is needed not only on the impact and effectiveness of 38 the program or treatment but also on the dimensions, charac- teristics and essential components of the program. Miller and Dyer (1975) in a study of four preschool programs, con- tend that there are few research efforts which report on operational characteristics of programs and whether or not “they exist only in program ppescrippions." Of particular concern in their study was the verification of program implementation as well as the difference between the programs actually implemented. It was necessary to dis- tinguish between the models or programs described and the actual programs which are implemented. There is no guarantee that the teacher or researcher will actually implement what they have been taught. The first step in verification involves careful definition of the essential components of the treat- ment programs, and analysis of them along several dimensions-- philosophy, curriculum, methods, class atmosphere and teacher's role, and goals for children. The next step in the Miller and Dyer study was to compare Ixrograms on more specific variables (e.g., feedback, modeling, and imitation) using observation and videotaping to assess teacher behavior. Discrimination analysis was then done on truese and other variables to determine whether or not they differentiated the treatments. In view of the research, it seems important for determining program effects that both the aetual degree of implementation and the differences between the programs be verified, so that measured effects can more meaningfully be attributed to the differences in programs. 39 The large variation in programs found in the reanalysis of the Follow Through data by Kennedy demonstrates the need to focus on program implementation. Kennedy concludes that lack of implementation is a strong competing hypothesis for nega- tive findings. This study will be concerned with a process view of re- search. One of its major concerns will be the verification of whether or not the interactor is actually applying essen- tial components of the model. Data is reported on key vari- ables which differentiate the treatments from each other. A final series of methodological problems involves in- strumentation and data collection. Several methods of observ- ing and recoding behavioral and verbal behavior in naturalistic settings have been reported (Stallings, 1975: Miller and Dyer, 1975: Shatz and Gelman, 1973: Schacter et al., 1974). The 'bechniques for collecting this type of data fall into two ma 3’ or types : 1. Time or event sampling methods with some form of observation system. 2. Video and/or audio-tape analysis with some system 0f? categorizing behavior and verbalization per unit of time. An example of the first kind is that reported by Stal- liJugs (1975). An observation schedule was devised called the Classroom Observation Schedule (001) to record classroom arrangements and elements of events considered educationally Significant by Follow Through sponsors. This schedule included 602 categories describing behaviors of teachers and children 40 in classroom situations, interactions between two or more people are also included. Of particular interest were the FMO or Five-Minute Observation variables that were recorded. A series of four-celled frames were used to record in a shorthand system each interaction that occurred in a five-minute period. The method identified the Speaker, the person Spoken to, and the message being delivered, as well as the emotional affect dis- played. It allowed for recording of two-way interaction se- quences. Variables of interest were then formed from the com- plex codings. This procedure was of great help in devising the observation schedules for this study. An example of extensive audio-tape analysis was presented in a study by Shatz and Gelman (1973). This study focused on the length and complexity of utterances produced in interaction sequences with different-aged listeners. Of interest is their Luse of audio-tapes in obtaining data on utterance lengths and ccxnplexity. Mean utterance length was examined. Utterances cJJissified as long--over four words in length-~were further examined for syntactic complexity. Schacter et al. (1974) also used audio-tapes to obtain verbatim language samples for subjects. This was obtained in; having the observer crouch or sit as closely as possible 1H) the subject, avoiding eye to eye contact, and adopting a 'Uenign.facial expression. The observer was, they reported, almost invariably ignored. (See also Cherry, 1974, for an example of preschool teacher's usage of audio-taping in free Play Situations.) Many of the audio-tape procedures suggested 41 in these studies were adapted to data collection in this re- search. The purpose of the preceding review of literature per- tinent to methodological concerns in naturalistic studies, was to give background information on some of the problems encountered in this type of research and some possible solu- tions to them. These studies were helpful in the planning of this research. Summary The purpose of this review has been to identify important factors concerning language development which are relevant to this project. Research has shown that Situational variables add an important dimension to language study. Furthermore, Cazden's expansion and extension techniques, Halliday's devel- opmental categories of functional language research and Bruner's ideas about "action dialogues" contributed valuable information aloout variables of concern in this study. Several programs Mnith language development components were reviewed as examples of‘ attempts to impact language development. However, it is iflie feeling of this writer that careful examination of lan- guagt stimulation techniques in non—didactic programs has not been done adequately to date. In addition, language usage PrOgramS have not considered all of the essential variables. Some of these essential variables have already been ex— pounded. First, it is believed that a concern for the self- esteem of the child is of utmost importance and that it is 42 necessary to create a non-threatening, open atmosphere so the child can feel free to communicate. (Rogers, 1951: Moustakas, 1959: Axline, 1969: Kelly, 1962). Cazden's use of extensions that pgggp to the child's own utterances is a beginning step in creating this atmosphere because it involves the second esseptial element: i.e., what the child is thinking or saying is of utmost importance. Recognition of this validates the idea or feeling for the child. It transmits the message, ”I'm OK.” The tpipd essential component growing from this review is that communication models are extremely important. Lan- guage develops as a result of interaction between adult and child (Bruner, 1975: Bernstein, 1964: Halliday, 1973: Wood, 1976). These models provide ipppp to the communication system. There are two important considerations, however, concerning 'the quality of this input. First, adult models are better 'than.peer models (Bates, 1975). Second, there are variations it: the language usage of adult models (Bruner, 1975: Bernstein, 15964: Ringler, 1975). Many adults use communication techniques ccxnsisting primarily of questions and imperatives (Bates, 1975). Much speech to children is adjusted down to the child's level vfliile what is more important is the addition of new informa- tion (Shatz and Gehan, 1973). In addition, some adults are ‘better than others at interaction, and itcreating action dia- logues which convey clear, unambiguous information (Bruner, 1975). While questioning and probing techniques, major com- Ponents of programs such as Blank and Solomon's tutorial fl 43 approach, are important to language, they can result in un- easiness and even fearfulness in a tightly organized and structured atmosphere (Blank, Koltuz and Wood, 1972). In view of these comments on the quality of language usage by adult models, it seems important to train models to interact with children in a way which fosters actual conver- sation and dialogue, not ways which require responses from the child and lead to uneasiness in the situation. A fourth essential component is the problem of language modeling. The issue has been partly answered by Cazden (1972), who suggested that we Should emphasize meaning by adding (ex- tending) new ideas and evaluations about what the child is talking about. Furthermore, the richness of extensions, the more of them used, and the complexity of their form, may actually facilitate a child's language development. As Wood (1976) points out, using Simple forms of language such as Inotherese (Nelson, 1975) and talking down (Shatz and Gelman, 14975) may actually slow down language development. This sug- gests that the semantic richness of the communication model's language with the child helps to advance the child's know- ledge about language use and structure. The actual content of the language should be in a form 'that:describes objects, events and actions as well as the relationships between them, and which connect these in time and Space. They Should emphasize meaning, relations and dis- tinctions in these meanings (WOOd. 1976)- 44 The gifth and final essential cpmponent concerns the basic assumptions and philosophies that should be inherent in lan- guage programs. Children enter language programs with a cer- tain language usage ability and already have acquired a vast array of language. Part of the purpose of any language pro- gram should be to allow the child the opportunity to practice their repertoire of forms. Therefore, it is important to gllpfi them to talk, and not structure the experience so tightly as to restrict talking. However, it Should be foremost in the mind of the interactor to use every opportunity to model pgg fpppg. Language should be seen as a 3221 of communication and the intent of the program should be to increase the rep— ertoire of communication strategies available to the child. Underlying the above is the assumption that this communica- tion power gives the child confidence in talking and a felt jpower over the external environment as well as an expressive power that allows success in day to day communication situations (Wood, 1976, pg. 271). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Purpose The primary purpose of this research effort was to col- lect observational and audio tape data of planned small group interactions between adults and children in order to study the effects of certain kinds of adult-child interactions on children's language usage. This was done by systematically observing and recording group sessions of two different styles of adult-child interaction over a five-week period. Adult implementation data and group interaction ratings by trained observers were also examined. §pecia1 Definitions The following terms are referred to throughout the study. Truese definitions are provided to give a clearer understanding of“ their meaning as used in this investigation. Child language vapiableS--defined as those variables which were determined to be evidence of child language usage and enurtional diSplays by subjects. These are listed in Table 1. Certain of these were eXpected to occur more often in either the treatment or the control groups. Both the variables and the groups in which they were expected to occur are listed in Table 3. 45 46 Adult language variableS--defined as those variables which were determined to be evidence of adult language usage and emotional display by adults. These are listed in Table 2. Certain of these were expected to occur more or less in the treatment groups while others were expected to occur more or less in the control groups. Both the variables and the groups in which they were expected to occur most often are listed in Table 4. Language interaction--defined as that type of language used by adults trained in the use of the model described in Chapter I. Language interaction variables--defined as those variables which were considered to be the kinds of communications which reflected either the use of the model by adults or instances of use by subjects in the study. Both child and adult inter- action variables are Specifically listed in Tables 3 and 4. Traditional interaction--defined as that type of language used by adults employing the use of questioning and didactic teaching techniques . Traditionpl interaction variables--defined as those vari- alales which reflect either the use of traditional techniques luv adults or instances of use by subjects in the study. Both Child and adult traditional variables are Specifically listed in Tables 3 and 4. Treatment groupS--defined as those adults and subjects in groups using language interaction. Control groups--defined as those adults and subjects in groups using traditional interaction. 1+7 mscspo op COflPmNflHmnnm> m>fipfimom pccac< c>flpflmcm coflmmmnaxm HMCOHPoEm menaace secem muocH\mmmD Boz pmonopcflmflo wcflvwaom pmmnmPCH mEom cofipwpomenoch wcflhmam maom cowpomammm mwcommmm XmHQEoo moosmuonpo haQwSCD meowpmcmaaxm ScavaPMCH waano Hapoe we sneer mPCoEmpmpm omcoemom :pmcmq cam: oflpwmflmsapcm meoapmosa cowpmfipficH :proA o>Hpommm< owmw: mmmswcmq make mmmswsmq mocmuoppa mmqm mowpflmom :onmonaxm amcoflposm wcowpmcmaaxm Koaasoo mPCmsmmem xoaasoo wmooH\momD 3oz w>wvoowm¢ o>wpmmmz mafipmacm osommansone cowpmponanopCH :pooEm cowpooamom mcflaocwH manpsm mPCoEmPMPm pom mm>fipmcuopa< accofipmsnomcH zoz meowpwpommxm mcowpmcmamxm pomww< o>wpmwmz mewpwaom pasc< pcmsmpmwm owcoamom xmamsoo moocmuopp: Hmnpsmz :oflpmpmaanopsH wcflaSPOSQQm SoHPmeHcH xmaasoo Hmpoe so mcflhmam maom noflpomawmm mccwEEoo mmCoammm gaowA cams Ewmflmznpcm wcflapcmm m>wpo< meowpmmsa poopfia CowpmfipwcH apwcog o>wpommm< mcoflpmspwm Emanonm oaapm owmsmcmq maze owwswcmq costumes: mmqm mU¢DUz o>wpwmom poomm< m>fivwmom pmopoch msom wcflhwam oaom sans: moocmampao pmpnonm owpmdwmsnpcm npwqu coachmppb c>apccme< canes 49 pmmumpcflmwn pommm< o>Hpmmmz cowmwouaxm Hmcoflvosm aaawnc: wcwaame haopm m>wpommm< UHHSD meoflpmcmaaxm mpcmsopmpm macapmmsa wwwm: mmdsmcmq oaflno om:ommmm mmonH\momD 3oz assesses cowpmpouanmch :owpomamom MMWmD mumsmcmq fiasco chaoammm xoaasoo cosprpflcH onano CowpmwpflcH make ommsucmq caflso easy owmsmmmq oaflso Adonpcoov Cowpompwch Hmsowpflcmas ApCmEpmmnav :ofipownovcH mwmswcmq mAMBw AHomBzoov ZOHEO QAHmU wZHBwpoomw< o>wpmmmz msommapsopa wcflhocwH :cnecspnm seasons pasc< hmaamfla m>apommm< o>apwwoz Hmnpsmz c>apccaa< passe Aoameflmv mpcmsmpmpm HmcoapmsaowcH Aoaasfiwv mcowpmcmaaxm mPCoEoPMPM meanneosupm mccwEEOO mcoflpmoso pooufln caspm caucuses pase< mmmCoamom mth desmcmg pasc< moocmnopp: AmeoA nausea wocmnovpb seesaw enhances c>npc< scapsspam seasons passe mcwawam oaom Smmfimznpcm cenpccea< eases o>fipoomw< m>wpflmom mcowmmmnaxm amcowposm mcofipmcmamxm xoamsoo masoEmpwpm Noaesoo mwocH\mmmD 3oz wcflvmaom Sofivmpmnmnoch sofipooamom mHMPm owmzmcmq Pasc< mmmcoamom xoaasoo mCoflpmewcH memsoo macapwfipwcH omaa mumsucmq Panes Aaoupcoov Coapomnmch Hmcowpflcmne Apcmsvwmnev cowpownoch mwmsmcmq Aqomezoov ZOHBU BADQ< UZHB mo mpmfla oweaooam pom owls: momma .3 manna op homomv moapmwnm> m>wpomnm< moapmflpm> Soapomnmch Hmcowpflpmna moaannm> :owpomuoch owmswcmq : asonw N msouw m asoau a macaw :oHpomaovcH Hmcoflpflcmne coflpowuoch owmsmcmq Honpcoo pSmEPmoae moanmflnm> ZUHmmD Qmammz mo meB H mchHm 54 given time. It was the judgment of this investigator that the normal routine of the day care was somewhat disorganized and that the amount of meaningful adult-child communication, other than during the planned interaction sessions, was mini- mum. From a group of 40 subjects available in the morning ses- sion, 24 were randomly selected as possible study participants. This group of 24 children were then randomly assigned to four groups. The other children participated in the warm—up sessions. Measures Observational Data An observational instrument was developed for the purposes of this study to collect two Specific types of information. 1. Relevant affective data as specified in Tables 3 and 4, pages 47 and 48. This included measures of general affect, involvement in the group, number of problem Situations, and affect diSplayed during problem situations. 2. Key words of communication segments between adult and child and between other children. The purpose of this Procedure was to record enough of the segment (along with affective data for that segment) to allow a linkage between the audio tape transcriptions and the affective data observed. The instrument developed was a modification of scoring Systems devised by Stallings (1975) which were used to monitor two-way interaction sequences. The Stallings' method attempted t0 measure affective data taking place during three-minute 55 intervals. For several different variables (e.g., general mood, involvement, negative affect, etc.). several levels of the variable were recorded by observers. The major extension of the instrument used in this study was the attempt to form mutually exclusive categories and to train observers to record key words to be used with audio-tape transcriptions. An ex- ample of the observation instrument can be found in Appendix A. The procedure for collecting observational data involved the following: 1. For each communication segment, record a few key words in the middle of the instrument. 2. For adult variables on language style, usage, and problem Situation, use the check list format to indicate an occurrence of the variable. Categories were mutually exclu- sive (e.g., in a problem situation. the adults handling was either troublesome or Smooth). 3. For child variables, follow the same procedure as above. Observers became quite proficient by the end of the study at recording major communications (key words) and the affec- tive data. Each group was observed a minimum of six times. The presence of the observers seemed to make no appreciable difference in the group interaction. Adults and subjects alike became quite comfortable with being observed and in most cases ignored the observers entirely. Apdio Tape Data Each half hour session was audio taped during the five- 56 week study period. A minimum of 13-15 sessions were taped in each of four interaction groups. The use of tape recorders in the interaction sessions had been piloted prior to this study with a group of head start children. After a brief in- troductory period (10 minutes), during which time all children could record their voices, hear them played back and push the buttons, very little attention was given to the tape recorder 'thereafter. AS with the case with the observers, the tape rmuzorders were virtually ignored by children and adults during ‘the majority of the study. Each verbalization by each child and adult was recorded arui transcribed. Approximately 20 percent of these transcrip- tixons were randomly checked for accuracy by an independent liJstener and judged to be accurate. In addition, a thorough examination of the observational data, the tape transcriptions arud a sample of the audio tapes themselves was undertaken by “the author and judged to be accurate. Unclear or unrecognizable transcriptions were deleted ifrwam the analysis. However, very few were unrecognizable and the transcriptions represent a substantial majority of BJLJL dialogue. Approximately 2,093 utterances were collected 341:1 analyzed in this study. Table 5 on the following page DEPCJVideS a breakdown of the number of statements associated W5.“ch those involved in the study. 57 TABLE 5 Dialogue Number Interactor Total Lines Adult Child of Sessions 1 507 33“ 152 3 2 538 278 220 6 3 547 340 157 5 4 501 220 195 7 Some sample transcriptions can be seen in Appendix B. These include examples of dialogues between adult and chi] as well as among children in the groups. gfloserver andlnteractor Ratings Independent of the observational and audio tape data adialyzed in this study, a series of ratings were collected fkbr each session. Both the observers of the group for the day and the interactor for that group completed a rating 1' strument immediately after each session. This instrument called the Group Interaction Schedule and can be found in Appendix C. The purpose of this procedure was to help che 'tEBrize the nature of the interaction on a day-to-day basis 311E also served as immediate feedback to the interactor frc 1She observer. This helped the interactors to compare thei ()Vln perceptions to those of an objective observer. The instrument was designed to include ratings from J to high on a five-point rating scale concerning the follov <3ztixtical aspects of the session: (1) degree of interactic ; 58 with children in the group, (2) use of structure (e.g., direct teaching, questioning, explanatory statements, etc.. which are indicative of traditional interaction). (3) positive dis- plays of affect by the adult, (4) negative displays of affect by the adult, (5) problems during the session (e.g., a child leaving the group. hitting another child, etc.). (6) success in problem resolution, (7) interaction of children with adults, (8) interaction of children with other children, (9) positive (iisplays of affect by the subjects, and (10) negative displays of affect by the subjects. Egaliability Estimates Reliability reported here includes an estimate of the Italiability of observational data, and of audio tape transcrip~ tion coding. The reliability of the observational data is reported as: the percentage agreement between two raters who have observed tlre same two subjects during a session. Each group was observed iad: least two times and reliability estimates are reported for “truese across most variables. Due to problems with the stan- dardization of the observational instrument which are discussed :ir1 Chapter V, some low estimates were obtained. However, audio 'tailpe data was collected in conjunction with the observational data which duplicated the language variables. Verification of problem and situation variables was possible so that the final c>0ding of the observational data was more highly reliable. Reliability for audio tape transcription codings are re- Ported as percentage agreement between two independent raters 59 familiar with and trained in identification of the variables of interest in this study. Both raters were familiar with child language structure and use. Both were certified early elementary teachers as well as reading and language consultants for compensatory educational programs. Child variable estimates are based on the codings of these interaction sessions, while estimates for adult variables are based on four interaction sessions. The percentage agree- Inent figures were based on separate codings by each of the “two coders. Random checks were made on the coded variables sand determined to be generally accurate. Table 6 Shows the average percentage agreement across nuijor adult and child variables in the study. These are based ori either three or four observer ratings of the same adult or Cliild. The average percentage agreement on the child variables “was 68.1 across three sessions. The highest agreement (77.6) “was recorded on the last day of the project. The raters showed Ipxrogress in agreement from the beginning to the end of the ipxroject on these child variables. The average percentage agreement on the adult variables was 68.0 across four sessions. The highest agreement (75.2) was recorded early in the study. The next highest agreement (69.5) was recorded on the final day of the project. Table 7 shows the average percentage agreement between 'tvvc3 coders for the audio tape transcriptions. The variables of interest were both Adult and Child Language Style variables. The average agreement between coders on the Adult Language StYle variables was 74.75%. The highest agreement (82%) was 6O so.mc em.mc so.mc em.ms em.mc Haves ::::: tutu: Immmml Immmm mcoflpmSpwm ::::: :uuuu cscz so.sc escapees Ro.o: so.wm ::::: so.mw Cowpomumch mwmsmcmq IIIII IIIII RO.OOH IIIII mUcwEEoo ROomw $0.00 §Ooom II'II wCOHPmmfia -n--- so.ow so.mm so.oa mensspcsspm eo.ms so.os so.mw -u--- ccmscemcm em.ms so.ooa so.mm so.mo mccapmapasH moaanpw> pasc< ea.mm so.ss ss.ms em.am Hapoe In--- madam: wo.mm mccapcspam so.om so.ss --::- assesses lulu: so.©m ::::: mCowvmoso eo.mo so.ooa ::::: meoapwcsa so.ms IIIII Ro.:m monsoamom so.mm so.sm so.mm mastecpspm so.mo so.hm so.ms macapsaPHcH mcapcaec> cases emcec>< H case mm as: as ass m as: mcaecaec> : cowmmmm m Cowmmom N :oflmmmm H cowmmom mmqm¢Hm<> BADD< Q24 mmqm DflHmo m0h¢2 mmomo< azmzmmmo< mw< m mqmm omega .mpoz Roo.mwuuxoo.om mcoz ocoz ozoz mcoz Ammanmfinm> cowpmSPwmv mumgpo soo.ms soo.es eco.cm soo.ms soo.ms pscEccsm< vacuums cmssc>< soo.mm eoo.em eco.se soo.mm eco.cs pccEccema ac Pcoonmm .mazpm owwswcmq caflgo ems.ms eco.ms soo.mm eco.os soo.ms pecEccsm< ac Paoonom .ACOHPomnoch .m> someway mazpm owmswcmq pasc< mommum>< caum mnm sum mum anowopmo d soflmwom m cowmmom N coammmm a Cowmmmm monamHmomz¢me mm4 a mqm the degree each adult actually employed the interaction techniques they were trained to implement. The basic design employed for statistical analysis of nuajor hypotheses is a fixed-effect model with two sets of eicperimental and control groups: subjects are nested within giroups for the treatment and control conditions. Differences ‘bertween.groups are measured at the end of the project time f(Dr-differences between groups. As mentioned in the overview, there are four groups in ‘tknis study--two of which were treatment groups and two of Which were control groups. Each group had four subjects and 841. adult interactor. After the random formation of the groups, ealcxh adult was randomly assigned to a group. The adults had been trained in either language interaction or traditional in‘teraction. The group was then designated either treatment 01‘ <3<3ntrol depending on the adult assigned to it. The adult 63 remained with the same group for the duration of the project. Each subject was randomly selected to be in either the treat- ment or control condition. Because of the random selection process, all groups were assumed to be essentially comparable at the outset of the project. The One-Way fixed-effects model was used to test the hypothesis because it allows a detailed contrast between groups of interest. Since both the observa- : 'tional and audio tape independent variables were mutually ex- <:1usive, they are examined separately. Variables of interest are as follows: 1. Language Type--Ipipiation. Response; Complaglnitiapipp. Sigmplex Response: An initiation was considered any unsolicited cliild verbalization, while a reSponse was a solicited answer to an adult question or statement. 2. Language Usage: Interaction--defined as a reflection, iJiterpretation, relating statement, new use or idea suggestion, Complex explanation or emotional expression, or direct--defined as a structuring statement, question, command, or explanation. 3. UtterancepLgpgth and Complexity: Complexity is de- fined as any utterance over five words long. 4. Affective andi§ituational: Includes ratings of enthu- siastic, happy, unhappy, negative affect, disinterest, role playing, and some interest. Hypotheses —-——4—" 4 As was previously mentioned, the unit of analysis in this Study is the frequency of occurrence of instances of each 64 variable delineated in the study. Certain of these variables were expected to occur more often in the treatment or control group. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: 1. There will be no difference between treatment and control groups on Child Language Type variables. (Variables include Initiation, Response, Complex Initiation, and Complex Response.) 2. There will be no difference between treatment and control groups on Child Lapguage Usage variables. (Variables include Reflection, Interpretation, Relating, New Use/Idea, (30mp1ex Explanation. Emotional Expression, Structuring State- ments, Questions, Commands, Explanations.) 3. There will be no difference between treatment and control groups on Child Affective variables. (Variables in- clude Enthusiastic, Happy, Unhappy, Negative Affect, Disinterest, Role Pflaying, Some Interest.) 1+. There will be no difference between treatment and control.groups on the Child Utterance Length variable. (In- eludes; any verbalization over five words in length.) .5. There will be no difference between Traditional and Interaction groups on Adult implementatipp Sgppgg. (Scores derivemi from an examination of actual occurrences of language varialx1es for either the treatment or control groups. Refer to Table 4 which explains which variables are associated with treatment and control.) 65 Analysis A One-Way Analysis of Variance is employed across all major variables using a prior contrast to examine the dif- ferences between all combinations of groups. This results in an overall F ratio and t-tests for significance on all prescribed group combinations. The contrast procedure allows secondary analysis contrasting the treatment and control groups, each treatment group and each control group. The One-Way pro- cedure allows a more powerful test of group differences Since it does not capitalize on chance. Adult Implementation data is presented in summary form and analyzed by simple inspection. In addition. Implementation scores have been formed and presented. Ratings of interaction by observers and self ratings by interactors are presented in summary form and analyzed by Sim- ple inspection. Summary lfliis study investigates the effects of different styles of adLnlt interactions with three to three and one half year old cluildren of lower-class background in a day care center. Data was gathered over a five-week period in two ways: 1.. Observations of half hour sessions by undergraduate Students trained as observers using an instrument designed for purposes of this study: 66 2. Audio taping of each half hour session over the five- week project period. Audio tapes were transcribed and coded by trained adults. All child dialogue and observations of the sessions were coded and tested for significance by a One-Way Analysis of Variance procedure employing a priori contrast to test major hypotheses. All subjects were randomly selected to be in one of two treatment groups and control groups. Differences are measured across all major variables for the entire time period. Adult Implementation analysis provides information con- cerning the actual use of language techniques that adult inter- actors were trained to employ. It adds a valuable component to this research effort both in terms of the Significance of the data collected and the future training of adults for similar projects. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Category 1 Variables: Major Hypothesgp Tested for Significance There are several variables which have been tested for significance and are presented in this section. These are all child variables and are measured as frequencies of occur- rence and as proportions. Proportions are based on the per- centage of response by each group member within each of the four groups. There are four major variables presented: 1. Language Type variables: These are child initiations, complex initiations, responses and complex responses. 2. Language Usgge variables: These are questions, in- formational statements, explanations, reflections, interpreta- 'tions, relating statements, new uses/new ideas, story telling. and emotional expressions. 3. Affective variables: These are ratings on enthusiastic. haPPy. unhappy, negative affect, disinterest, role playing, some interest, and positive affect. 4. Utterance Length: This is the average length of a child's utterance. These four sets of variables are examined for overall end- of--program effects . 67 68 For each variable, two separate analyses are presented. The first involves a frequency of the number of occurrences of that variable across the sessions. This gives an_unadjusted measure of differences between groups. The second of these involves the proportion of occurrences of each variable for each child in the group. This procedure gives a measure which reflects the occurrence of the variable proportionate to the number of verbalizations actually produced by the child in czomparison to others in the group. In most cases, the pro- jportion dimension is of most importance. Also presented are the results of planned comparisons. Where results of contrasts between treatment/treatment or Ctintrol/control influence the interpretation of the overall finndings, the comparisons of interest are displayed in the appropriate table . Overall F ratios and probabilities are reported. However, true T probabilities which are reported for the three sets of Plxanned comparisons are the statistics of most interest in this study. Planned comparisons are presented according to the follow- ing legend: 1. Planned Comparison 1: Overall treatment effects Which contrasts the two language interaction groups (treatment) wi‘th the two traditional interaction groups (control). 2. Planned Cppparison 2: Contrasts between the two lan- g“age interaction groups (treatment). 3. Planned Comparison 3: Contrasts between the two traditional interaction groups (control). 69 End of Program Analysgg l. Null Hypotheses: There will be no difference between Traditional interaction (control) and Language interaction (treatment) groups on child Language Type variables as mea- sured by the number and proportion of non-solicited initiations, complex non-solicited initiations, direct responses to an adult initiation and complex direct responses to an adult initiation. The data relevant to these variables is presented in Table l. The Initiation Varigple, which is simply a measure of the runnber of unsolicited verbalizations by the child, is signifi- cuant to the .05 level on the overall F ratio for the proportion diJnensionS and on both the frequency and the proportion dimene sion for planned comparison 1 which contrasts the treatment 841d control groups. The null hypothesis is, therefore, re- jeetedo The Response Variable, which is simply a measure of the number of direct reSponseS by a child to an adult question or Statement, is Significant to the .05 level on the overall F r'a‘lzio for both the frequency and proportion dimensions. For Planned comparison 1 it is significant for the .05 level on 'tlme frequency dimension and to the .01 level on the proportion dimension. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. The Complex Initiation Vapiable, which is a measure of all initiations five or more words in length. is significant on the overall F ratio for the proportion dimension. It is 7O Hoo. fl *** Ho. H ** no. u * ***000. H *OHoo. mmm®.m COHPMoQOHm *mHo. H *Noso. Hams.m sescswcsm mmcommom KonEoo no. N attooo. H *OHoo. s:wo.m coHPpoaoam MNN. H Name. mem. scamsvonm :oHpmeHcH onQEOU *Noo. H *NHHo. NwNH.m coHpnomonm *mHo. H *mmso. momm.m scccsecea annoamom *HHo. H *domo. mNom.m SOHPpoaonm *MNo. H memo. damm.N hoseswmpm :oHpmeHcH zPHHHnmnoum wsomHquEoo thHHpmnonm oHpmm memHnm> e soc:MHm m m mmnm mmwe MU mHMBm MU¢DUZHpHmom SOHmmouaxm HOSOHpoem mCOHchmHaxm KOHano wmoOH\mme 3oz mpcm5opmpm xOHano wchmHmm COHPmponauoch COHpOOHmom COHPowpovcH HmcoHPmsnomsH mcoHpmcmHaxm mcHusposnpm mncmesoo mSOHPmoso pcceHO mePoe : PHSU< N PHsu< mePoa m PH5U¢ H vHso¢ HcccHHHccee CoHpomhoch mthm ommswcmq mBHbmd ZOHBU mHMem mUHpmwoz o>Hpo< novomumch :oHpmpcoEmHaeH mCoHpmsva HNpoSoO mcoHPNSPHm EmHnopm mmoeo ZOHBnmmno HHom no>aompo MHom sm>nmwno MHom Hm>ammpo COHPmmsa wchwm : Hopomnoch m nopomhoch N nopomnoch H nopomnmch MZOHemmDG ZOHaoHpoommm o>HpHmom .m m.m H.s m.m o.m H.m m.m 0.: O.N pHses an hmHamHO m>Hpommmm o>HpHmom .m MHcm um>uompo MHom um>uomno HHom no>nmmpo “Hem ao>nomno coHPmosa wchmm : uopomaoch m nopomumch N popomnovcH H HopomHOPCH mZOHBmMDG Bommm< m>HBHmom .mHDQmmom UZHBHpoommm o>Hpmwoz .OH m.N O.m m.m O.s N.m N.s s.m s.s :ch :SHommn EOHnonm CH wmooozm .w O.H H.: N.m O.H m.N N.H s.N O.N asouw cap :H mEOHnonm on can SOHPnsuwHQ .m m.N O.H O.N N.H O.H O.N O.N *O.H HHOON an HNHawHO o>Hpommmw o>prwoz .3 MHmm uo>uomno HHom am>ummno HHom nm>nomno HHmm uo>aowno COHpmosc wchmm a Hopomuoch m Hopomuoch N uopomnmpsH H nopomnoch MZOHBmMDG Bommm< m>HB omsmoon mameficm psopm mcHxCan mp.so> . . . mappwx 039 cam . . . 132 . . . mHPPHx 03» ecu . . . . . . mwon one Psonm ms wcHHHop who: 50% Pan Pong: mm; mam page mesmh wsHHHov mm; H Amy .mmon cap o>mn H .mmso: psouoHHHc m we mum: 50% .no AHV .omso: Hospocm PM mm; H .szp we wcHHHmP Comp o>.soz wcoH 5mm HH< Amv .cO mpuonm o>mc H Amy .20 mpnocm o>wn H .oum: amen wHHgo .Pmmm mcHow mH.soh newsman 50% 302 Amy .pmmm mac: ow m3 302 .EH: cmsoaaom and son use: was a: vow so» cam mac: ow op wCHow who: m3 vam was: .wcHzposom zHHMoH mm: page .mumnvo one nonpon p.20o m3 ow gown @500 use case m oxms .BOHm zHHmoH MCHow ocHH m :H mH mcozuo>m .Hmzm msohno>m mcHnmmH mH ppm: .wcHnons mH mcozum>m Amy .EHH .om m.pmH .oCon HHm ms m>de new mac: wcHow mp.mo:p mcHqupon mH ocohum>m Amy .msneooo ANV .mspeooo HHS .msncoou AHV .mEo: mcwow 03 mZOHamHmomz influence a child's language development: 1, Create a non-threatening, trusting environment so trfirt the child feels free to communicate. 2. Allow the child to initiate or freely respond to the zidult or another in the group with the adult as responder. 3, Use the opportunity to provide new input, use new :structures, suggest new ideas, etc. for the child. The goals and eXpected effects of meeting these conditions are as follows: 1, The atmosphere created should allow more open com- xnunication, thus the child has a chance to practice language already in the repertoire. 2, Allowing the child to initiate a verbalization makes the subject of the communication something that matters to the child: the adult as reSponder helps to validate this idea, feeling, etc., for the child; the result should be more involve- :nent, interest, enthusiasm etc., by the child. 3, Modeling new forms of language usage at every Oppor- 'tunity gives the child new input to help language development: 'this should result in.more complex and diverse communication zand language usage over the course of the program, This project takes the perspective that ”others“ have an important role in language development. It will attempt to 136 show that an adult can create an atmosphere that allows com- munication to take place. It will attempt to show that situa- tional variables under the control of the adult make a differ- Egg in such things as the amount of language used, its length and complexity, the number of child initiated verbalizations, and other key variables, Although research has shown that adult language to children in general has more impact on the child's language development than a peer's language, it has also been shown that the fo_rm of adult-child communication is quite diverse. It is my opinion that an adult does not automatically know how to talk to a child. Certain techniques have more influence than others and these can be quite easily learned and applied. The basic design of this project is to have "trained inter- actors” go to a day care center three days a week and interact with four children at a time for approximately one half hour per day, The program will continue for six weeks, part of which time will be a training session. The major purpose of this interaction will be to use different language techniques with the children. Part of the time interactors will be using what I call language interaction methods, part of the time they will con- centrate on using many more questions and a more structured approach. The groups will be observed at least three times during the course of the Project. The purpose of these obser- vations is to examine the nature of the interaction in each group and some behavioral characteristics that are occurring. 137 You are being provided with a training manual which thoroughly explains the goals, structure and function of the language interaction model. The manual also gives an explana— tion and examples of questioning procedures to be used on alternate days. For those of you doing the observations, there is also provided a manual explaining the categories used in the observation schedule. It is important that you read and become very familiar with these procedures. During the remainder of this session and during session two, this model will be explained, further examples will be given, some role-playing will be done, and some taped examples will be listened to. The following three sessions (3-5) will be in a day care center where you will have the opportunity to observe the children you'll be interacting with, to observe a demonstration of the type of interaction expected and to practice the techniques yourself. Feedback sessions will be held after these visits to the day care center. Following is an explanation of the five dimensions of the model. Function The model itself is based on an adaptation of Dr. Stollak's system of communication which is intended for use by parents. His major concerns are to maintain in the child a feeling of psychological safety and love and belongingness while still dealing with the many discipline and crisis intervention duties of parenthood. The parent should also be a model of controlled behavior and emotional expression. His system involves: 138 l. Reflecting back the actions of the child. 2. Offering surface interpretations of what the child may be feeling and thinking. 3. Telling the child how the adult feels for the purpose of relating the action to other actions and as a model of ex- pression. 4. Setting limits on behavior if necessary by telling what is expected of the child in the immediate situation. 5. Offering alternative behaviors and guidelines for behavior in the next situation. Instead of regarding the system as a way parents can deal with their children, the language interaction model proposed here is intended to stimulate language usage, and provide an opportunity to teach, i.e. label, eXpand, model language, ex- plain concepts, and mediate the environment. It also provides an opportunity for the child to practice language he already knows and to learn new usage. Major Goals 1. To maintain psychological safety needs--that is to make the child feel what he does is acceptable and worthy of the adult's attention. 2. To meet love and belongingness needs-~that is to make the child feel that what he does is worthwhile. 3. To develop an awareness of the self and of others-- by providing labels for emotions and feelings, the child's own feelings, and those of others. 139 4. To develop competence in interpersonal skills--that is to acquire the ability to express and to communicate with others. 5. To increase self-confidence, self-worth, and feelings of power over the environment. 6. To increase language usage ability through the oppor- tunity to hear and practice language for communication. This language interaction model uses any stimulus situation, eSpecially the child's own language or interests, as the begin- ning of a two-way language exchange. The adult first stimulates conversation by reacting to the child, and then uses the oppor- tunity to model language usage. Structure Following is a description of each of five different parts of the model. However, this is only a general description of the steps the interaction can go through. The actual content of what can be said is described in much more detail in the content section. It is also important to notice that although the interaction usually begins with reflection, following that, any other part of the model can be used. The more parts used in each interchange the better, but at least part of the model should be used in every adult-child interchange. A. Reflection of Actign: This involves simply stating what is going on or restating what the child has said. It usually involves simply noticing what the child is interested in. The purpose is to show that you are interested in what the child is doing and offer him a chance to react and become 140 involved in a conversation. ”You dropped that big block and it made a loud bang and knocked over those dolls. Oh, you're going to try it again." "You're handing me the ball and laugh- ing." In group situations, actions of any member of the group can be reflected. B. Interpretation: These are explanations of the child's action. It involves saying what you think the reasons behind them are, what you think the child is feeling or thinking, etc. Interpretations can also be related to other group members. It can be simple like "You think that's pretty funny" or "You tried to hurt me" or "You're angry about that." It may be more complicated and involve explanations such as "You laughed and are surprised because it made a bang and it sort of scared you at first: but everybody started looking at you so you want to try it again. I think you like to have people look at you." The purpose of this step is to provide labels for what the child is feeling and experiencing and help make sense of what's going on. It models language usage for eXplaining feelings and emotions and conveys a message that you care and understand. C. Relating: This involves relating the action to the Speaker, another adult, to other actions, or to the actions of other group members. This helps the child see that his action or interests are linked to other actions in the past, future and/or present, as well as to others in the group. It shows that they are legitimate because others have also done them and felt that way. The stimulus may be a problem or crisis situation such as a child causing a disturbance to get 141 attention. "It's really nice to get attention. I like people to notice me, too. I think everybody likes people to pay attention to them." Another example, "I saw you doing that yesterday, too. You threw the blocks down. I think you do that a lot to get attention." If the stimulus is not a prob- lem situation, relating can be about climbing or building with the blocks. "You stacked the blocks up so you could climb on them. John's climbing on them, too." The point is to legit- imize the action by relating it to something that is done by other people and to other actions in time. D. Limits and Alternatives--Problem Situatign: If the situation is a problem, a limit should be set. A limit is what the adult considers appropriate behavior or how far the child can go. For example, being angry is OK and understand- able but hitting is not. A proper time and place for the action may be prescribed, or the action may not be allowed at all. The child should be told how the adult and/or others feel and an alternative behavior should be offered. The purpose is to handle problems, be firm and authoritative, while still maintaining the psychological safety and belongingness needs of the child. It also serves as a model for handling emotional events, and appropriate behavior and expression during these events. ”I know you like to do that and you can get attention that way, but it might hurt the other kids (disrupt the room, etc.) and I don't want you to do that again. You can come to me and tug on my pants or make a sign and wave it at me in- stead, but no more throwing blocks." 142 A consequence of violating the limit may also be added such as not being able to play with that object or have free time, or some other punishment. However, ideally, punishment should be avoided if possible. E. New Ideas--Not angpoblem: If the situation is not a problem, new ideas and alternate uses of the object, or any additional feature or activity related to the stimulus should be offered. Again, the adult should say how he feels. This is related to Cazden's ”Extension” which adds a new idea to the child's comment. ”I like how you figured out that if you drop blocks they make noises. You really discovered something, maybe you can do other things with blocks, too, like build bridges (climb on them, make houses, pretend they are cars)." The example presented was a complicated monologue involv- ing a possible problem situation. The general model can apply to more routine and simple stimulus situations. For example, a boy looking at and pushing on a tree. A. Reflection: "You're really pushing hard on that tree. You keep walking around it and push- ing it. It doesn't move at all no matter how hard you push." B. Interpretation: "You wonder why it doesn't move. I think you're really surprised because other things move when you push them (chairs, toys, flowers). Trees have roots to go deep down and hold them in the ground, etc." 143 C. Relating: "I can't even push the tree over (can model same actions as child) and I'm bigger and stronger. Sometimes people cut them down in- stead. I wonder if you could move a smaller tree?" D. Not a problem-~doesn't apply. E. New Ideas: "I really like trees because they're pretty and they give shade if the sun's too hot. You can sit under them and climb in them. You know the wood in your house? That comes from trees. They cut them down and make boards out of them.” These monologues may appear long and complicated. How- ever, you don't often get a chance to carry one all the way through. Most of the time the child interrupts early in the sequence to offer his own interpretation or correct yours. These provide ngw stimulus situations and the sequence can begin over or continue. Often group members offer new ideas and the interaction changes direction. Content Each of the five steps described above can be as simple or complex as the situation warrants. However, whenever pos- sible they should be used as an opportunity to model language usage. This usage can be based on the following: 1. Concepts--either concrete or abstract: e.g., sun, trees, wind, nature as well as big/little: tall/short: right/ left/middle: fast/slow. 144 2. Relationships--any part of an object or concept that is linked together in some way: e.g. trees have roots in the ground that absorb moisture and leaves that catch the sun's rays: tree is the concept and a tree has roots and leaves which are related and linked to the concept. 3. Connections-~defined as related,but separate concepts: e.g. trees and rain are separate concepts but related in that a tree gggg rain: others are sun and leaves, food and growth, etc.: connections also have a second definition, i.e. any idea, concept, etc. related in time: e.g. yesterday . . . today . . . . 4. Conditional statements--these give reasons or condi- tions for occurrences: e.g. ii it rains 2222 the roots of the tree soak it up: flhgn the wind blows, the leaves move. 5. Expressionsinyolving emotions and feelings-~this involves interpreting and labeling feelings, e.g. ”You spilled your pop and you feel bad because you don't have any more.” 6. Information--this can be stating facts or explanations, e.g. "You use the ruler to make a straight line by placing it on the paper and using a pencil like thiS» ." There is another dimension to the content of the interaction. The main idea is to provide cognitivity complex models of lan- guage. Whenever possible, more complex sentences can be used. Instead of ”You dropped the ball," use ”You dropped the pretty green ball and it bounced.” When using rational concepts, say "The pretty, giant ball on the right is smaller than the one on the left.” 145 Although you rarely get to use every part of the model in any one interaction, knowledge of all the possibilities allows the adult to be flexible and adapt it to the situation. When more than one child is present many interests and com- ments can be reflected and interpreted and many connections and relationships can be made among and between group members. Often a whole group will respond to an adult over a long enough period of time to enable use of many parts of the model. In- teractions which allow the child to communicate and learn new language for usage are better than interactions which limit and restrict communication. This interaction.model is flex- ible enough to be employed in many situations which actually occur--problems, action events, and emotional displays--while still allowing the child to communicate. It also provides language usage models for use within those situations. It seems that this form of interaction should have a measurably different impact on the quality of the interaction than forms of communication that are more limiting and restricting. Session 2 The goals of this session are: 1. Answer questions about the language interaction methods and continue discussion of the model. 2. Give out examples of dialogues and discuss them: role- play additional dialogues. 3. Listen to and discuss audio-taped examples of adult- child language. 146 4. Inform the interactors about the practice sessions and review the purpose and goals of these sessions. Session 3 The goals of this session are: 1. Observe the children during their normal group sessions. 2. Discuss the interaction that took place and contrast it to language interaction techniques. Session 4 The goals of this session are:_ 1. Demonstrate the use of language interaction in a group setting. 2. Discuss the interaction that took place and any antic- ipated problems. Sessign_5 The goals of this session are: l. Practice session with day care children for each interactor employing language interaction techniques. 2. Discuss the practice session and any problems. 3. Review the purpose of the project and give out group assignments for the following week. Conclusion There will be a total of two weeks training for interactors-- approximately eight hours. Although this is a short period of time, part of the purpose of the study is to determine if inter- actors can be trained. Furthermore, the study is employing a 11:7 repeated measures design and data is being collected on the interactor as well as the child. This will allow for improve- ment by the interactors. Feedback will be given to the inter- actors throughout the project. APPENDIX E Session I 148 APPENDIX E ASSESSMENT TRAINING MANUAL OUTLINE 1. Overview of project 2. Introduction to assessment manual Session 2 a. Scoring categories--observation schedule 1. Discussion of scoring categories rules of thumb 2. Audio-tapes--practice 3. Use of examples--practice scoring Sessionn3 Day 1: Day 2: Day 3: Day 4: 2. In day care--observation of interaction a. Rate interaction b. Feedback session afterwards Demonstration of model, rate interactor, feedback session, also audio tapes Observe interactors, rate and audio tapes, feedback session Rate and reliability check 149 Obsegvation Schedule You will be observing interactions involving two of the children in the group and the adult. It will be necessary for you to identify several categories of behavior very quickly. You also need to record a short segment of the interaction in words (called key-words) so that the section can be identified on audio tapes of the interaction. There will be a two-week training period that will in- clude observations in a day care center. After this period, ratings will be collected a total of three times per each group. The first rating will occur during the first week of the project. Ratings will also be collected the third week and the fifth week. Raters will work in groups of two and will record all verbalizations of twp of the children in the group as well as the adult's. Child and group assignments will be rotated so you don't rate the same child or group any two times in succession. Recording of the interaction begins with either the adult or the child and includes the appropriate response. All ob- servers will rate the adult, record a segment of the inter- action, and indicate a general reSponse by the group, i.e. any response which cannot be identified as a reSponse by one specific child. Observers will also rate any verbalization fran their designated child. 150 Explanation of Categpries What Categories 1. Direct teaching--this involves attempts by the adult to structure a lesson concerning something the gggii wants to talk about: for purposes of this study direct teaching is any explanation (of actions, events, things, etc.) which are n2: child initiated. a. This verbalization can be simple or com- plex: simple is a one or two sentence verbalization while complex is several sentences in length. 2. Question--this is a direct question asked of the group or one child in particular for the purposes of gaining information. a. This can be either open or closed: open being a question with no specific correct answer, and closed having a definite answer. b. Questions may also be embedded in direct teaching: it is the judgment of the observer whether or not the question is separate from the teaching instance: if it follows an explanation and is asking about that explanation, it is part of the teaching instance, etc. 3. Order/Command/Direct Request--these are more or less evident: e.g., ”give me the crayon,” "come back to the table," ”sit down." 4. Expansion_£gactions--for the purposes of this study, ‘these are any reSponse by the adult to child initiated verbal- 151 izations or reactions to any child actions. They include any of the following: a. EXplanation of actions or occurrences b. EXplanation of feelings c. Reflection d. Interpretation e. Relating f. New ideas g. Expression of emotion or feelings These categories (a-g) correspond closely to the five dimensions of the language interaction model. Ngig: Remember, these are verbalizations in response to the child's initiated verbalizations or actions: they are mutually exclusive with direct teaching, questions, and orders. Furthermore, these will be analyzed in detail from the audio tapes--make sure you take down part of the interaction. 5. Qghg§--any unidentifiable adult verbalization should be coded other and part of the interaction recorded to allow audio-tape analysis. *For detailed explanations of a-g, see Audio Tape Schedule and Interaction Model. There are two levels to expansion reactions: (l) simple-- <>ne or two short sentences, and (2) expanded--three or more sentences or a long series of phrases or expressions. Situation Categories--Problem 6. Negative affect--the adult can show this in problem situations, includes scolding, admonishing, shaming, statements of anger accompanied with yelling, etc. 152 7. Tgoublesome--this is a judgment by the rater as to how well the adult handles a problem situation based on the amount of time Spent, the disturbance to others in the group, resolu- tion of the problem, etc. 8. Smooth--also a judgment based on the same evidence as in number 7. 9. Ignore--interactor does not deal with the problem. 10. Active handling--this includes recognizing the feel- ings of the child, setting limits, offering alternatives, etc., and will be analyzed further using audio tapes. See also inter- action model. Situation Categories-~General l. Enthusiastic, excited-~this is intended to be more of a display of positive affect than in the H category--evi- dence should be loud laughter, body movement, quick response. 2. Dramatic play--includes pretend play, role-playing, fantasy or even exaggerated displays of emotion that seem to indicate the person is momentarily assuming a role (but not actually role playing). 3. ngpy--this is a judgment of the observer based on evidence of positive affect such as smiling, laughing, bouyant mood: it is, however, not to include extreme excitement be- cause there is a separate category for this. 4. Unhappy--this is a judgment of the observer based on evidence such as frowning, listlessness, non-buoyant mood, frustration: it does not, however, include anger or more ex- treme displays of negative affect. 153 5. Negaiive affect—-this includes two levels, child and adult: for the child it includes crying, yelling, anger, tantrums, withdrawal and pouting: for the adult it includes scolding, admonishing, shaming, statements of anger, etc. Who Catggories l. R/I Designations--R = response: I = child initiated verbalization. 2. Re§ponse to direct question--this is a reSponse to an adult-asked question directed at the responding child. 3. Response to general question--child answers an adult- asked question not directed to that child. 4. Initiation--this is a child initiated verbalization and can be on two levels: (a) simple-~includes one or two short sentences, and (b) expanded--includes three or more sentences in a unit of verbalization. How Categories 1. Enthusiastig--refer to definitions above. 2. Dramatic playe-refer to definitions above. 3. figppy—-refer to definitions above. 4. Unhappy--refer to definitions above. 5. Nggative aifect--refer to definitions above. The front cover of your observation package has a series of ratings on a five-point scale. Number 1 on the scale means low occurrence of the indicated variable. Number 5 is a high occurrence. Immediately after the group session, please rate the adult and each assigned child on each item. Also fill in the identification information on the cover Sheet. 154 1. interaction refers to the amount of actual "give and take” communication that occurs between members of the group. Base your rating on instances of verbalization which respond to a statement by another group member. Also consider the amount of communication going on in the group. 2. Positive affect refers to instances of smiling, laughing, and buoyant mood observed. 3. Negative affect--See negative affect in exPlanation of Situation Categories. 4. Problems refers to the number and extent of problem situations that occurred during the session. Session 2 The goals of this session are: l. Discuss scoring categories and decision rules for determining simple or expanded initiations or reSponseS, etc. 2. Practice with example dialogues using many examples from that model training manual and the supplement examples. 3. Practice with audio tapes of actual adult-child dia- logue, especially in recording key words of the dialogue. Nppg: Practice with dialogues is intended to give the rater some experience rating. Simple and expanded verbaliza- tions and other WHAT category designations before actually observing in the center. Sessionsn3:5 Sessions 3-5 will involve observation in the day care center and feedback sessions immediately afterwards. 155 The goals of Session 3 are: 1. To observe regular teachers in the day care center and rate their interaction. 2. To get feedback as to the accuracy of the observations made--concentration will be on key-word recordings and basic WHAT designation recordings. The goals of Session 4 are: 1. To observe language interaction techniques and to rate the interactor on WHAT, SITUATION and HOW designations as well as key-word recording. 2. To get feedback on the observations and recordings. The goals of Session 5 are: 1. To observe, record and rate trained interactors and children in groups of four. 2. To get feedback. Session 6 This session will serve as the first rating session of the project and the data collected will be analyzed for re- liability. BIBLIOGRAPHY Halliday, M., Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edwin Arnold, 1973. Hamachek, D., "Toward Developing A Healthy Self-Image." In D. Hamachek (Ed. ) Human Dynamics in Psychology and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. Hess, R. D. and Shipman, V., "Early Experiences and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Children," Child Development, 36, 869- 886, 1965. Hubbell, R., "On Facilitating Spontaneous Talking in Young Children," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 219-220. Hymes, D., Foundations in Socio Linguistics:__An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press , 1971+. Jackson, P. W., Life in Class;poms. New York: Holt, 1968. Kelly, E., ”The Fully Functioning Self.” In D. Hamachek (Ed.) Human Dynamics in Psychology and Educapipn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. Kennedy, Mary M., "Findings From the Follow-Through Planned Variation Study," Educational Researchgp, 1978, 6, 3-11. Lazar, I. and Darlington, R., "Lasting Effects of Preschool, Final Report,” NEW Grant 90C-1311 to the Educational Commission of the States, 1977. Liberman, M., and Stollak, G. E., and Denner, B., ”Assessment of Family Play Interaction.” Pater presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, 1971. Miller, L. and Dyer, J., ”Four Preschool Programs: Their Dimensions and Effects," Monographs of the Society for Resegpchin Child Development, 1975. Moerk, E., "A Design for Multivariate Analysis of Language Behavior and Language Development," Language and Speech. 1974. _1: PP. 240-254. 156 157 Moustakas, Clark, Psychothppapy With Children. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Nelson, K., ”Structure and Strategy in Learning to Talk," Monographs of the Society_ipp_§g§p§ppp_iniChild Develop- mentTII49, Vol. 3, 1973. Nelson, K., "Early Speech in Its Communicative Context." Unpublished review, 1976. Nowicki, 8., Duke, M., ”A Preschool and Primary Internal- External Control Scale,” Development Psychology, 1974, 10(6), 87u-8800 Reif, T. R., and Stollak, G. E., ”Sensitivity to Young Children: Training and Its Effects,” East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1972. Ringler, Norma, et al., "Mother-to-Child Speech at Two Years-— Effects of Early Post Natal Contact," Behavioral Pedi- atrics, 1975, 86,141-144. Rogers, C., "To Be the Self Which One Truly IS: A Therapist's View of Personal Goals." In D. Hamachek (Ed.) Human Dynamics in Psychology and Education. Schacter, E., Kirshner, K., Klips, B., Friedericks, M., and Sanders, K., ”Everyday Preschool Interactive Speech Usage: Methodological, Developmental and Sociological Studies," Monographs of the Societ for Research in Child Develo - ment, Serial Number 15 , 1974} Shatz, M. and Gelman, R., “The Development of Communication Skills: Modifications in the Speech of Young Children As A Function of Listener," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1973.1 Stallings, J., ”Implementation and Child Effects of Teaching Practices in Follow-Through Classrooms," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1975, Vol. 40, 7- 8. Stenroos, Carol J., ”Creativity and Language: Psycholinguistics Dimensions of Developing Gifted Children,” Roepep:Review, 1979 v E! 18'19 0 Stollak, G. E., "Learning to Communicate With Children,” Children Toda ,l975,4 _, 12-14. White, B. L. and Watts, J. C., Experience and Environment: Major Influences of the Development of the YoungyChild. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 158 Wittrock, M. C., ”The Cognitive Movement in Education,” Educational Researcher, 1979, 8, 5-10. Wood, Barbara, Verbal and Nonverbal Language Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, pp. 46-56, 132-39, 160-62. IES ”Iillfinjzilujllll’fiflll‘llfifl"