 

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

CHILDREN’S SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND THE
DEVELOPMENTAL APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

presented by

Erica Celeste Poindexter

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

M A degree in Child Development

 

 

7
.1, I
.i’
l , ~"t '/ A
- J- '

 

Major rJrofessor’s Signature
I l/ . 4%; ¢
I ’ I

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

090900782£389

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8/01 Ct/CIRC/DaIeDuepBSvaS

ﬁ—— _.V

CHILDREN’S SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND THE DEVELOPMENTAL
APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

By

Erica Celeste Poindexter

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2004

Professor Anne K. Soderman

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN’S SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND THE DEVELOPMENTAL
APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

By
Erica Celeste Poindexter

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between teachers’
developmentally appropriate practices observed in kindergarten classrooms and
children’s social competency skills. Using the Assessment of Practices in Early
Elementary Classrooms (APEEC) and the Pre-K/Kindergarten Social Competency Scale
(PK/K-S), this study examined the inﬂuences of teachers’ physical environment,
instructional context, and social context on children’s levels of social competence. One
hundred and sixty-six kindergarten children and 11 kindergarten teachers in an urban,
Midwest school district participated in this study. As would be expected, a paired t-test
indicated a positive change in children’s social competency skills over the course of the
academic school year. A multiple regression analysis showed a signiﬁcant relationship
between children’s social competency scores in November and teachers’ scores on the
APEEC. However, a second analysis indicated there were no statistically signiﬁcant
relationships between children’s social competence and teachers’ scores on the APEEC
in May. It is believed that teachers’ problematic scoring of the PK/K-S may have
contributed to this non-signiﬁcant relationship. Implications for future studies strongly
persuade researchers to have more than one observer complete the PK/K-S. It is also
suggested that additional demographic information for each child’s SES status,
temperamental style, and disability level be collected in order to help identify which

individual characteristics may be related to social competence.

To all of the people who believed in me and never lost faith that I would achieve success.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and love to my
family. Without them, I would not have made it this far. Their support, guidance, love,
and motivation has lifted me and inspired me beyond belief.

Daddy, thank you for believing in me and supporting me. Through all of this, you
have always been a positive voice of reason.

Clifford, thank you for the late nights, motivational speeches, last minute e-mails,
and endless laughs.

Shawn, thanks for never giving up on me, and never letting me give up on myself.
Your harsh but loving taste of reality was exactly what I needed to stay focused.

Mom, thanks for giving me the gift of patience, because I needed it now more
than ever. Thanks for sharing your love for children, and uplifting smiles. Although you
are not physically here, I know you have never left my side. Thanks for continuing to
shine your rays of hope, through those somewhat cloudy days.

To each of you...THANK YOU and I LOVE YOU!!!

Second, I would like to my mentor and advisor, Dr. Anne K. Soderman, who
envisioned my path of success and directed and guided me with undoubted hope through
my journey at Michigan State University. Thank you for envisioning my future and
seeing me through. You are truly a blessing and an inspiration.

I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Tom Luster and Dr.
Darrell Meece, for their support, patience, and encouragement. Your comments and

assistance helped to carry me through this.

iv

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the faculty members at the MSU Child
Development Lab that supported me and guided me through all of this. Your kindness
and expertise has profoundly impacted my life, as well as enhanced my passion for

working with young children. Thanks for believing in me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

_P_ag§
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 3
Signiﬁcance of the Study ........................................................................... 3
Conceptual Models .................................................................................. 8
Research Questions ................................................................................. 10
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions ......................................................... 11
Assumptions .......................................................................................... 12
Summary ............................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER II .
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................... 14
Social Competence ......................................................................... 14
Inﬂuences on Social Competence .......................................................... 14
Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) ......................................... 23
Components of DAP ........................................................................ 25
Summary .................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER III
METHODS ........................................................................................... 30
Research Design ............................................................................ 3O
Participants .................................................................................. 30
Research Questions ........................................................................ 31
Measures .................................................................................... 31
Pre-K/Kindergarten Social Competency Scale (PK/K-S) ................... 31
Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms (APEEC) ...... 32
Data Collection Procedure ................................................................ 34
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 35
Limitations .................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS ............................................................................................ 38
Reliability-intemal Consistency of PK/K-S ............................................. 38
RQl: Do teacher ratings of children’s social competence vary depending on
demographic variables, such as gender and ethnicity? ...................... 39
RQ2: Do children’s social competency skills change over the course of the
school year? .......................................................................... 40

vi

RQ3: How do kindergarten children’s social competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their teacher’s physical environment scores
obtained on the Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms
(APEEC)? ........................................................................... 41

RQ4: How do kindergarten children’s social competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their teacher’s instructional context scores
obtained on the APEEC? ......................................................... 42

RQS: How do kindergarten children’s social competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their teacher’s social context scores
obtained on the APEEC? .......................................................... 43

RQ6: How do kindergarten children’s social competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their teacher’s total score obtained on the

APEEC? ........................................................................... 43

Summary of Data ........................................................................... 44
CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 48

Implications for Practice and Future Research ......................................... 54

APPENDIX A: Pre-K/Kindergarten Social Competency Scale (PK/K-S) ............. -.....56

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 58

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Gender and Age of Children ........................................................... 30
Table 2. Ethnicity of Children .................................................................... 31
Table 3. Reliability Analysis of PK/K-S ........................................................ 38

Table 4. T-Test for differences between males and females in November and May......39

Table 5. Results of a One-Way ANOVA analysis of variance for ethnicity in children’s
PK/K-S scores ........................................................................ 40

Table 6. Paired T-Test: Social competency scores in November and May ................. 41

Table 7. Multiple Regression Analysis: Physical environment as a predictor of
kindergarten children’s social competence ....................................... 42

Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis: Instructional context as a predictor of
kindergarten children’s social competence.......................................42

Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis: Social context as a predictor of kindergarten

children’s social competence ....................................................... 43
Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis: Total scores on the APEEC as a predictor of

kindergarten children’s social competence ....................................... 44
Table 11. Summary of Findings ................................................................. 46
Table 12. PK/K-S measured in November ...................................................... 50
Table 12. PK/K-S measured in November ...................................................... 51

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Ecology of Social Competence ................................................... 9

Figure 2. The Ecology of Social Competence As It Applies To This Study ................ 10

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Social competence is an evaluative term deﬁned as the ability to function
effectively in society appropriate to your age (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2004).
More speciﬁcally, it refers to the overall quality and adequacy of the behavior one
displays in his or her interactions with others. This term reﬂects the judgments people
make about behavior, especially in regard to teacher expectations, peer acceptance,
social-emotional regulation, and communication (Landy, 2002). In order to achieve
social competence, one must possess the skills that meet the demands of the people with
whom he or she interacts with on a daily basis. (Knapczyk & Rodes, 1996; McFall,
1982). It is the development of these skills that have been linked to children’s levels of
happiness, success, popularity, and satisfaction. It is also stated that children who learn
to develop these positive social relations have more positive social relationships, which in
turn allows them to achieve greater school success (Pellegrini & Glickman, 1990; Bemdt
& Keefe, 1995; Kostelnik et al., 2002).

In the classroom environment, caregivers and teachers are thought to impact
children’s social competence in a variety of ways. Examples include: how they instruct
children; how they model social behaviors and attitudes; how they plan the physical
environment; how they formulate routines; and how they discipline children (Kostelnik et
al., 2002). In fact, the way in which these strategies are implemented could result in a
social learning environment that enhances or inhibits children’s developing attitudes and

behaviors associated with social competence (Kostelnik et al., 2002). More speciﬁcally,

it can be concluded that the developmental appropriateness of the environment is
extremely important in relation to enhancing children’s social competence.

The term “developmentally appropriate practice” or DAP refers to the decisions
made about the well-being and education of young children on the basis of three
important sources of knowledge (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Kostelnik, Soderman, &
Whiren, 2004): what teachers know about how children develop and learn; what teachers
know about the strengths, needs, and interests of individual children; and what they know
about the social and cultural contexts in which children live. According to the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), there are certain distinct
attributes that can be found in all developmentally appropriate programs. For example,
all DAP programs provide “a safe and nurturing environment that promotes the physical,
social, emotional, aesthetic, intellectual, and language development of each child while
being sensitive to the needs and preferences of families” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997,
p.8). Furthermore, all DAP programs are based on the notion that children learn by
actively constructing their own knowledge through interacting with peers, adults, and
materials, with educational decisions being guided by questions relating to age,
individual, social, and cultural experiences (Jones & Gullo, 1999). In fact, the core idea
behind DAP is that “the child is the basic unit of the curriculum” (Jambunanthan, Butts,
& Pierce, 1999, p. 167). Incorporating these developmental guidelines into the teaching
practices used in elementary classrooms were found to lead to fewer negative social
behaviors, better problem solving skills, and more cooperation in children than those

enrolled in a more traditional classroom (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2004).

The Purpose of the Study
The pugpose of this study is to investigate the relationship that exists between

teachers’ developmentally appropriate practices observed in kindergarten classrooms and
children’s social competency skills. More speciﬁcally, this study will determine if
certain aspects of the classroom, including the physical environment, instructional
context, and social context relate to children’s social competency.

Significance of Study
The term DAP, adopted by NAEYC (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), was

speciﬁcally designed to raise the quality of curriculum and program practices for all
young children (Raines & Johnson, 2003). Particularly, it was designed to ensure that the
child was the basic unit of the curriculum (Jambunanthan, Burts, & Pierce, 1999). All
aspects of the program were to revolve around the physical, social, emotional, and
intellectual needs of the child, while also ensuring that the child was in a safe and
organized environment (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Several studies were designed to assess the effects associated with DAP.
Speciﬁcally, studies pertaining to the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten
teachers’ beliefs and practices and those examining the social and academic effects of
DAP have concluded that curricular approaches that incorporate developmentally
appropriate practices have led to positive educational outcomes (Jones & Gullo, 1999;
Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Hernandez, 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson,
Mosley, & Fleege, 1993; Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, DeWolf, Ray, Mauel, & Fleege,
1993; Maroon, 1992; Sherman & Mueller, 1996). In terms of gender and ethnicity,
studies have shown that DAP has been shown to have positive effects on academic and

behavioral outcomes, as well as alleviating stress-related behaviors of lower

socioeconomic, non-mainstream, non-European, and male students (Hart, Burts, Durland,
Charlesworth, DeWolf, & F leege, 1998; Bloch, 1992; Carmella, 1997; Powell & Lawton,
1992; Jipson, 1991; Kessler, 1991a, 1991b; Kessler & Swadener, 1992; Lubeck, 1994;
Ludlow & Berkeley, 1994; O’Loughlin, 1992; Walsh, 1991).

Despite all of the reports stating the positive effects related to DAP, much work
still remains in order to increase the implementation of DAP and advocate the importance
of it in relation to the development of young children. In fact, developmentally
appropriate practices are still not the norm in early childhood education programs (Dunn
& Kontos, 1997; Raines & Johnson, 2003). Since it is unclear why the majority of early
childhood programs are not implementing DAP, one of the intentions of this study is to
further examine the usefulness of DAP. In addition to determining its importance, this
study is also designed to add to the literature available regarding the relationship that
exists between developmentally appropriate practices used in kindergarten classrooms
and children’s social competence.

Much research exists linking DAP with socioemotional and cognitive
development; however, fewer studies exist that examine the relationship between DAP
and social development. Based on this information and the scarcity of research found
pertaining to this issue, there is a great need to further study the outcomes that
developmentally appropriate practices has on the development of young children,

especially in regards to social competence.

Conceptual Framework

Human ecology theory was chosen as an appropriate framework for analyzing the
relationship that exists between kindergarten children’s level of social competence and
the developmental appropriateness of their classroom environment. The basis of human
ecology theory suggests that the quality of one’s life depends mainly on the interaction
and interdependence that humans have with their environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).
Several characteristics that help to describe the quality of one’s life include but are not
limited to: safety, support, aesthetics, and satisfaction (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Of
interest in this study was the developmental appropriateness of the classroom context and
its relationship to kindergarteners’ developing social competence.

In human ecology theory, the well-being of individuals cannot be considered apart
from the well-being of the whole ecosystem (Bulboz & Sontag, 1993). In other words,
one must closely examine the surrounding environments in which the individual interacts,
in order to identify their existing relationships. More speciﬁcally, to gain a better
understanding of behavior and development in relation to one’s environment, an
ecological analysis should be conducted based on Bronfenbrenner’s four interdependent
organizational systems (1979; 1989; Griffore & Phenice, 2001). These systems include,
the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. For the purposes
of this study, the microsystem of the classroom was chosen as the unit of analysis,
consisting of a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the
developing persons (in this study, the children and the teachers) in a given setting (in this

study, the classroom) with particular physical, instructional, and material characteristics,

that may limit or promote development (in this study, social competence)
(Bronfenbrenner, 1993; Thomas, 2000).

Evidence shows that children are signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by the microsystem in
which they live, especially in terms of social competence (Kostelnik, et a1. 2002). The
family unit, which is the primary system in which children interact, provides them with
their earliest social relationships that prepare them for the social world. It is the settings
located in the microsystems beyond the home, that peers, relatives, caregivers and
teachers provide additional opportunities for social learning (Kostelnik et al. 2002). In
fact, a signiﬁcant amount of social learning occurs at school, where children interact with
peers of the same age. Through peer relationships, children learn concepts of reciprocity
and equity; consequences of their behavior for both themselves and others; the
appropriateness of their actions; and how to modify their behavior according to the
feedback they receive from their peers. Teachers also have a crucial role in promoting
children’s social competence (Clarke-Stewart, Gruber, & Fitzgerald, 1994; Kostelnik et
al., 2002). Strategies related to how they instruct, formulate routines, discipline, plan the
physical environment, and model social behaviors and attitudes, either enhance or inhibit
children’s developing attitudes and behaviors associated with social competence
(Kostelnik et al., 2002).

Based on this theoretical framework, a conceptual model was designed to show
the ecological development of social competency based on the interactions that the
children have within their microsystems. Figure 1 illustrates the broad range of
biological and environmental inﬂuences that contribute to the development of children’s

social competence. Figure 2, on the other hand, illustrates the conceptual model of the

actual inﬂuences of social competence that were examined in this study. This ﬁgure
looks speciﬁcally at how the teacher and classroom environment inﬂuences children’s

social competence.

Figure 1: The Ecology of Social Competence

 

 

F Emu mmcg W
Provides children with: F W 1
- Their earliest social Impacts children’s social
relationships competence through:
(Attachments) I Instruction
I Manners, views, beliefs, - Interaction: modeling
& ideas deemed appropriate social
k acceptable by society J \ behavior& attitudes J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(INDIXQQAL INFLQEQEN
9"” Innate duracteristics
impacting the development of:
- Temperament
- Communication skills

\ J
(mam,mngm\

Provides a safe environment
where children:

- Build social
relationships and peer
sociability

' Enhance language
development

\ J
’ F 2m mm \
Promotes understanding of:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\w ' “WWW

emotions, motives, &
intentions
- The consequences
resulting ﬁ'om one’s
behavior
Key: On Page 9 /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.i
gt;
é

 

 

 

 

 

(

 

Figure 2: The Ecology of Social Competence As It Applies To This Study

 

 

Impacts children’s social
competence through:
I Instruction
I Interaction: modeling
appropriate social
behavior& attitudes
I Planning the physical

 

k environment

/ TEACHE LUEN E\

 

 

j _

 

E) =Unit of Analysis

MT= Connection

 

 

 

Research Questions

This study will address the following research questions:

Research Question I : Do teacher ratings of children’s social competence vary
depending on demographic variables, such as gender and
ethnicity?

Research Question 2: Do children’s social competency skills change over the
course of the school year?

Research Question 3 .' How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s physical environment scores obtained on the
Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms
(APEEC)?

Research Question 4: How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s instructional context scores obtained on the
APEEC?

Research Question 5 .' How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s social context scores obtained on the APEEC?

Research Question 6: How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their

teacher’s total score obtained on the APEEC?

10

Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions

Social competence. Generally, social competence can be deﬁned as the ability to
function effectively in society appropriate to your age (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren,
2004). However, deﬁnitions of social competence tend to vary from one society to
another. In the United States, children who are socially competent are viewed as being
responsible, independent, friendly, cooperative, purposeful, and self-controlled
(Baumrind, 1995; Kostlenik, et al. 2002). Based on these characteristics, this study
conceptually deﬁnes children’s social competence as the overall quality and adequacy of
the behavior one displays in his or her interactions in regards to teacher expectations,
peer acceptance, social-emotional regulation, and communication (Landy, 2002;
Knapczyk & Rodes, 1996).

For this study, social competence is operationally deﬁned as teacher ratings of
children’s social competency skills as scored on the Pre-K/Kindergarten Social
Competency Scale (PK/K-S) (Soderman, 2002).

Developmental appropriateness of the classroom environment. The
developmental appropriateness of the classroom environment is conceptually deﬁned by
the National Association for the Education of Young Children (N AEYC) as an
environment in which teachers recognize the importance of, and integrate the following
practices into their classroom: (1) knowledge about children and how they develop and
learn, (2) knowledge about individual children in their group, (3) knowledge about the
social and cultural context in which children live and learn, and (4) knowledge about
curriculum planning, recognizing that the curriculum should be integrated, including

knowledge and skills from all domains of development (Bredekamp and Copple, 1997).

11

For this study, developmental appropriateness of the children’s classroom
environment is operationally deﬁned as an observational rating of kindergarten teacher’s
performance as scored on the Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms
(APEEC) (Hemmeter et al., 2001). The scales used in the APEEC were categorized
according to: physical environment, instructional context, and social context.
Assumptions

The assumptions on which this study is based are:

1. The scores given by the teachers on the PK/K-S are valid.

2. The scores received on the PK/K-S will vary by gender and ethnicity.

3. The scores given by the observers on the APEEC are valid.

4. Children come to school with varying skills of social competence.

5. Teachers have different perceptions of a developmentally appropriate classroom.

6. The Pre-K/K-S measures social competence.

7. Children’s interactions outside of the classroom also contribute to their level of
social competence.

8. Throughout the course of the school year, children’s social competency scores can
change both positively and negatively.

Summary

This study was designed to analyze the relationship that exists between children’s
social competence in November and May and the developmental appropriateness of their
classroom environment. The human ecological theory used as the conceptual framework
for this study proposes that in order to understand children’s behavior and development,

children must be examined within the environment in which they interact. Based on this

12

framework, a conceptual model was designed to illustrate the inﬂuences within children’s
classroom environments that contributes to their level of social competence. More
speciﬁcally, the model that applies to this study examined how children’s interactions
with their teacher and their classroom environment inﬂuenced their development of
social competence.

The following chapter includes a literature review of related research.
Information pertaining to the methodology is located in Chapter III. The results of this
study will be presented in Chapter IV and discussions and implications for practice and

for future research will be presented in Chapter V.

13

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Competence

The goal of this research is to determine how social competency relates to the
developmental appropriateness of the classroom environment. Social competence is an
evaluative term deﬁned as the ability to function effectively in society appropriate to your
age (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2004). This term reﬂects the judgments people
make about behavior, especially in regards to teacher expectations, peer acceptance,
social-emotional regulation, and communication (Landy, 2002). Other behaviors
associated with social competence include: adopting social values, developing a sense of
personal identity, acquiring interpersonal skills, learning how to regulate personal
behavior in accordance with societal expectations, planning and making decisions, and
developing cultural competence (Kostelnik, et al. 2002). Past research has concluded that
social competence is an important asset capable of successfully facilitating a child’s
adjustment to school (Bates, Luster, & Vandenbelt, 2003). However, as additional
research will show, a child’s success rate also depends heavily on the existence and
quality of environmental factors such as peers, family, and teacher inﬂuences. Other
individual characteristics that children possess also contribute to their level of
competence. Research speciﬁcally targets biological factors such as temperament,
communication skills, and the status of one’s health, as potential genetic inﬂuences.
Inﬂuences of Social Competence

Peer Influences. One inﬂuence that helps to determine a children’s level of social

competence is the relationship they have with their peers. The more children interact

14

with others of the same age group at school, the more social learning occurs (Kostelnik et
al. 2002). Through peer relationships, children learn concepts of reciprocity and equity;
conﬂict resolution and problem solving; an understanding of other’s thoughts, emotions,
motives, and intentions; and an evaluation of the appropriateness of their actions
(Kostelnik et al., 2002; Santrock, 2000a). In fact, there is a general consensus in the
literature that making friends, keeping friends, and being friends with others are
important indices of social competence during childhood (Vaughn, Colvin, Azria, Caya,
& Krzysik, 2001; Bemdt, 1989, 1996; Bukowski, Newcomb & Hartup, 1996; Hartup,
1996a; Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Parker & Asher, 1993; Parker, Rubin, Price, &
DeRosier, 1995; Vaughn, Azria, Krzysik, Caya, Bost, Newell, & Kazura, 2000).
Furthermore, interactions with friends tend to be associated with social competence in
ways that interactions with non-ﬁiend acquaintances are not (Vaughn et al. 2001;
Azmitia & Montgomery, 1993; Hartup, 1996b; Ladd & Kochenderfer, 1996; Newcomb
& Bagwell, 1995, 1996). Research shows that children who lack friends and acceptance
by peers are less likely to experience social success, and adjust well to school (Kostelnik
et al., 2002; Ladd & Kochendefer, 1996). Studies have found that kindergarteners whom
their peers victimized, or who were aggressive toward others, had more school-
adjustment problems, including school difﬁculties, delinquency, and drug abuse. On the
other hand, children who entered school with ﬁiends, who were well liked, and who were
able to make and sustain new friendships, were noted as being able to initiate positive
relationships with teachers. These children tend to feel more positive about school,
participate in school more, and have higher achievements than children not as friendly or

able to establish friendships (Denham et al. 2003; Gagnon, Craig, Tremblay, Zhou &

15

Vitaro, 1995; Haapasalo & Tremblay, 1994; Ladd & Kochenderfer, 1996; Tremblay,
Pagani-Kurtz, Masse, Vitaro, & Pihl, 1995). Overall, studies ﬁnd that children who are
able to establish positive peer relationships are more likely to be successful in school and
in other aspects of life (Kostelnik et al., 2002; Birch & Ladd, 1996; Kontos & Wilcox-
Herzog, 1997).

Family Inﬂuences. The primary function of a family, no matter the type, is to be
responsible for providing children with physical needs, nurturance, and skills for
socialization (Kostelnik et al., 2002; Goldsmith, 1999). As children’s ﬁrst teachers,
families provide children with their earliest social relationships, models for behaviors and
roles, a framework for values and beliefs, and intellectual stimulation (Kostelnik et-al.,
2002; Bobbitt & Paolucci, 1986). They also introduce children to environments outside
of the home, like school. Essentially, it is the continued interactions that the family has
with these environments (i.e. school) that make the difference in children’s development.

In a study conducted by Taylor and Machida (1994), studying the contributions
of parent involvement in Head Start children’s school adjustment, ﬁndings showed that
supportive personal relationships between children and their parents helped children
better adapt to the school environment. Another study found that family support was a
predictor of children’s teacher-rated competencies and that gains over time in family
support were predictive of improved behavioral adjustment in school (Taylor & Machida,
1994; Dubow, Tisak, Causey, Hyroshko, & Reid, 1991). Reynolds’ (1989; Taylor &
Machida, 1994) also concluded that teacher-rated parental involvement in school was

predictive of early academic achievement and social maturity in low-income and at-risk

16

children. Overall, it was established that parent involvement has a signiﬁcant impact on
children’s social and emotional development.

Teacher Inﬂuences. Teacher inﬂuences are described as affecting children’s
social competence in a variety of ways. The strategies that teachers use to instruct, model
social behaviors, plan, and discipline, all help either to enhance or restrain children’s
developing attitudes and behaviors associated with social competence (Kostelnik et al.,
2002). For example, in classrooms described as having a positive and child-centered
social atmosphere, children displayed increased problem-solving skills, more
cooperation, and less stress in comparison to children in strict, teacher-directed
classrooms (Kostelnik, et al. 2002; Burts etal., 1992; Dunn & Kontos, 1997). Children
in child-centered classrooms also tended to have more positive teacher relationships.
Children who are able to establish these positive teacher-child relationships are noted as
being more sociable, engaging in more complex play, and behaving more ﬂexibly than
children who have negative or detached relationships with their teachers (Kostelnik, et al.
2002; Elicker & Fortner-Wood, 1997).

There are certain characteristics associated with teachers and their relationships
with children that have been linked to the development of the child outcomes stated
above. Some of these characteristics include the sensitivity of teacher’s interactions;
dimensions of warmth/security/, anger/dependence, and anxiety/security; and dimensions
of closeness, dependency, and conﬂict (Birch & Ladd, 1997). A study conducted by
Birch and Ladd (1997) determined the levels of signiﬁcance that existed between
closeness, dependency, and conﬂict, in teacher-child relationships. Closeness, which

encompassed a degree of warmth and open communication between the teacher and

17

child, was found to signiﬁcantly support children in the school environment. Teacher’s
warmth was associated with children’s positive behaviors and attitudes towards school,
and open communication with the classroom teacher encouraged children to become
involved and engaged in school. The degree of dependency or clinginess that children
displayed towards the teacher, contrasted with closeness, and resulted in the children
being less tentative in their explorations of their school environment and in their social
interactions. Last, conﬂictual teacher-child relationships, which was characterized by
discordant interactions and a lack of rapport between the teacher and the child, was found
to foster feelings of anger and anxiety in children, often leading children to feelings of
alienation, loneliness, and negative attitudes toward school. (Birch & Ladd, 1997) -
Temperament. In addition to the biological inﬂuences mentioned above, research
also ﬁnds genetic inﬂuences to be contributing factors in the development of children’s
social competence. Temperament, which is often described as the “core” of one’s
personality, is an inborn set of brain systems that regulates emotional intensity, reactivity,
and attentional focus (Evangelista, 2002; Teglasi, 1997; and Rothbart & Jones, 1998). In
general, this term is used to describe differences in children or in their behavioral styles
(Landy, 2002; Chess & Thomas, 1996). According to Thomas and Chess (1977) there
are three major types of temperamental styles associated with children. (1) The difficult
child is described as having irregular and unpredictable routines; intense reactions; and
often displays a lot of negative moods. (2) The easy child has a regular and predictable
routine; readily approaches new things; shows a mild degree of reaction; and exhibits
positive moods. (3) The slow-to-warm-up or shy child usually withdraws in new

situations; has a low activity level; and also displays a lot of negative moods. It has been

18

found that once children display one of these styles, the characteristics associated with
them usually remain stable over time. With this in mind, Thomas and Chess (1977) have
coiled the term, “goodness of ﬁt.” This term is used to emphasize the importance of the
relationship between the child’s temperament and elements of his or her environment.
Because friction can arise between a child’s temperamental style and the values and
personality of his or her parent or caregiver, it is important that a “good ﬁt” exists. In
fact, it is the “goodness of ﬁt” that exists between the child’s temperament and his or her
environment that is an important determinant in the child’s developmental outcomes
(Landy, 2002).

Goodness of F it. The “goodness of ﬁt” model examines the relationship between
the individual characteristics of the child, such as capacities and styles of behavior with
the expectations and demands of the environment. It is the congruence between these
expectations and child characteristics that determine the ﬁt of the child to the
environment. This ﬁt is ultimately associated with the development of social competence
(De Schipper, Tavecchio, Van Ijzendoorn, & Van Zeijl, 2004).

In terms of teacher-child relationships, the “goodness of ﬁt” is determined by how
well the teacher is able to adapt his or her expectations and teaching styles to ﬁt the needs
and temperament of the child. In the APEEC used in this study, this was addressed in
question 13, which addressed if teacher’s expectations of children’s behaviors were
appropriate for their age and abilities. Research has found that accommodating the
child’s needs usually results in positive adaptive outcomes (Churchill, 2003). In a study
focusing on middle schoolers’ temperaments and their teachers’ expectations in the

classroom, researchers found that the ﬁt between the child and the teacher related to

19

teacher ratings of competence, as well as standardized tests of achievement (Churchill,
2003; Lerner & Lerner, 1983; Lerner, Lerner, & Zabski, 1985; Talwar, Nitz, & Lerner,
1990). In another study examining the goodness of ﬁt between Head Start teachers and
preschool children, results concluded that the “ﬁt” signiﬁcantly related to children’s
social development. More importantly, both child cognition and social outcomes were
found to be the result of the “goodness of ﬁt” between teacher and child (Churchill,
2003)

Individual Inﬂuences. In addition to children’s temperamental styles, there are
other individual characteristics that inﬂuence children’s social development. Two
inﬂuences include having developmental delays or disorders and the child’s ability to
communicate. For example, children who are identiﬁed as having developmental delays
require intervention services to help them function within the domains of cognition,
communication, physical development, psychosocial development, or adaptive or self-
care. Children with developmental delays in one of the above domains often lag behind
the norms associated with their chronological age. Although there are many reasons that
children may have developmental delays, including health factors (i.e. complications
resulting from a premature birth), mental retardation, and abuse (i.e. physical), studies
have reported that 75 percent of these children have lower social competences or social
status, regardless of the cause of their delay (Waterman, 2002; Moisan, 1998). Reviewed
research by Swanson (1996) and Swanson & Malone (1992) found children with learning
disabilities to be more socially rejected than their non—disabled peers. These children also
engaged in or were recipients of more hostile interactions. Children with learning

problems showed weaker empathy, had poor conﬂict resolutions skills, frequently

20

misinterpreted nonverbal messages, and were less tactful (Waterman, 2002; Swanson &
Malone, 1992). Ultimately, students with learning disabilities, in comparison to students
without disabilities, were found to engage in fewer social activities, were less skilled
problem solvers, and showed lower levels of social competence.

In terms of communication, the use of language is thought to be the root of social
development (Goody, 1997). According to Goody (1997), effective language is essential
in the development of social intelligence. Any problems in language processing are
expected to interfere with one’s social performance. Research relating to language
development found that about 50-80 percent of children with language-based disabilities
exhibited poorer social, personal, and behavioral adjustments (Waterman, 2002; Bender
& Smith, 1990; Bryan et al., 1998; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Cummings, Vallance, & Brazil,
1992; Schacter, Pless, & Bruck, 1991; Vallance, Cummings, & Humphries, 1998). More
speciﬁcally, research ﬁndings suggest that impairments in the ability to effectively
communicate thoughts and needs, along with the tendency to misinterpret the messages
of others, signiﬁcantly contributes to the development of poor social skills and problem
behaviors (Waterman, 2002; Vallance, Cummings, & Humphries, 1998).

Demographic diﬂerences. Although there are numerous inﬂuencing factors that
contribute to children’s development of social competence, there are two predetermined
elements that are noted to have a signiﬁcant effect on children’s social development.
These elements consist of children’s ethnicity and gender. In a study of teacher and
parent assessments of social competence in inner-city children, Cartledge, Adedapo, &
Johnson (1998), found that teachers consistently perceived young female students to have

more social skills, and fewer behavior problems than male students. This is not

21

unexpected because these ﬁndings were consistent with the ﬁndings of other studies
reporting females as being more socially competent than males (Cartledge, Adedapo, &
Johnson, 1998; Gresham & Elliott, 1990; Walker, 1983). Most research in this area
repeatedly shows males to be more physically aggressive and combative, in comparison
to females (Cartledge, Adedapo, & Johnson, 1998; Cartledge & Milburn, 1996). In fact,
the only social skill in which teacher’s perceptions did not show a signiﬁcant gender
difference was assertion, which includes behaviors such as initiating interactions with
others and dealing with issues of being treated fairly (Cartledge, Adedapo, & Johnson,
1998)

In relation to ethnicity, there is little research available on the effects that race has
on the assessment of children’s behaviors. A study by Feng and Cartledge (1996) found
that although there were no perceived differences between African American and
Caucasian children in social skills, teachers did rate African American children as
exhibiting more externalizing behaviors than their non-Black peers. Keller (1988) found
that teachers also gave lower adjustment ratings to African American students.
Furthermore, it has been documented that African American males are disproportionately
singled out in school for disciplinary action by educators and are more likely to receive
more punishing consequences and pathological labels than Caucasians (Council for
Exceptional Children, 1994). With this aside, researchers attribute African American’s
urban environment as having a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on their social performance. As a
solution, they dictate that the most salient social needs for African American males are

alternatives to aggression, like more effective conﬂict-management skills (Cartledge,

22

Adedapo, & Johnson, 1998; Cartledge & Milburn, 1995; Hammond & Yung, 1993;
Prothrow-Stith, 1991).
Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)

The National Association for the Education of Young Children has done an
enormous amount of research on the developmental needs of young children. Their
policy statement for educating children from birth through age eight emphasizes the
interrelationship of the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive domains of
development (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). In order to provide the best educational
setting for young children, teachers are encouraged to abide by the following program
guidelines directing them to: (a) recognize variations in development among children,
(b) provide opportunities for active learning by allowing children to choose and plan their
own activities, and (c) build social relationships between children through small group
activities (Evangelista, 2002). These guidelines are designed to educate the whole child.
Following these guidelines ensures that each child is acknowledged as an individual
based on his or her physical, social/emotional, and intellectual growth and development,
and that methods for academic learning are planned accordingly. Furthermore, DAP
supports child-initiated and hands on activities, with teacher-directed instruction
primarily occurring in response to an individual child’s needs. Most teacher-directed
instructions should occur in short interactions between the teacher and individual child or
in very brief interactive whole group activities (Moyer, 2004). DAP discourages teaching
methods that are entirely whole group or which relies on pencil and paper seatwork as

opposed to hands-on, active learning.

23

The Need For DAP. Due to a variety of reasons such as societal pressure,
misunderstandings about how children learn, aggressive marketing of commercial
materials, shortages of teachers speciﬁcally prepared to work with young children, and
the reassignment of trained teachers in areas of declining enrollment, many kindergarten
classrooms are now making a change for the worse (Moyer, 2004). According to present
research, more kindergartens are adopting commercially prepared curricula, which are
often extensions of the textbook series currently being used in early elementary grades
(Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995; Durkin, 1987; Educational Research Service,
1986; Shepard & Smith, 1988). Studies show more kindergarten classes are reporting to
be whole-class or teacher-directed. Generally, this means teachers are using more formal
reading instruction, written assignments, and frequent grading as a means of teaching and
assessing their students (Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995; Bryant, Clifford, &
Peisner, 1991; Durkin, 1987; Hiebert, 1988; Spodek, 1982). Adoptions such as these are
often thought to ensure the continuity of learning though elementary school. Instead, this
change of curriculum is academically pushing our children further than they may
developmentally be ready to go. As a result, pushing children into academic areas too
soon has a negative affect on learning (Elkind 1996; Moyer, 2004). Many refer to this
practice as the “miseducation” of young children (Moyer, 2004).

Despite societal changes and what research shows, “kindergarten remains a place
where children need a quality program in order to achieve their full potential” (Moyer,
2004, p.82). To reﬂect this, the kindergarten program should be of high quality and serve
as a strong foundation upon which children build skills, knowledge, and attitudes towards

school and lifelong learning. Based on this information, making a positive change in the

24

kindergarten environment is a major issue that needs to be addressed. In relation to the
standards of the NAEYC and The Association for Childhood Education International,
changes should be made based on three major areas: physical environment, instructional
context, and social context (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; 1987).
Components of DAP

Physical Environment. According to Bronfenbrenner (197 9, p.845), a child’s
development is enhanced in an environment where children can observe and participate
in “ongoing patterns of progressively more complex activity” and are guided by persons
“with which the child had developed a positive emotional relationship.” This
environment should make the children feel safe and secure. To ensure that optimal-
learning occurs, children should have, “opportunity, resources, and encouragement to
engage in the activities” on their own (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.845). Joan Moyer (2004,
p. 82) comments, “kindergarten children are active, curious learners who need adequate
space, a variety of materials, and large blocks of times in which to try out their ideas.”
To facilitate learning, teachers should arrange their classroom based on the children’s
interest, level of interaction and involvement, developmental stage, skill development,
and overall attitude towards school and learning (Moyer, 2004). The physical
environment of the room should be set up to accommodate various teaching styles (i.e.
large group, small group, and individual learning activities), facilitate movement, and
display learning materials. To provide children with the best opportunity for learning,
these materials should be changed and combined to increase levels of complexity to help

children become more self-directed and involved.

25

Instructional Context. Educators and developmental psychologist have debated
for many years over the effects that different instructional approaches have on young
children’s learning and social development. As discussed earlier, many kindergarten
classrooms are currently conforming to the teaching styles of elementary classrooms,
which use teacher-directed activities, textbooks, and worksheets to educate young
children. Based on NAEYC’s national standards, this form of teaching is inappropriate
and unacceptable. Instead of using whole group methods, kindergarten teachers are
encouraged to provide children with a variety of activities and materials to promote and
encourage “hands-on” activities, communication, and problem-solving skills (Bredekamp
& Copple, 1997). Children should be given an opportunity to work in various settings,
consisting of whole-group instruction (i.e. circle time), small groups, and chances to work
independently at learning centers suited to the children’s wide range of skills, interests,
and needs.

Recent studies focusing on the social-emotional effects of didactic teaching
environments compared to child-initiated or DAP environments found that preschool
children enrolled in the child-initiated programs display lower levels of test anxiety than
children enrolled in the academic program (Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990).
Children in inappropriate, academically based programs exhibited more total stress
behaviors through the day and more stress behaviors during group times and
workbook/worksheet activities than children in child-initiated programs (Burts, Hart,
Charlesworth, & Kirk, 1990).

In terms of cognition or academic achievement, children in child-initiated

programs scored higher on measures of creativity, or divergent thinking, in comparison to

26

children in academically based programs (Dunn & Konots, 1997; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, &
Rescorla, 1990). Children in DAP classrooms also had better outcomes in language
development. They were reported to have better verbal and receptive language skills than
children in academically based programs (Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Marcon, 1992).

Social Context. Finally, early childhood teachers need to understand the inﬂuence
of social cultural contexts on learning, recognizing children’s developing competence,
and accepting a variety of ways for children to express their developmental
achievements. As a part of the social context of the classroom, teachers should learn
about the cultures of all of the children in their classroom and use this diversity as a
guideline for teaching, being sure to encompass all ideas and backgrounds into their
classroom. Encouraging this type of social interaction plays a signiﬁcant role in the
cognitive development of young children. According to the developmental standards of
NAEYC, children’s social context should enable them to have an active role in the
decision-making process in their classroom (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). A positive
adult-child relationship should exist for children to feel safe and secure. Once these
feelings are established, children can look to teachers to provide instruction, model social
behaviors and attitudes, plan the physical environment, formulate routines, and provide
discipline and guidance (Kostelnik et al., 2002).

Outcomes Associated With DAP. Current research shows that children from
families with low socioeconomic status (SES) begin school, on average, with
signiﬁcantly poorer academic skills than more advantaged children (Stipek & Rosaleen,
1997; Bryant, Burchinal, Lau, & Sparling, 1994; Goldenberg, Reese, & Gallirnore, 1992;

Grifﬁn, Case, & Siegler, 1994; Jordan, Huttenlocher, & Levine, 1992; Starkey & Klein,

27

1992). In reality, these children are considered to be extremely behind and are forced to
begin school trying to “catch- up.” In fact, most of the preschool environments these
disadvantaged children attended were developmentally inappropriate, which often led to
negative outcomes, including relatively greater declines in school achievement by the
fourth grade and poor social adjustment in adolescence (Huffman & Speer, 2000;
Marcon, 1995; Schweinhart, Weikart & Lamer, 1986). Without assistance or a proper
educational environment, these children are being setup to fail.

On the other hand, DAP programs have been found to lead to more positive
outcomes in young children. In a DAP environment, the teachers plans the curriculum
with the children’s interest in mind. They provide engaging learning experiences in
which the children can succeed, while also being challenged to work on the edge of their
developing capabilities (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Supporting studies of DAP have
found positive outcomes in children in relation to academic, social, and behavioral
domains (Hofﬁnan & Speer, 2000). By the ﬁrst grade most students who were enrolled
in developmentally appropriate classrooms had signiﬁcantly higher cognitive skills, in
comparison to students in less developmentally appropriate classrooms. The positive
long term effects of DAP are indicated by higher rates of high school graduation, fewer
arrests and acts of misconduct, and higher monthly incomes as adults (Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1993; Huffman & Speer, 2000). More speciﬁcally, most research indicates that
more DAP has a positive effect on academic and behavioral outcomes and mitigate stress
related behaviors of lower socioeconomic, nonmainstream, non-European American, and

male students (Hart et al. 1998; Hart et al. 1997).

28

Summary

Many studies have been conducted to investigate how developmentally
appropriate practices inﬂuence children’s cognitive and emotional development. In terms
of the classroom environment, teachers have been found to have a major impact on
children’s social development. The strategies they use to instruct, model social
behaviors, plan, and discipline, all help to enhance or restrain children’s developing
attitudes and behaviors associated with social competence (Kostelnik et al., 2002).
Current research examining teacher behaviors in DAP programs, have reported that
children develop more positive attitudes and have higher success rates in school
(Schweinhart & Weikart, 1993; Huffman & Speer, 2002).

With this in mind, the results in Chapter IV will present information relevant to
the relationship that exists between children’s social competency skills and components
of the developmental appropriateness of their classroom environment as measured by the

APEEC.

29

CHAPTER III
METHODS
Research Design
This was a correlational study involving an analysis of kindergarten children’s
social competency skills and the developmental appropriateness of their classroom
environment. The subjects of this study were enrolled in one of eleven different
kindergarten classrooms selected from eight elementary schools located in an urban,

Midwest school district. Analysis of secondary data collected from a larger study was

used for this investigation.

Participants

The total number of participants for this study included 11 female kindergarten
teachers and 166 kindergarten children, of which 88 were males and 78 were females.
The mean age of the children during the initial testing was approximately ﬁve years and 6
months old (Mean= 66.80 months, SD= 5.36). Table 1 presents the age of the

kindergarten children during the initial testing in November.

Table 1. Gender and Age of Children During Initial Testing in November

 

 

Variable N Mean (SD.)
Male 86 66.80 (5.46)
Female 77 66.79 (5.27)
Total 163 66.80 (5.36)

 

This study also utilized demographic variables including the race/ethnicity of the

children. The ethnic composition of the sample, listed in Table 2, illustrates that the

30

largest group of the children participating in this study were Aﬁican-American (N =75,

45.2%).

Table 2. Ethnicity of Children

 

 

Variable Frequency %

Ethnicity
African American 75 45.2
Caucasian 51 30.7
Hispanic 30 l 8.1
Native American 5 3.0
Asian 3 1.8
Other 2 1.2
Total 166 100

 

Research Questions

The research questions addressed in this study are listed on page 10 in Chapter
One.
Measures

Two instruments were utilized in this study to assess the social competence of
kindergarten children and the developmental appropriateness of their classroom
environment at the end of kindergarten. These instruments included the Pre-
K/Kindergarten Social Competency Scale (PK/K-S) (Soderman, 2002), and the
Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms (APEEC) (Hemmeter et al.,
2001). A copy of the PK/K-S instrument is included in Appendix A.

Pre-K/Kindergarten Social Competency Scale (PK/K-S). The teachers in this
study were requested to complete the PK/K-S (Soderman, 2002) twice during the year, to

measure the kindergarteners’ social competency skills. This rating scale was produced

31

speciﬁcally for the teachers involved in this program by combining readiness indicators
from the Head Start Checklist, children’s report cards, and social competency skills as
outlined in Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren,
2004). Because this readiness scale is yet to be published, Soderman (personal
communication, 2004) veriﬁes that this instrument has content validity because the
selected variables included in the assessment scale have been reviewed and edited by
other experts in the ﬁelds of early childhood education and child development. Because
the internal reliability of the instrument was not determined, a reliability analysis was
conducted on this scale (see Chapter V).

The intended purpose of this instrument was to provide kindergarten and Head
Start teachers with a measurement that would document the occurrence of speciﬁc skills
as they relate to social competency (i.e. comforts or helps others who are upset, hurt, or
having difﬁculty with a task).

This instrument is comprised of twenty-ﬁve items. Teachers were expected to
rate each item on a four-point frequency scale (4= often characteristic, 3= sometimes
characteristic, 2 = rarely characteristic, and 1= not characteristic). Teacher ratings were
done twice during the school year, in the months of November and May. These scores
were used to determine if a relationship existed between children’s social competency
scores and teachers’ scores on the APEEC. The difference in the scores of the ﬁrst and
last ratings were computed to show if children’s social competency scores changed over
time.

Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms (APEEC). The

classroom attended by the kindergarten children in this study was assessed for its

32

developmental appropriateness using the Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary
Classrooms (APEEC) (Hemmeter, et al., 2001). This instrument is divided into three
broad domains of classroom practices: physical environment, instructional context, and
social context. The APEEC consists of forty items, scored along a 7-point continuum of
developmentally appropriate classroom practices, with descriptors at the “1”, “3”, “5”,
and “7” anchors (i.e. “’1’ indicates the classroom is inadequate in terms of
developmentally appropriate practices, ‘3’ indicates minimal developmentally appropriate
practices, ‘5’ indicates that classroom is good in terms of developmental appropriateness,
and ‘7’ indicates excellent developmentally appropriate practices”) (Hemmeter, et al.,
2001). To obtain the classroom score, the total sum of the sixteen item-level scores used
to measure the physical environment, instructional context, and social context was
divided by the total number of items scored. Higher scores on the APEEC reﬂect higher
quality classrooms and according to the authors, should be associated with positive child
outcomes (Hemmeter, et al., 2001).

Interrater agreement and validity data for the APEEC were established using 38
K-3 classrooms in the spring of 1997. Results showed that the APEEC was an internally
consistent, valid measure of developmentally appropriate practices. However, the
interrater agreement data was low. Based on those results, the authors conducted a series
of revisions and pilot tests in 1998. As a result, the data from the revised ﬁeld-tests
suggested that the APEEC was an internally consistent, valid measure of developmentally
appropriate practices that had good interrater agreement (Hemmeter, et al., 2001 ).

Interrater agreement and validity data were also collected using 69 classrooms,

grades K-3, in North Carolina and Kentucky. Overall, the interrater agreement was

33

reported to be high at the descriptor level, item level, and total score level. At the
descriptor level, the percentage of agreement among two observers averaged 86%,
ranging from 76% to 93% across 135 descriptors. The exact average of the item level
percentage of agreement was 58%, ranging from 31% to 81%. The Kappa statistic was
also calculated to determine the measure of reliability that accounts for chance agreement
and the degree of disagreement between observers. The Kappa statistic was generally
weighted .50 or higher for 12 items of the sixteen item level scores; however, 2 of the 4
remaining items fell below .47. The median weighted Kappa was .59. The interrater
agreement of this measure between two observer ratings was .86, which suggested that a
high level of interrater agreement was established with the APEEC. Construct validity
was also determined by comparing the APEEC with two other measures, the Assessment
Proﬁle for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim, & Sibley, 1988) and the Teachers
Beliefs and Practices Scale (TBPS) (Buchanan, Burts, Bidner, White, & Charlesworth,
1998; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomassom, Mosley, & Fleege, 1993; Hemmeter et al.,
2001). The modest-to-high-correlations between the measures suggest that the APEEC is
a valid measure of developmentally appropriate practices.
Data Collection Procedure

The data used in this study were previously collected during the 2002-2003 school
year for the Leap Frog Program (Soderman & Farrell, 2003). This study utilized a part of
the database that included the children’s level of social competence and developmental '
appropriateness of their teacher’s classrooms.

To assess the children’s level of social competence, classroom teachers were

asked to complete the PK/K-S assessment on each child in their classroom twice during

34

the school year. The difference between the November and May rating were computed to
show if children’s social competency scores changed over time. This study also used the
November and May scores obtained on the PK/K-S to determine if a relationship existed
between children’s social competency scores and their teachers’ scores received on the
APEEC.

Each elementary classroom was assessed for approximately one hour by two
observers, using the APEEC. Observers were also privy to children’s social competence,
though formal assessments were not done. A ﬁfteen-minute teacher interview was also
conducted to obtain additional information listed at the end of each section on the
APEEC. After completing each assessment, the observers met to discuss their
observations before coming to a mutual consensus about the score assigned in each
category. In each case, there was high interrater reliability between the scores given on
the APEEC. However, interrater reliability was not statistically determined.

Data Analysis

Relationships between the variables in this study were determined using a
multiple regression. These variables included kindergarteners’ November and May
social competency scores from the PK/K-S, and the sub scores and total score of the
APEEC used to assess the developmental appropriateness of the classroom environment.

In order to investigate how social competency scores relate to the subscales of the
APEEC and to determine if teachers with higher APEEC scores have children with
higher social competency scores, a multiple regression model was created.

To determine if demographic variables contributed to the differences in children’s

PK/K-S scores given by their teachers, a T-Test and a One-Way ANOVA was conducted.

35

A T-Test was run to indicate if children’s scores varied by gender, and a One-Way

ANVOA was conducted to indicate if PK/K-S scores varied according to ethnicity.

Additionally, a paired sample t-test was run to compare scores of the November

PK/K-S and the May PK/K-S, to determine if there was any change in children’s

behavior over the course of the school year. Alpha was set at .05. A reliability analysis

was also conducted on the PK/K-S measure of social competency to determine the

instrument’s level of internal consistency.

Limitations

1.

Due to the sample size and location in which this study took place, the results
cannot be generalized to a population larger than its assessable population,
which includes all kindergarten children in an urban, Midwest school district.
Teachers were solely used to report on their students’ social competency
skills, which could have resulted in biased behavioral ratings. It would have

been useful to have another source of data on children’s social competence.

. The PK/K-S had not been tested for its degree of validity and reliability.

Moreover, if it was not used with integrity by the classroom teacher, it would
not be a reliable measure of children’s social competence.

Because the observers did not complete independent score sheets for the
APEEC classroom assessment, interrater reliability was not established.

No demographic information was collected on the children’s families. For
example, information relating to ethnicity, age, education level of parent(s),
income, family type, and number of family members living in the same

household were not obtained.

36

6. No demographic information was collected on teachers. As a result,
information relating to their age, ethnicity, educational background, early
childhood training, and number of years spent teaching kindergartner could
not be included.

7. Demographics collected on the children’s previous educational background
were not speciﬁc and only included information about their enrollment in
Head Start and Michigan School Readiness Programs. Additional information
on their involvement in preschool or other childcare services was not
collected. Therefore, this information could not be utilized.

8. No information was collected on individual or peer inﬂuences, as mentioned
in Chapters I and II, to be contributing factors to the development of

children’s social competency.

37

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Results

All data for this study were collected from eleven kindergarten classrooms in an
urban, Midwest school district. The data for analyzing children’s social competence were
measured using the PK/K-S. The developmental appropriateness of the classroom
environment was measured using the APEEC. These two variables were analyzed to
investigate the relationship between children’s social competence and the developmental
appropriateness of their classroom environment. The ﬁndings for the PK/K-S’s internal
consistency and for each research question are presented as followed.
Reliability-internal consistency

A reliability analysis conducted on the 25- item PK/K-S showed the Cronbach’s
alpha for the November and May assessment, possessed a high level of internal

consistency and reliability. These results are listed below in Table 3.

Table 3. Reliability Analysis

 

 

Scale Mean Cronbach’s Alpha
November PK/K-S 3.18 .95
(N =160)
May PK/K-S 3.51 .91
(N=163)

 

38

Variance in gender and ethnicity in children’s social competency score.

To determine if children’s social competency scores varied by gender, an
independent t-test was run. The results are listed below in Table 4. A One-Way
ANOVA was also conducted to determine if children’s scores varied by ethnicity. The
results for this analysis are presented in Table 5.

Research Question 1: Do teacher ratings of children’s social competence vary
depending on demographic variables, such as gender and
ethnicity?

An independent t-test determined that by gender, there was a signiﬁcant
relationship in children’s scores on the PK/K-S in November and in May (t= -4.11-,
p=.000). Female scores were higher in November and May, than the scores of their male
classmates. In relation to ethnicity, a One-Way AN OVA determined that there were no

signiﬁcant ethnic differences in children’s social competency scores in November or in

 

 

May.

Table 4. T-Test for differences between males and females in November and May
Group N Mean SD t Prob.
Male 86 75.59 13.57 -4.11 .000*
Female 76 84.00 12.34

(In November)

 

Male 87 84.89 14.35 -2.45 .015
Female 78 89.87 11.48
(In May)

 

39

Table 5. Results of a One-Way ANOVA analysis of variance for ethnicity in children’s
PK/K-S scores

 

 

 

Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Squares f-value Prob.
Between 539.44 4 134.85 .712 .585
Within 293 78.41 155 189.54

Total 29917.84 159

(In November)

Between 61.36 4 15.34 .085 .987
Within 28419.82 158 179.87

Total 28481.18 162

(In May)

 

Relationship between social competency scores over the course of the school year.

In regards to research question 2, a paired t-test was conducted to evaluate
differences between mean scores on the PK/K-S over the course of the school year. The
results in Table 6 compare the signiﬁcant differences in the mean scores the kindergarten
children received on the PK/K-S in November and in May.

Research Question 2: Do children’s social competency skills change over the
course of the school year?
The children’s scores in May with a mean of 86.14 (SD 13.40), were higher than
their November scores, which had a mean of 79.74 (SD 13.43). This was a difference of
6.25 between the two assessments. With an alpha level of .05, the difference in scores

were found to be statistically signiﬁcant, (t =-7.97, p= .000).

40

Table 6. Paired T-Test: Social Competency Scores in November and May (161)

 

 

Test Time Mean SD Std. Error Mean T-Test Level of Sig.
November PK/K-S 79.74 (13.43) 1.06 .000*
May PK/K-S 87.14 (13.40) 1.06 .000*

 

Relationships between kindergarten children ’s social competency scores and variables of
developmentally appropriate classrooms.

A multiple regression was created to determine the relationship that existed
between the November and May assessments of the PK/K-S and the three subscales and
total score of the APEEC. Tables 7-10 illustrate the results of research questions 3-6.

Research Question 3: How do kindergarten children’s social competency

abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s physical environment scores obtained on the
Assessment of Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms
(APEEC)?

In regards to the teacher’s physical environment scores obtained on the APEEC, a
signiﬁcant relationship was found (F=6.6, p<.05) between the November ratings children
received on the PK/K-S and their teacher’s physical environment scores obtained on the
APEEC. However, there were no signiﬁcant relationships between children’s May

ratings and their teacher’s physical environment scores on the APEEC.

41

Table 7. Multiple Regression Analysis: Physical environment as a predictor of
kindergarten children’s social competence.

 

Outcome: November and May scores on the PK/K-S

 

 

Predictor variables b SE b t-Statistic Prob. R sq F -Ratio
Physical environment 4.19 2.08 2.01 <.001* .11 6.58
(November)

 

Research Question 4: How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s instructional context scores obtained on the
APEEC?

There is a signiﬁcant relationship between children’s social competency scores
and their teacher’s instructional scores obtained on the APEEC in November (F=6.6,
p<.05). An increase in teachers’ instructional scores is positively related to increases in
children’s social competency scores. As for children’s social competency scores in May,
no signiﬁcant relationships were found.

Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis: Instructional context as a predictor of
kindergarten children’s social competence.

 

Outcome: November and May scores on the PK/K-S

 

 

Predictor variables b SE b t-Statistic Prob. R sq F-Ratio
Physical environment 4.11 1.27 3.23 <.001* .1 1 6.58
(November)

 

42

Research Question 5: How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s social context scores obtained on the APEEC?

A signiﬁcant relationship between children’s social competency scores and their

teacher’s social context scores were found in November (F=6.6, p<.05). An increase in
teachers’ social context scores is positively related to increases in children’s social
competency scores. However, no signiﬁcant relationships were found in May.

Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis: Social context as a predictor of kindergarten
children’s social competence.

 

Outcome: November and May scores on the PK/K-S

 

 

 

Predictor variables b SE b t-Statistic Prob. R sq F -Ratio
Social context -3.91 1.84 -2.12 <.001* .11 6.58
(November)

p<.05*

Research Question 6: How do kindergarten children’s social competency
abilities, rated in November and May, relate to their
teacher’s total score obtained on the APEEC?

A signiﬁcant relationship exists between children’s social competency scores and

the total score teachers received on the APEEC in November (F=9.7, p<.05). An increase
in teachers’ total scores is positively related to increases in children’s social competency

scores. However, in May, no signiﬁcant relationships between the variables were found.

43

Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis: Total scores on the APEEC as a predictor of
kindergarten children’s social competence.

 

Outcome: November and May scores on the PK/K-S

 

 

 

Predictor variables b SE b t-Statistic Prob. R sq. F -Ratio
Total score 3.33 1.07 3.11 .003* .06 9.69
(November)

Summary of Data

This study was designed to investigate the relationships between children’s social
competence and the developmental appropriateness of their classroom environment. A
reliability analysis on the PK/K-S concluded that the instrument had a high level of
internal consistency based on Chronbach’s alpha. An independent t-test determined there
was a signiﬁcant relationship in the November and May PK/K-S scores by gender.
Additionally, a One-Way AN OVA found no signiﬁcant difference in the November and
May PK/K-S scores between ethnic groups. This study did, however, show there was a
signiﬁcant positive change in children’s social competency scores over the course of the
school year.

Results of research questions 3-6 indicate that all three components of
developmental appropriateness, as well as the total scores teachers obtained on the
APEEC were signiﬁcantly related to children’s social competency scores measured in
November.

On the contrary, results showed there were no signiﬁcant relationships between
children’s social competency scores and the developmental appropriateness of their

classroom environment, as measured by the APEEC in May. Furthermore, when rated

44

according to subscales, no signiﬁcant relationships between kindergarten children’s level
of social competence and the developmental appropriateness of their teacher’s physical
environment, instructional context, or social context were found.

A table listing the signiﬁcance of these ﬁndings is presented below (see Table

11).

45

Table 11. Summary of Findings

 

Research Question

Findings

 

1. Do teacher ratings of children’s social
competence vary depending on
demographic variables, such as gender

and ethnicity?

2. Do children’s social competency skills
change over the course of the school

year?

3. How do kindergarten children’s social
competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their
teacher’s physical context scores

measured on the APEEC?

A t of —4.43 (p<.001) was found in
November, and t of —2.89 (p<.001)was
found in May for variation in gender
differences for teacher ratings. No
differences were found among ethnic

groups in social competence scores.

With a t of —4.24 (p<.001) children’s
social competency scores were shown to
increase from November to May with a
difference of 6.25 between the two

assessments.

An F of 6.6 (p<.05), found a signiﬁcant
relationship to exist in November. No

signiﬁcant relationship was found in May.

 

46

 

4. How do kindergarten children’s social

competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their

teacher’s instructional context scores

measured on the APEEC?

How do kindergarten children’s social
competency abilities, rated in
November and May, relate to their
teacher’s social context scores

measured on the APEEC?

How do kindergarten children’s social
competency abilities, rated in November
and May, relate to their teacher’s total

scores obtained on the APEEC?

An F of 6.6 (p<.05) determined a
signiﬁcant relationship to exist in
November. No signiﬁcant relationship

was found in May.

An F of 6.6 (p<.05) determined a
signiﬁcant relationship to exist in
November. No signiﬁcant relationship

was found in May.

An F of 9.7 (p<.05) determined a
signiﬁcant to exist in November. No

signiﬁcant relationship was found in May.

 

47

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between teachers’
developmentally appropriate practices observed in kindergarten classrooms and
children’s social competency skills. Speciﬁcally, developmentally appropriate practices
were rated according to three subscales: physical environment, instructional context, and
social context, using the APEEC. Children’s social competence was measured using the
PK/K-S.

A regression analysis revealed a strong and signiﬁcant relationship between
children’s social competency scores measured in November and teachers’ scores
measured on the APEEC. This indicated that in November, teachers’ classroom
practices, particularly their method of instruction, were related to the development of
children’s social competence. On the other hand, there were no signiﬁcant relationships
between children’s social competency scores measured in May and their teachers’ scores
measured on the APEEC.

It is believed that the teachers’ integrity when completing the PK/K-S may have
also contributed to the non-signiﬁcant ﬁndings of the May assessments. According to a
study examining teacher assessments of social competence, “teacher ratings have been
shown to be good initial evaluations of children’s social behaviors” (Cartledge, Adedapo,
& Johnson, 1998, p. 116; Greenwood, Walker, Todd, & Hops, 1979; Walker, et al.,

198 8). Assuming this to be true, and based on observations of the children and teachers

within their classroom environment, it is believed that the ratings teachers completed in

48

November were valid and reliable. However, based on the signiﬁcantly increased scores
some children received and the way in which some teachers completed the May
assessment of the PK/K-S, the researcher was led to believe that the May assessments
were not a valid or reliable assessment of children’s social competence. Tables 12 shows
an example of how one teacher rated a student who was scored as having a low level of
social competence in November. Table 13 illustrates the exceptional increase in the score
the child received during the May assessment. These tables also show the difference in
the teacher’s scoring technique. In November, the teacher scored each question
separately; however, in May, the teacher used a squiggly line to indicate that the child
exhibited all of these behaviors often. This teacher was reported as completing twelve
out of thirteen student PK/K-S assessments in this manner. Observations of this teacher’s
classroom by several of the researchers deemed her May assessment as invalid and

without integrity.

49

Table 12. PK/K-S measured in November.

——

 

Directions: Rate characteristic of child from 1-4, 1=not characteristic; 2=rare1y
characteristic; 3=sometimes characteristic; 4=often characteristic.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

. Social Competency Skills

. Separates from parent without distress

Verbalizes feelings

. Asks for help when necessary
. Works and plays cooperatively with others
. When angry, knows how to calm self down

. Puts away materials where they belong;

respects materials and equipment

. Respects adults
. Waits turn before speaking

. Follows the rules of the classroom and school

without reminders
Helps to clean up after activities
Can usually resolve own conﬂicts with others
Is friendly and helpful to others
Is liked by other children; attracts friends

Capable of making good learning choices
without adult intervention

Follows directions well

Adjusts to changes in routine without
undue stress

Comforts or helps others who are upset.
hurt, or having difﬁculty with a task

Can wait his/her tum

Sticks to an activity for as long as can be
expected for a child this age

Shares materials, equipment with others

50

Isle Isl- l9 t—lrlrlrl'lvlrlt’l‘lw

Time 1

Time2

Time 3

21. Acce ts new activities without fear or
uctanee

22. Has an adequate amount of energy during
the class period

23. Eager to participate in classroom activities

24. Shows self conﬁdence

on Moat» lbs

25. Stays on task when necessary;
attemﬁ' to ﬁnish a task

Total Number of Skills Identiﬁed: 56 :Zj _ __

Two to three skills to actively target prior to next testing:
sums after Test 1: / FD\\ou) &\‘m'*10 as

 

 

 

v CW Mm}
u I

 

Skills after Test 2:

51

Table 13. PK/K-S measured in May.

———.

Directions: Rate characteristic of child from 1-4, l=not characteristic; 2=rarely
characteristic; 3=sometimes characteristic; 4=often characteristic.

O‘M‘bUN

\l

10.
ll.
12.

15.
16.

l7.

l8.
19.

20.

. Social Competency Skills

. Separates from parent without distress
. Verbalizes feelings

. Asks for help when necessary

. Works and plays cooperatively with others

. Puts away materials where they belong;

respects materials and equipment

. Respects adults
. Waits turn before speaking

without reminders

Helps to clean up after activities

. When angry, knows how to calm self down 7

. Follows the rules of the classroom and school

Can usually resolve own conﬂicts with others

Is friendly and helpful to others

. ls liked by other children; attracts friends
14.

Capable of making good learning choices
without adult intervention'

Follows directions well

Adjusts to changes in routine without
undue stress

Comforts or helps others who are upset.
hurt. or having difﬁculty with a task

Can wait his/her turn

Sticks to an activity for as long as can be
expected for a child this age

Shares materials, equipment with others

52

Time 1

Time2

__ Algae;

—_

Time 3

21. Accepts new activities without fear or
reluctance

22. Has an adequate amount of energy during
the class period

23. Eager to participate in classroom activities
24. Shows self conﬁdence

25. Stays on task when necessary;
attemps to finish a task

Total Number of Skills Identified:

Two to three skills to actively target prior to next testing:

Skills afterTest 1:

li

 

 

 

Skills after Test 2:

 

 

 

 

53

As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, observers were privy to children’s social
competence, even though formal assessments were not completed by the observers. In
relation to this child, more than one observer who spent a reasonable amount of time in
this classroom highly disagreed with the score this child received on the May PK/K-S.
This child talked back to the teacher, refused to complete instructed tasks, and often did
not follow directions (refer to questions 7, 9, 12, and 15 on Tables). Having observed
these behaviors and comparing them with the teacher scores, it is highly unlikely that the
teacher completed these assessments with integrity or validity.

Implications for ﬁxture research and practice

It is important that future research on the relationship between developmentally
appropriate practices and social competence be conducted. Based on the ﬁndings of this
research study, implications for ﬁature studies are listed below.

Because research has found teacher-child relationships, parent-child relationships,
peer relationships, and temperamental styles of teachers, parents, and children to
inﬂuence the development of social competence, it is proposed that these inﬂuences, in
addition to the components of developmental appropriateness used in this study, be
assessed and analyzed to determine which factor(s) contribute most signiﬁcantly to
children’s development of social competence. Also, children may manifest differing
levels of competence in different contexts. Therefore, it is also strongly suggested that
these measures be assessed at least twice during the school year, preferably, at the
beginning and end. Each assessment should be measured at or around the same time to
allow the researcher to examine the development of social competence in relation to these

predictor variables. Doing this will also give researchers a more thorough understanding

54

of what factor(s) have the most signiﬁcant inﬂuence on children’s social development,
and at what time during the school year.

As mentioned as a limitation of this study (see pages 44-45), it is also
recommended that in addition to the teacher, another participant (i.e. parent or observer),
who interacts with the children on a consistent basis, complete the PK/K-S assessments.
This will allow researchers to examine levels of inter-rater reliabity and eliminate any
biased scores that may be given by the teacher or observer alone.

Finally, another opportunity for expansion upon this study would be to obtain
additional demographic information on the teachers and students. Collecting information
about teacher beliefs, teaching experience, age, degree or certiﬁcations, and ethnicity will
allow further analysis of teachers’ influence and children’s social competence.
Information about children’s SES status, prior schooling, temperament style, and
disabilities should also be obtained. This information could be used to generalize if there

are any speciﬁc child characteristics that relate to the development of social competence.

55

APPENDIX A

PK/K Early Readiness Scale

56

Directions: Rate characteristics of child from 1-4. l= not characteristic; 2= rarely
characteristic; 3= sometimes characteristic; 4= often characteristic.

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
A. Social Competency Skills

Separates form parent without distress

Verbalizes feelings

Asks for help when necessary

Works and plays cooperatively with others

When angry, knows how to calm self down

Puts away materials where they belong;

respects materials and equipment

Respects adults

Waits turn before speaking

9. Follows the rules of the classroom and

school without reminders
10. Helps to clean up after activities
11. Can usually resolve own conﬂicts with
others

12. Is friendly and helpful to others

13. Is liked by other children; attracts friends

14. Capable of making good learning choices
without adult intervention

15. Follows directions well

16. Adjusts to changes in routine without
undue stress

17. Comforts or helps others who are upset,
hurt, or having difﬁculty with task

18. Can wait his/her turn

19. Sticks to an activity for as long as can be
expected for a child this age

20. Shares materials, equipment with others

21. Accepts new activities without fear or

reluctance

QMPP’NT‘

23°.\)

22. Has an adequate amount of energy during
the class period
23. Eager to participate in classroom activities
24. Show self conﬁdence
25. Stays on task when necessary; attempts
to ﬁnish task

Total Number of Skills Identiﬁed:

57

REFERENCES

58

REFERENCES

Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. (1988). Assessment profile for early childhood programs.
Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist.

Azmitia, M., Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the
development of scientiﬁc reasoning. Social Development, 2, 202-221.

Bates, L., Luster, T., & Vandenbelt, M. (2003). Social competence in elementary school.
Social Development, 12 (1), 107-124.

Baumrind, D. (1995). Child maltreatment and optimal caregiving in social contexts.
New York: Garland Publishing, 1995.

Bender, W. N., & Smith, J. K. (1990). Classroom behavior of children and adolescents
with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23,
298-305.

Bemdt, T. J. (1989). Contributions of peer relationships to children’s development. In T.
J. Bemdt & G. W. Ladd (Eds), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 407-
416). New York: Wiley.

Bemdt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development.
In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds), The company they
keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 346-365). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Bemdt, T. J ., & Keefe, K (1995). Friends’ inﬂuence on adolescents’ adjustment to
school. Child Development, 66 (5), 1312-1329.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1996, April). Continuity and change in the quality of
teacher-child relationships: links with children ’s early school adjustment. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association meetings, New
York.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early
school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 61-79.

Bloch, M. N. (1992). Critical perspectives on the historical relationship between child
development and early childhood education research. In S. Kessler & B. B.
Swadener (Eds), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning
the dialogue (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bobbit, N., & Paolucci, B. (1986). Strengths of the home and family as learning

environments. In Griffore, R. J ., & Boger, R. P. (Eds), Child rearing in the home
and school. (pp. 47-60). New York: Plenum.

59

 

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appr0priate practice in early
childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, 8., ed. 1987. Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age 8. Exp. ed. Washington, DC:
NAEYC.

Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). “Ecological Systems Theory ” Annals of Child Development
v.6, p. 189-249. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, Inc.

Bronfenbrennner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development research models and
fugitive ﬁndings. In Wozniak, R.H., & Fischer, K.W. (Eds.), Development in
Context. (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryan, T., Sullivan-Burstein, K., & Mather, S. (1998). The inﬂuence of affect on social-
information-processing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3], 418-426.

Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Lau, L., & Sparling, J. (1994). Family and classroom
correlates of Head Start children's developmental outcomes. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 9, 289-309.

Bryant, D., Clifford, R., & Peisner, E. (1991). Best practices for beginners:
Developmentally appropriateness in kindergarten. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 783-803.

Buchanan, T. K., Burts, D. C., Bidner, J ., White, F ., & Charlesworth, R. (1998).
Predictors of the developmentally appropriateness of beliefs and practices of ﬁrst,
second, and third grade teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 459-
483.

Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., Hartup, W. W. (1996a). Friendship and its
signiﬁcance in childhood and adolescence: Introduction and comment. In W. M.
Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup, (Eds.), The company they keep:
Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 1-15). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Bulbolz, M. & Sontag, M. (1993). Human ecology theory. In Boss, P., Doherty, W., La
Rossa, R., Schumm, W., & Steinmetz, S. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories
and methods: A contextual approach. (pp.419-448). New York: Plenum Press.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P., Mosley, J ., & Thomasson, R. H.
(1992). Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally

6O

 

appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 7, 297-318.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., & Kirk, L. (1990). A comparison of
frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms

with developmentally appropriate vs. developmentally inappropriate practices.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 297-318.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, M., Ray, J ., Manuel, K., & Fleege,
P. O. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and

academic outcomes in ﬁrst grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8
(1 ), 23-31.

Carmella, G. S. (1997). Early childhood education: A call for the construction of

revolutionary images. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: New identities for the
field (pp. 157-184). New York: Garland Publishing.

Cartledge, G, & Milburn, J. F. ( 1995). Teaching social skills to children and youth
Innovative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J .F. (1996). Cultural diversity and social skill teachings:
Understandings in ethnic and gender issues. Charnpaign, IL: Research Press.

Cartledge, G., Adpapo, V., & Johnson, GT. (1998). Teacher and parent assessments of

the social competence of inner-city children. The Journal of Negro Education, 67
(2), 115-126.

Clarke-Stewart, A., Friedman, S., & Koch, J. (1994). Children at home and in day care.
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Hernandez, S. (199]). Kindergarten
teachers beliefs and practices. Early Child Development and Care, 70, 17-35.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thommason, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P.
(1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers’
beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8 (3), 255-276.

Chess, 3., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and practice. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

Churchill, S. L. (2003). Goodness-of-ﬁt in early childhood settings. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 31 (2), 113-118.

Council for Exceptional Children. (January, 1994). Statistical proﬁle of special

education in the United States, 1994. Supplement to Teaching Exceptional
Children, (26 (3), 1-4

61

 

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social inforrnation-
processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74-101.

Cummings, R. L., Vallance, D. D., & Brazil, K. (1992). Prevalance and patterns of
psychosocial disorders in children and youth with learning disabilities: A service
provider’s perspective. Exceptionality Education Canada, 2, 91-108.

De Schipper, J. C., Tavecchio, L. W. C., Van Ijzendoom, M. H., & Van Zeijl, J. (2004).
Goodness-of-ﬁt in center day care: Relations of temperament, stability, and
quality of care with the child’s adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
1 9, 257-272.

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J ., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S.,
& Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social
competence? Child Development, 74 (I), 238-256.

Dubow, E. B., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991). A two-year
longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, and social problem-

solving skills: Contributions to children’s behavioral and academic adjustment.
Child Development, 62, 583-599.

Dunn, L. & Kuntos, S. (1997). Research In review: What have we learned about
developmentally appropriate practice? Young Children, 52 (5), 4-13.

Durkin, D. (1987). A classroom-observation study of reading instruction in kindergarten.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 275-300.

Educational Research Service. (1986). Kindergarten programs and practices in public
schools. Arlington, VA: author.

Elicker, J ., & Fortner-Wood, C. (1997). Research in review: Adult-child relationship in
early childhood settings. Young Children, 51 (1), 69-78.

Elkind, D. (1996). Young children and technology: A cautionary note. Young Children,
51, 22-23.

Evangelista, N. J. (2002). Understanding the social and personal needs of the early
school—aged child. In Carlson, J. F., & Waterman, B. B. (Eds.) Social and
personality assessment of school-aged children: Developing interventions for
educational and clinical use. (pp. 206-228). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Feng, H., & Cartledge, G. (1996). Social skill assessment of inner-city Asian, African,
and European American students. School Psychology Review, 25, 227-238.

62

Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. (1992). An alternative view of appropriate practice in early
childhood education Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 53-73.

Gagnon, C., Craig, W. M., Tremblay, R. E., Zhou, R. M., & Vitaro, F. (1995).
Kindergarten predictors in boys’ stable behavior problems at the end of
elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 751-766.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, SN. (1990). Social skill rating scale. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Services.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Context effects on the use of early
literacy materials in Spanish-speaking children's homes. American Journal of
Education Research, 100, 497-536.

Goldsmith, E. B. (1999). Resource management for individuals and families.
Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

Goody, E. N. (1997). Social intelligence and language: Another Rubicon? In A. Whiten
& R. W. Byme (Eds), Machiavellian intelligence 11: Extensions and evaluations
(pp. 364-396). Cambridge University Press.

Greenwood, C. R., Walker, H. M., Todd, N. M., & Hops, H. (1979). Selecting a cost-
effective screening device for the assessment of preschool social withdraw].
Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 12, 639-652.

Grifﬁn, 8., Case, R., & Siegler, R. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual
prerequisites for ﬁrst formal learning in arithmetic to students at risk for school
failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Griffore, R. & Phenice, L. (2001). The language of human ecology. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.

Haapasalo, J ., Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages 6 to 12:
Family background, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1044-1052.

Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. R. (1993). Psychology’s role in the public health response
to assaultive violence among young African-American men. American
Psychologist, 48 (2), 142-154.

Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Charlesworth, R. (1997). Integrated developmentally
appropriate curriculum: From theory and research to practice. In C. H. Hart, D.
C. Burts, & R. Charlesworth (Eds), Integrated curriculum and developmentally
appropriate practice: Birth to age 8. New York: State University of New York
Press.

63

 

Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Durland, M. A., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, M., & Fleege, P. O.
(1998). Stress behaviors and activity type participation of preschoolers in more
and less developmentally appropriate classrooms: SES and sex differences.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12 (2), 176-196.

Hartup, W. W. (1996a). Cooperation, close relationships, and cognitive development
In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup, (Eds), The company they
keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp.213-23 7). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

Hemmeter, M. L., Maxwell, K. L., Ault, M. J ., & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Assessment of
practices in early elementary classrooms (APEEC). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Hiebert, E. (1988). The role of literacy experiences in early childhood programs.-
Elementary School Journal, 89, 161-171.

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and learners in
the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Huffman, L. R., & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children:
The role of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15 (2), 167-184.

Hyson, M. C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Rescorla, L. (1990). The classroom practices
inventory: An observational instrument based on NAEYC’s guidelines for

developmentally appropriate practices for 4- and 5- year-old children. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 475-494.

Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. H. (1999). Developmentally appropriate

practices as predictors of self-competence among preschoolers. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 13 (2), 167-174.

J ipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Culture, curriculum,
connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 120-136.

Jordan, N., Huttenlocher, J ., & Levine, S. (1992). Differential calculation abilities in

young children from middle- and low-income families. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 644-653.

64

 

Jones, I. & Gullo, D. F. (1999). Differential social and academic effects of
developmentally appropriate practices and beliefs. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 14 (1 ), 26-35.

Keller, H. R. (1988). Children’s adaptive behaviors: Measure and source
generalizability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 371-389.

Kessler, S. A. (1991a). Early childhood education as development: Critique of the
metaphor. Early Education and Development, 2, 137-152.

Kessler, S. A. (1991b). Alternative perspectives on early childhood education. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 183-197.

Kessler, S. A., & Swadener, B. B. (Eds). (1992). Reconceptualizing the early childhood
curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Knapczyk, D. R., & Rodes, P. (1996). Teaching social competence: A practical
approach for improving social skills in students at-risk. Paciﬁc Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. ‘

Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teacher’s interaction with children: Why are
they so important? Young Children, 52 (2), 4-12.

Kostelnik, M. J ., Soderman, A. K., & Whiren, A. P. (2004). Developmentally
appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kostelnik, M. J ., Whiren, A. P., Soderman, A. K., Stein, L. C., & Gre ory, K. (2002).
Guiding children ’s social development: Theory to practice (4 ed.). Albany, NY:
Delmar.

Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer, B. J. (1996, April). Classroom peer acceptance,
friendship, and victimization: distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely
to children’s school adjustment. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association Meeting, New York.

Landy, S. (2002). Pathways to competence: Encouraging healthy social and emotional
development in young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (1983). Introduction. In Temperament and adaptation
across life: Theoretical and empirical issues (Vol. 5, pp. 198-231): Academic
Press.

Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & Zabski, S. (1985). Temperament and elementary school

children’s actual and rated academic performance: A test of a “goodness-of—ﬁt”
model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 125-136.

65

Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice: Exploring issue
of culture, class, and curriculum In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds), Diversity
and developmentally appropriate practices (pp. 17-43). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Ludlow, B. L., & Berkeley, T. R. (1994). Expanding the perceptions of developmentally
appropriate practice: Changing theoretical perspective. In B. L. Mallory & R. S.
New (Eds), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices (pp. 107118).
New York: Teachers College Press.

Marcon, R. (1992). Differential effects of three preschool models on inner-city 4 year-
olds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 517-530.

Marcon, R. (1995, April). Diﬂerential effects of preschool models on inner-city children:
The “Class of 2000 ” transitions from third to fourth grade. Paper presented at
the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Indianapolis, IN.

McFall, R. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills.
Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.

Moisan, T. A. (1998). Identiﬁcation and remediation of social skills deficits in learning
disabled children. Unpublished master’s research paper. Chicago Stat
University, Chicago, IL.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell,C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 11 7, 306-347.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell,C. L. (1996). The developmental signiﬁcance of children’s
friendship relations. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup,
(Eds), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence
(pp.289-321). New York: Cambridge University Press.

O'Loughlin, M. (1992, September). Appropriate for whom? A critique of the culture and
class bias underlying developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
education. Paper presented at the Conference on Reconceptualizating Early
Childhood Education: Research, Theory, and Practice, Chicago, IL.

Parker, J. G., Asher, S. R. (1993). Beyond peer acceptance: Friendship adjustment and
friendship quality as distinct dimensions of children’s peer adjustment In D.
Perlman, & W. H. Jones (Eds), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 4, pp.
261-294). London: Kingsley.

Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRoiser, M. E. (1995). Peer relationships,
child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology

66

 

perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds), Developmental Psychopathology:
Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 96-161). New York: Wiley.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Glickman, C. D. (1990). Measuring kindergartener’s social
competence. Young Children, 45 (4), 40-44.

Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York: Harper Collins.

Raines, S. C., & Johnson, J. M. (2003). Developmentally appropriateness: New
contexts and challenges. In Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (Eds) Major trends
and issues in early childhood education: Challenges, controversies, and insights.
(pp. 85-96). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Reynolds, A. (1989). A structural model of ﬁrst-grade outcomes for an urban, low

socioeconomic status, minority population. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 594-603.

Rothbart, M. K., & Jones, L. B. (1998). Temperament, self-regulation, and education.
School Psychology Review, 2 7 479-491.

Santrock, J. W. (2000a). Children (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Schachter, D., Pless, I. B., & Bruck, M. (1991). The prevalence and correlates of
behaviour problems in learning disabled children. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 38, 323-331.

Schweinhart, L., Weikart, D., & Lamer, M. (1986). Consequences of three preschool
curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Quarterly, 1, 15-45.

Schweinhart, L. J ., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Success by empowerment: The High/Scope
Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Young Children, November, 54-58.

Shephard, L. & Smith, M. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative

study of teachers’ beliefs and practices. American Educational Research Journal,
25, 307-333.

Sherman, C. & Mueller, D. P. (1996, June). Developmentally appropriate practice and
student achievement in inner-city elementary schools. Paper presented at Head
Start’s third national Conference, Washington, DC.

Soderman, A. K. (2002). PIOKS Early Readiness Social Competency Scale.
Unpublished manuscript.

Soderman, A. K., & Farrell, P. (2003). [2002-2003 Leap Frog Program]. Unpublished
raw data.

67

Spodek, B. (1982). The kindergarten: A retrospective and contemporary view. In L.
Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 4, pp. 173-192).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (1992). Economic and cultural inﬂuences on early mathematical
development. In F. L. Parker, R. Robinson, S. Sombrano, C. Piotrowski, J. Hagen,
S. Randolph, & A. Baker (Eds), New directions in child and family research:
Shaping Head Start in the 90s (p. 440-443). New York: National Council of
Jewish Women.

Steipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different
instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child
Development, 66, 209-223.

Steipek, D. J., & Ryan, R. H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready
to learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33 (4), 711-723.

Swanson, H. L. (1996). Meta-analysis, replication, social skills, and learning disabilities.
Journal of Speczal Education, 30, 213- 221.

Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-
analysis of the literature. School Psychology Review, 21, 427-443.

Talwar, R., Nitz, K., & Lerner, R. M. (1990). Relations among early adolescent

temperament, parent and peer demands, and adjustment: A test of the goodness of
ﬁt model. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 279-298.

Taylor, A. R. & Machida, S. (1994). The contribution of parent and peer support to Head
Start children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9,
387-405.

Teglasi, H. (1997). Temperament. In G. G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds),
Children ’s needs 11: Development, problems, and alternatives. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.

Thomas, R. M. (2000). Comparing theories of child development (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

Tremblay, R. E., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Masse, L. C., Vitaro, F. & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A
bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact
through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
560-568.

68

Vallance, D. D., Cummings, R. L., & Humphris, T. (1998). Mediators of the risk of
problem behavior in children with language learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31, 160-171.

Vaughn, B. E., Arizaa, M. R.,Krzysik, L., Caya, L. R., Bost, K. K., Newell, W., &
Karura, K. L. (2000). Friendship and social competence in a sample of preschool
children attending Head Start. Developmental Psychology, 36, 326-338.

Vaughn, B. E., Colvin, T. N., Azria, M. R., Caya, L., & Krzysik, L. (2001). Dyadic
analyses of friendship in a sample of preschool-age children attending head start:

Correspondence between measures and implications for social competence. Child
Development, 72 (3), 862-878.

Walker, H. M., (1983). Problem behavior identiﬁcation checklist (Revised). Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H., Stiller, B., Williams, G., Haring, N., Shinn, M., & Todis, B.
(1988). Systematic screening of pupils in the elementary age range at risk for
behavior disorders: Development and trail testing of a multiple gating model.
Remedial and Special Education, 9, 8-14.

Walsh, D. J. (1991). Extending the discourse on developmentally appropriateness: A
developmental perspective. Early Education and Development, 2, 109-119.

Waterman, B. B. (2002). Inforrnation-processing perspectives in understanding social
and personal behavior. In Carlson, J. F., & Waterman, B. B. (Eds) Social and
personality assessment of school-aged children: Developing interventions for
educational and clinical use. (pp. 141-157). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

69

 

lltr‘!)

ll ll 1' ’1‘ .illlll l ’illllll Ill ll

      

     

            
 

STAT

llllllllljllgllllljlllllIlllll

504 0431

ll!