. . . ___ ‘ _._ We \
l ‘ 3
‘" .. 1

-_ ?‘7'3? :3. 79

1*.- w... ; . n
nhfléa“. win-fl .. cf

r )1». .l

‘5- a: .13} a. .35 :...‘; ‘55- fl 3%
"w _ . v‘ .‘4 (0., '. - 1; _-\.
*‘. J 1.; vi]! 5,: 3.; ... ‘3‘“ Q» Q»!

€219
than
[an ‘0
953

aux-git:
I L": E

can t i} _
Ken;- 4 W‘" :“‘- ,
' “4‘8 v 'un‘a a... at '

ram 2151- m m- w
4
I

I
l
l
.V’i
\

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PRESCHOOL RESOURCE CENTERS:
UTILIZATION IN RURAL COMMUNITY LIBRARIES

presented by

Susan E. Reed

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_M,_A_,____degfee in Child Development

 

 

Y 7

f’ r “/17 kg“ / -
Kat ; - ‘ N 17“ Z
KP ”4544;11/ / Ly (.15; ‘7 ~ ”>4 t ”

Major professor

Date “AG/8171

0-7539 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
__ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
V returned after the date
““‘ stamped below.
“ff““fivgtv

I

 

 

PRESCHOOL RESOURCE CENTERS: UTILIZATION IN
RURAL COMMUNITY LIBRARIES

BY

Susan E. Reed

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1984

ABSTRACT

PRESCHOOL RESOURCE CENTERS: UTILIZATION IN
RURAL COMMUNITY LIBRARIES

BY

Susan E. Reed

Because of the need to assist rural families in
providing intellectual stimulation for their preschool
children, Preschool Resource Centers (PRCs) were created in
four rural, Michigan community libraries. Parents could
obtain toys and games to strengthen their preschool child's
skill development. The purpose of this study was to compare
responses of small town and rural families using the PRCs by
analyzing participant mothers' responses to an interview
form. Answers to research questions concerning
participation and utilization of PRC5 were analyzed using
Chi-square analysis and frequency distributions. Most
families learned about the PRCs by visiting the libraries.
Friends and parents played most often with the children with
"the PRC toys and problems with the toys included missing
pieces and unsturdy containers. Most all of the respondents
felt that play was important for their childfsidevelopment,
although 42.7% of the families spent only $26-50 per year on

toys.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation
and gratitude to Dr. Eileen M. Earhart for her continual
support, encouragement, assistance, guidance and inspiration
in directing this thesis. She would also like to thank Dr.
Anne Soderman and Dr. Jeanne Brown for their insightful and
supportive contributions during the course of this study.
Finally, the author would like to thank her husband, A.
Nathan Reed for his invaluable technical assistance without

which this work would not have been completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0
Chapter
I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O

Rationale for Study .
Objectives . . . . . .
Research Questions . .
Assumptions . . . . .
Operational Definitions
Conceptual Framework . .
Conceptual Definitions .
Overview . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

Parent-child Interaction .
Toy Lending Libraries . .
Rural Preschool Education
Summary . . . . . . . . .

I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Sample Description .
Design and Procedure
The Instrument . . .
Analysis . . . . . .

IV. THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion of Findings . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research

APPENDIX 0 O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O

A. INTERVIEW FORM FOR USERS OF PRESCHOOL
RESOURCE CENTERS O O O O C O O O .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Page

iv

\DmmflNUIU'IUI H

H
o

WNNH
OQOO

60

64

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Preschool Resource Center
Respondents By Location . . . . . . . . . .

Community Size of Respondents . . . . . . . .
Occupations of Participating Mothers . . . .

Frequency of Times Families Borrowed Toys
and Games From the PRC . . . . . . . . . .

How Families Learned About Toys and Games
in the Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency of Library Visits By Families . . .
Ten Most Frequently Mentioned Toys . . . . .

Persons Who Played With the Child With the
PRC TOYS O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0

Frequency of Time Children Spent Playing
EaCh Day 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

How Families Value Their Children's Play . .

Amount of Money Spent on Toys For Each Child
During a Year 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

PRC Visits By Rural and Small Town Families .

Number of Times Toys Are Borrowed By Rural
and Small Town Families . . . . . . . . .

Rural and Small Town Parents Who Play With
Their Children With the PRC Toys . . . . .

Play Time Spent Each Day By Rural and Small
Town Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amount of Money Spent Per Child On Toys By
Rural and Small Town Families . . . . . . .

Frequency of Families Borrowing Toys and
Games in Each of the PRC Library Locations .

iv

Page

32
32

33

37

37
38

39

4O

42
12

43
44

45

46

46

48

49

Table Page

18. Amount of Time Children Spend Playing in
General Each Day In Each of the PRC
Library Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

19. Amount of Money Spent By Families On Toys
For Each Child During a Year in Each of the
PRC Library Locations . . . . . . . . . . . 52

CHAPTER I

The importance of the influence of the caregiver on a
young childls cognitiveidevelopment is becoming increasingly
evident. This current general surge of interest in early
childhoodidevelopment began in the early 1960's and resulted
in the creation of Project Head Start. This program of
remedial education for disadvantaged children was initiated
by the United States government and based on the premise
that poor children lacked certain experiences that are
required for successful academic work (Elkind and weiner,
1978). Also in response to this growing concern for the
preschool child's educational development Burton White
(1973) of Harvard University began the Harvard Preschool
Project which sought to study the attributes and development
of the successful or competent child. Its primary purpose
was to "search for environmental factors that play important
causal roles in the early development of human competence"
(White, 1973, p. 25). ‘White concluded from his findings
that only one child in ten has a good educational start in
life and that while most parents are potentially capable of
raising competent children, they lack adequate knowledge and
assistance for parenthood (White, 1975).

Bradley and Caldwell (1976) also found that infants who
came from homes rich in appropriate kinds of experiences had

progressively increasing mental test scores during the first

three years of life. In contrast, infants who came from
homes poor in certain kinds of experiences had progressively
decreasing mental test scores. Utilization of resources
available in the home and the community resulted in
increased opportunities for appropriate experiences.

Rural families with young children often find that few
community resources are available to them. Cowan (1975) has
suggested that in some sparsely populated areas, families
actually receive far fewer support services and resources
than they would if they lived in more densely populated
areas. Family incomes, though low, may exceed Head Start
minimum guidelines, thus, preventing children from
participating in programs stimulating to their intellectual
and social growth and development. Support services such as
child development centers, nursery schools, play groups and
programs for handicapped children may also be limited or
non—existent (Earhart, 1980).

Because of this need to assist rural families in
providing intellectual stimulation for their preschool
children, the Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station funded a project which began in January
1974, entitled "Development of Guidelines for Creating
Preschool Resource Centers". The purpose was to create a
preschool resource center (PRC) in selected rural libraries
from which parents could obtain materials to strengthen
their preschool child's skill development. A major

objective was to promote parental involvement and

interaction with the preschool child.

Potential locations for preschool resource centers were
surveyed by representatives of the Human Development
Commission, an agency serving 14 counties in rural Michigan.
Three counties--Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola--in the Thumb
Area were identified for this project. Elementary schools,
libraries and community centers were canvassed to determine
the availability of space and staff members' interest in the
project. One community library in each county was selected.
The Library Boards in each of the three locations--
Millington, Marlette and Pigeon--were involved in the
planning and decision-making process. The materials placed
in these libraries included approximately 30 books and 150
games and toys selected for infants, toddlers and preschool
children up to age five. Michigan State University
specialists in child development, Jeanne Brown, Joan Hoffman
Smith and Eileen Earhart, selected materials appropriate for
this age level using the criteria of durability, suitability
for home use, learning potential in all developmental areas,
and probability of promoting parent-child interactions.
Suggestion sheets were developed by project staff members
for each item.

The preschool resource centers (PRCs) were publicized by
a series of newspaper articles and pictures. Brochures were
printed by the Human Development Commission and distributed
by the libraries and community groups. PRCs were visited by

Head Start children and their parents during field trips to

acquaint them with this new service. Later, three
additional libraries in other rural communities (Benzonia,
Mendon, and Vermontville» were chosen to house the preschool
resource center materials.

This research study is concerned with data collected
from four of the six preschool resource centers developed as
a result of this project: Pigeon, Mendon, Vermontville and
Benzonia. Toys and games were placed in the Pigeon,
Michigan, library by project staff members in May, 1974.

The Mendon library received materials in October, 1977, and
the preschool resource center was started in‘Vermontville
and Benzonia, Michigan in May, 1978. Data collection began
in September, 1979. Librarians in each center provided
names and addresses of all PRC participants. Interviewers
contacted each parent participant by telephone and arranged
an appointment with those mothers who were willing to be
interviewed in their homes. The total number of respondents
was 133: 32 from Benzonia, 49 from Pigeon, 21 from Mendon
and 31 from Vermontville. During each home interview,
information was recorded on the Interview Form For Users of
Preschool Resource Centers (Appendix A) by the interviewers.
Data were collected relative to the responses of parents to
materials, guidelines, and associated procedures used.

Information about their children's play was also recorded.

Rationale for Study

Rural PRCs are effective in increasing parent/child
interactions and in promoting educational experiences for
rural preschool children only if utilized. Evaluation of
data collected aids in determining the extent to which the
project's purposes have been attained. The purpose of this
study was to compare responses of small town and rural
families using the preschool resource centers in Pigeon,
Mendon, Vermontviille, and‘Benzonia, Michigan.to«determine
how frequently the PRCs were used, families' participation
in the PRCs, how materials were used at home, and what toys
and games were borrowed. Also, differences in utilization
by rural and small town respondents were examined as well
differences in use based on library locations. Participant
mothers' responses to the Interview Form For Users of

Preschool Resource Centers were analyzed.

Objectives

 

1. To answer research questions about participation in
and utilization of preschool resource centers.

2. To compare rural mothers! responses to small town
mothers' responses to the Interview Form For Users of
Preschool Resource Centers.

3. To compare responses to the interview form based on
the library locations of Benzonia, Vermontville» Pigeon and

Mendon.

Research Questions

Answers to the following research questions concerning
the families' participation were sought:

1. How often have families borrowed toys and games
from the PRC?

2. How did families learn about toys and games in the
library?

3. How frequently did families visit the library?

4. What PRC toys and games were favorites with the
children?

5. Who plays with the child with the PRC toys?

6. What problems did they experience with any of the
toys?

7. How much time did the children spend playing each
day?

8. How important do families feel play is for their
child's development?

9. How much money is spent on toys for each child
during a year?

Comparisons of responses by mothers living in rural
communities and in small towns were examined concerning the
following questions:

1. Do families in small towns visit the PRC more
frequently than rural families?

2. Do families in small towns borrow toys and games

from the PRC more often than rural families?

3. Do parents in small towns play more frequently with
their children with the PRC toys than rural parents?

4. Do small town children spend more time playing in
general each day than rural children?

5. Do small town families spend more money on toys for
each child during a year than rural families?

Comparisons of responses based on the library locations
of Benzonia, Pigeon, Mendon and Vermontvilleewere examined
concerning the following questions:

1. What is the frequency of families borrowing toys
and games in each of the PRC library locations?

2. How much time do the children in each of the PRC
library locations spend playing in general each day?

3. How much money is spent by families on toys for
each child during a year in each of the PRC library

locations?

Assumptions

 

The following assumptions underlie this study:

1. Mothers are aware of their children's play
activities.

2. Mothers' responses will reflect their perceptions
of their children's play.

3. Mothers are knowledgeable about their children's

daily activities.

Operational Definitions

The following terms have been used throughout the
thesis:

Rural parents include parents that live on farms and
parents that live in the country but not on farms.

Small town parents are parents living in towns with

populations under 10,000 people.

Conceptual Framework

The ecological model is the basis for the original
study. Rural family environments have been altered as a
result of the development of preschool resource centers.
The human ecological model suggests that organisms, or
living things, interact with their environment. This
sensitive balance which exists between the organism and its
environment is called an ecosystem (Bubolz, Eicher, and
Sontag, 1979). The family ecosystem considers the
interactions and transformations occurring between the
family unit and its near environment (i.e. the home, the
local community). Thus, a change in the family‘s near
environment often results in a change in the family system.
Since all living beingsiare dependent for survival on
nurturing and sustaining environments, the family system
must be at least partially open to inputs.

This study will use information collected from the
original study to compare the responses of small town and

rural families who chose to participate in the preschool

resource»centers in Pigeon, Mendon, Vermontville, and
Benzonia, Michigan by analyzing mothers' responses to the

Interview Form For Users of Preschool Resource Centers.

Conceptual Definitions

The following are conceptual definitions of terms used
in this thesis.

An ecosystem includes the living organisms and the
environment in which they live (Bubolz, et al., 1979).

An open system is one in which boundaries are

 

penetrable thus permitting information flow (Melson, 1980).

A family ecosystem includes the functioning group

 

living in one household and the environment in which it
lives, including the educational, social and physical

environment (Whiren, 1976).

Overview

Relevant literature on parent-child interaction, toy-
lending libraries, and rural educational resources is
reviewed in the second chapter. In Chapter Three the
methodology of the study is described, and the analysis of
the results are discussed in Chapter Four. A summary and
discussion of the findings is presented in the fifth chapter

along with implication for further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature will be reviewed in three general areas:
parent-child interaction, toy-lending libraries, and rural
educational resources. The importance of parent-child
interaction on a child's intellectual development will be
discussed. The function and development of previously and
currently operating toy-lending libraries will be reported
and the state of rural educational resources will be

discussed.

Parent-child Interaction

The influence of home environment variables on a
child's intellectual development and academic achievement
has been the focus of extensive study in child development
research (Hess & Shipman, 1965; Jones, 1972; Marjoribanks,
1979; Stevenson, 1976; Yarrow» 1963). Educators believe
that parents can make an influential contribution to their
children's educational experiences by working with them on
the development of certain skills in the years before the
commencement of formal schooling (Ahr & Simons, 1968).

Americans renewed their concern about early education
during the Sputnik era of the 1950's and 1960's. It was
found that large numbers of preschool children from

disadvantaged homes were gravely lacking in the fundamental

10

11

experiences needed for cognitive growth and a successful
educational experience (Horodezky, 1978). Hunt (1961),
Bruner (1961) and Bloom (1964) noted the importance of the
child's early environment and addressed attention to the
"crucial" first five years of intellectual development. At
no other time does a child accomplish such dramatic growth
in language development as during these preschool years
(Dallman, Rouch, Char & DeBoer, 1978).

In their review of research concerning mother-child
interactions and their impact on the child's developing
intelligence, Streissguth and Bee (1972) concluded that
differences in the learning environments of preschool
children "have been shown to be related to cognitive
functioning and motivational characteristics of children"
“L 171). Deliberate and playful maternal stimulation has
also been shown to be a potent dimension of maternal
influence (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).

The combination of verbal and visual stimulation, when
frequently given, appears to accelerate development and is
particularly beneficial to the child if it occurs during
play rather than caretaking (Chodorkoff, 1960; Lewis &
Wilson, 1971; Rheingold, 1956; Rubenstein, 1967; Stern,
Caldwell, Hersher, Lipton & Richmond, 1969; Walters & Parke,
1965; Yarrow, 1963; Yarrow & Goodwin, 1965). Distinctive
and frequent verbal stimulation from the mother, by reading
or talking to the infant, has also been related to

children's cognitive development evidenced by more frequent

12

vocalization and increased language ability (Bing, 1963;
Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Gordon, 1969; Irwin, 1960; Kagan,
1971; Milner, 1951; Schaefer, Furfey & Harte, 1968).

Clarke-Stewart (1973) undertook a longitudinal
observation of mother-child interactions. Her study
examined relations between behaviors of mothers and their
first-born children (9-18 months old). After home
observations in structured situations over a 9-month period,
Clark—Stewart found a highly significant linear relation
between factors of children's competence and mothers' care.
Specific relations were found between children's language
development and mothers' verbal stimulation. Analysis of
relations over time suggested that stimulating, responsive
maternal behavior influenced the child's intellectual
development. Her findings also suggested that the time
spent playing with a child may be more important for
cognitive development than the richness or amount of
stimulating materials available to him or her.

Bradley and Caldwell (1976) found that:

Infants who come from homes rich in appropriate kinds

of experiences have mental test scores that show a

progressive increase during the first three years of

life; By comparison, infants who come from homes poor

in certain kinds of experiences have mental scores that

progressively decrease. (p. 96)

Carew (1976) observed 23 children from age one to three
in order to assess day-to-day learning environments and

their effect on intellectual development. For children aged

30-33 months, results indicated a strong relationship

13

between competence and intellectual experiences (teaching,
helping, entertaining, conversing, and sharing in
intellectual activities) provided by other people.

Goldberg (1977) based a study on psychological research
suggesting that the amount of time children spend in
activities with parents contributes importantly to the
quality of young children's lives in general, and to
children's cognitive development and academic achievement in
particular. He investigated the amount of time mothers
spend with preschoolers in specific activities related to
cognitive development and sociodemographic variables which
influence mothers' time spent with children. Goldberg found
that more educated mothers spent time with their children
that was more stimulating and of a higher quality
intellectually than less educated mothers.

After reviewing 20 years of research on the origins of
human competence, White, Kaban, and Attanucci (1979) stated
that "much that shapes the final human product takes place
during the first years of life" (p. 183). White undertook a
longitudinal study entitled The Harvard Preschool Project in
1965. Its purpose was to determine how to structure
experiences during the first 6 years of life so as to
"assist each child to maximize the potential he is born
with" (p. 4). From data collected on everyday experiences
of children, White concluded that a close social
relationship, particularly during the first few months

following a child's first birthday, was a conspicuous

14

feature in the lives of children who developed best. The
amount of live language directed to a child was perhaps the
strongest single indicator of later intellectual, linguistic
and social achievement.

Iitaka (1980) observed monthly, 10 normal, first-born
Japanese infants from middle class families when the infants
were 6 to 24 months of age. He found significantly positive
correlations between cognitive variables and maternal verbal
responses and negative correlations between cognitive
variables and maternal attitudes disregarding the child.

Porter (1982) examined the effects of preschool
experience and family environment on childrends cognitive
and social development in the first years of school. Family
environment variables including demographic characteristics,
literacy of the home, parents' interest in education and
parents' aspirations for their children's education seemed
to account for a greater proportion of the variance than did
preschool experience at the three data points of: school
entry, end of kindergarten, and end of first grade. Porter
suggested the need to develop more "home-based" rather than
"center-based" programs for children and parents.

Poresky (1982) studied 27 two-year-old infants and
mothers in their homes to analyze the relationship between
infants' development and their home environment, mothers'
attitude as parents, mothers! marital adjustment and
families socioeconomic status. Using the HOME Inventory

(Bradley et a1. 1976), his findings concurred with

15

BradleyHL The two subscales most strongly related to the
infantfls mental and motor development were "Provision of
Appropriate Play Materials" and "Maternal Involvement with
the Child)‘ "They reflect opportunities to learn through
experiences with the environment and affective support" (p.
700).

In the Bristol Longitudinal Study, "Language at Home
and at School," Wells (1980) concluded that the amount of
speech that adults address to their children is
significantly associated with the child's rate of progress.
Rutter (1979) distinguished between sheer noise stimulation
and quality verbal interaction by noting that the sheer
amount of stimulation is irrelevant to cognitive development
in children. However, the quality and meaningfulness of
active experiences, especially conversational interchange,
seem crucial.

Thus, the richness of a child's language and
intellectual facility may be determined by the interest,
attention and communicative adult interaction received from
home. In the early years, the essential element in
stimulating the intellectual and conceptual development of
children is parent involvement.

Play objects are also important in the young child's
development. Bradley and Caldwell (1976) found that
"mothers whose infants improve in mental test performance
not only encourage and challenge the child to develop new

skills but also provide the child with the kinds of play

16

materials needed for development” (p. 96). Huntinger (1978)
and the staff of the Macomb 0-3 Project believe that
manipulation and direct experiences are essential processes
and conditions for encouraging the young child's learning.
Yarrow, Rubenstein, Pedersen, and Jankowski (1972) studied
effects of the inanimate environment and social environment
on the development of infants five to six-months-old. The
characteristic of the inanimate environment that related
most consistently to infant development was the variety of
objects.availab1e to the child. Children with more variety
in inanimate objects scored higher on Bayley Mental and
Motor Scales. Bradley et a1. (1976) administered the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development to 93 predominately lower-class
or lower middle-class children at 6, 12, and 24 months of
age. Using the HOME Inventory (Bradley et al., 1976), he
found that during the second year, parental behaviors such
as providing appropriate play materials, appeared to exert a
significant impact on competence.

The relationship between the informal, instructional
role of parents and children's cognitive and academic
achievements has been suggested by many studies (Baumrind,
1967; Brophy, 1970; Hess & Shipman, 1967; White and Watts,
1973). Programs designed to train parents to foster the
intellectual development of their children, essentially by
promoting verbal interaction, must be noted.

Phyllis Levemstein (1970) directed a study entitled

Verbal Interaction Project, Mother-Child Home Program

17

(MCHPL. The MCHP is basically'"an incentives program that
builds on the emotional bond between mother and child to
encourage their verbal interaction long after direct
assistance has been withdrawn" (Carnegie Quarterly, 1979, p.
1). Levenstein believed that small children best learn
through their mothers, and thus trained "Toy-Demonstrators"
to visit low-income mothers and their two to three-year-old
children in their homes. By playing with the child using
specially chosen toys, the demonstrator showed each mother
how to verbally interact with her child. Toys and books
used by the demonstrator were left as gifts for the family.
The study indicated that highly significant cognitive gains
were made in the experimental group and were retained two
years later.

Hess, Block, Costello, Knowles and Largay (1971)
suggested in their review that:

Programs which attempt to improve parents as primary

teachers of their own children appear to have positive

effects on the cognitive achievement of their children.

These effects appear to spread to other siblings and to

children in the neighborhood who are not involved in

the program, although it is difficult to identify the

factors which led‘ to these effects. (p. 278)

Karnes, Teska, Hodgins, and Badger (1970) designed a
program which involved group meetings with mothers and their
children. The meetings were divided between group
discussions with the mothers and activities directed toward
the children, usually'centered on the use of toys. Mothers

were encouraged to repeat these play activities with their

children at home. At the end of the two-year program,

18

children in the experimental group scored significantly
higher on the Binet IQ test than did children in a control
group. Greater involvement of mothers with their children
also resulted.

In an effort to accelerate the development of children,
12-52 months of age, Dusewicz (1973) developed a program
that would provide developmentally'enriching experiences in
a controlled environment, enhancing the growth of sensory,
conceptual, and language abilities in young children from
backgrounds of both urban and rural poverty. The principal
approach of this project was to attempt to accelerate the
cognitive development of the participating children through
initial reinforcement of perceptual skills and later
emphasis upon conceptual and language abilities. One phase
of this project, the "Parent Involvement Program",*was based
on the premise that parents, given the proper knowledge and
motivation to undertake activities helpful to their
children's development, can contribute substantially to
preparing their children for formal learning experiences.
The Parent Involvement Program gave low-income,
disadvantaged mothers instruction and encouragement to teach
their infants and toddlers many things at home which would
help them later in school environments. Results indicated
that interaction increased between mothers and their
children and that mothers were usually'able to observe
considerable progress in their children's physical, mental,

emotional and social skills.

19

In reviewing evaluations of parent education programs,
Bronfenbrenner (1974) and Goodson and Hess (1976) concluded
that findings in the literature to date suggested that
homebased, moderately structured parent programs produced
striking short and long term gains for children, using
intelligence and achievement test performance as criteria of
effectiveness. Goodson and Hess (1976) suggested that such
programs may positively impact parental attitudes and
parent—child interaction.

Fowler (1976) used a longitudinal study to explore the
effects of early language stimulation upon norms of the
language development of three infants four to five-months-
old. A 17—month program of intensified early language
stimulation was implemented by weekly home tutoring sessions
with the parents, including activities such as
sociodramatic, motor, and manipulative play as well as other
activities. Results indicated that the mean levels and
rates of language development for the three infants greatly
surpassed norms of development.

Slaughter (1980) undertook a longitudinal study of
early intervention with 83 black mother-daughter dyads.
When contrasting two social intervention programs, the
Levenstein Toy Demonstration Program (TD) and the Auerback—
Badger Discussion Group program, it was found that the TD
program promotes children's cognitive development by
encouraging verbal interaction between mothers and their

children.

20

There is, then, research support for designing programs
to encourage parents of preschool children to take an active
role in the education and guidance of their children,
particularly in the area of language and vocabulary
development. An increase in verbal interaction at home
between the parent and child through toys and play should

aid in promoting the child's cognitive development.

Tgy Lending Libraries

 

Toy lending libraries can help parents provide
intellectual stimulation for their young children during a
critical period in their lives by providing a variety of
toys that may not be affordable to parents and by offering
guidelines in using these toys to stimulate infants and
young children. Studies conducted with infants and young
children have shown that “children from all_socioeconomic
backgrounds need attention and play" (McNelis, 1974, p. 1).
Positive interaction and intellectual stimulation from
adults is necessary if children are to develop to their
fullest potential.

Results of early childhood intervention programs (Head
Start, Experimental Day Care Centers) showed significant
positive gains in mental skills, self-concept and self-image
in the children involved. However, with time, the positive
gains made by these children began to fade (McNelis, 1974).
Programs which could continue to stimulate disadvantaged
children were sought after, and the need to educate parents

of all socio-economic groups on the importance of

21

intellectual stimulation and interaction during a child's
early years became evident. One approach to increase
parental involvement has been the institution of toy-lending
libraries. The toy library makes available a wide range of
colorful, attractive and educational toys for parents to use
with their children. It can also provide both formal and
informal guidance on techniques of adult/child interaction
and intellectual stimulation (McNelis, 1974).

Although originally'developed in England to provide a
materials and information center for teachers and parents of
young handicapped children, toy libraries have grown to
serve all young children and to meet other community needs.
Toy libraries are well established in other countries and
are gaining popularity in the United States. Organizations
such as the Canadian Association of Toy Libraries and The
Toy Library Association of England have been established to
promote toy libraries and to foster communication and
support among themselves (Evans & Stewart, 1980).

In the United States, toy libraries differ widely.

A nun runs the library in St. Paul of the Apostle in

New York City, a day-care worker runs one in Chicago.

There are libraries in twenty-six native villages in

Alaska, in the Bank of America Building in Berkley,

and all over Utah where the toys are put together by

senior citizens. (Toy Lending Library, 1973, p. 50)
Community support and volunteer efforts have enabled these
facilities to open. They are designed "to meet local needs,

while working within the given constraints of resources such

as funding and space" (Evans & Stewart, 1980, p. 71).

22

On the assumption that parents are able to provide
significant educational experiences for their preschool
children, Glen Nimnicht (1972) from the Far West Laboratory
for Educational Research and Development, created the
Parent/Child Toy-Lending Library Program. Parents whose
incomes were too high for their children to be eligible for
Head Start programs but too low to provide tuition to
private nursery schools enrolled, without charge, in an
eight-week course. Trained staff members instructed parents
in the educational use of the toys, basic educational
concepts, and some facts of child development. A basic set
of eight toys was designed by personnel of the Parent/Child
Program to "teach specific fundamental concepts and skills,
to promote verbal fluency, and to develop problem-solving
techniques" (p. 110). After completion of the training,
parents were permitted to borrow eight other toys to use
with their children. The program has had a positive effect
on both the participation parents and their children. One
disadvantage in this approach is that many parents are
either unable or unwilling to participate in the eight
training sessions and, therefore, are ineligible to borrow
toys for their children. Also, the participating children
are limited to the use of only sixteen different toys
(Earhart, 1980).

The 4-C (Community Coordinated Child Care) Toy Library
in Orange County, Florida, lends learning materials such as

table games, puzzles, floor toys, audiovisuals, musical

23

instruments, housekeeping toys, health toys, science toys,
and tools to children from infancy through five years of
age. Originally supported through a small grant from the
Tri-State (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) Early Childhood
Project, the library is now funded by a local volunteer
service organization, the Junior League of Orlando. In
addition to lending toys, the library offers seminars in
selecting, evaluating and repairing toys. Volunteer teams
have made weekly visits to day care centers carrying
Caboodles of Toys (colorfully decorated boxes containing 20
assorted learning toys). After giving needed assistance,
the volunteers leave the Caboodles with the center for two
weeks allowing children and teachers additional time for
playing with the toys. The Library Director and 4-C
Educational Coordinator report an enthusiastic response to
the project (Poe, 1975).

Existing local elementary school facilities can be used
for lending books and toys to preschool children, suggests
Bell (1975). These centers would benefit the community by
increasing general concern for a higher quality living
environment and would help prepare preschool children for
formal schooling.

Toys'n Things, a toy-lending library and toy
classification system, was developed with a Title IV-A grant
from Ramsey County Welfare Board, St. Paul, Minnesota. The
goal of the Toy Lending Library is "to provide appropriate

toys, games, puzzles, equipment and regalia that are

24

classified according to the educational value of the toy
which also takes into account the child development skill
potential of the toy itself" (Kight, 1976, p. 15). Their
wide array of resources is available for family day care
providers, day care centers, nursery schools, parents and
teachers who wish to learn more about the educational value
of toys.

The Region IV Parent Education Demonstration Project
(PEDP) was developed to help other school systems plan and
conduct parent/child programs. Through parent workshops,
home visitation and Toy and Material Libraries, the
project's main objective was the enhancement of parents'
influence of the cognitive, affective, social and motor
development of their preschool children (Together is Best,
1976).

Hektoen and Rinehart (1976) provide a guide to the use
of toys in public libraries. Play, they feel, is a child's
work. It is the way in which children learn about
themselves, their world, and their place in that world.
Since the parent is the child's first and most important
teacher, exposing parents to quality materials for their
children is extremely important.

Parents and teachers desiring assistance in selecting
appropriate educational toys are aided by the design of many
toy libraries. The Toybrary (1978) project of the Nebraska
Department of Education and the Nebraska Regional Library

System has selected toys for the education of young

25

handicapped children. Pamphlets with ideas on how to work
with the child are included with the toys. The toys focus
on developing muscle control, exploring, challenging the
mind, and appealing to the senses. Descriptions of
information sources for parents of handicapped children,
such as agencies, foundations, clinics, associations, and
service oriented societies are also provided by the
Toybrary.

The Washington, ILC. Toy Library was established as a
research demonstration project by Dr. Dorothy Edwards
(McNelis, 1974), a psychologist at the American Institute
for Research. It’s purpose was to improve early parent—
child relationships, stimulate positiveechild development,
and prevent later behavior difficulties (Rosenfeld, 1978).
In addition to lending books and toys to low income families
in Washington, DML, the Toy Library offers child
development services and activities such as afternoon
workshops for parents and their children, first-aid courses,
cooking demonstrations, and films and discussions on early
childhood stimulation and family health. A study of the
program's impact indicated that participating children made
appreciable changes in their behavior, such as better
speech, more interest in reading, and greater curiosity
(Rosenfeld, 1978).

Duff, Heinz, and Husband (1978) recognized the
importance of the parent's role with respect to the young

child's learning by developing and implementing a toy

26

lending library in the Childrenfs Center at the University
of South Carolina. "The chief purpose of the lending
library was to provide an additional mode for parent-child

interaction in the home, as well as parent-teacher, teacher-
child interaction in the school" (p. 16). The library was
housed in a hallway near the classroom, and toys from the
following categories were loaned over the weekend: puzzles,
building manipulatives, language materials, music, creative
play, and outdoor equipment. Objectives for the Toy Lending
Library included providing opportunities for the children
to:

1. Explore materials and activities of their own
interest alone and/or with other family members.

2. Increase instances of meaningful and purposeful
interaction between parents and themselves.

3. Further develop language, inquiry, and problem-
solving skills through interaction with parents
and other family members.

4. Feel success in the home setting for
accomplishments derived from activities of their
own choice shared with parents or other family
members. (Duff et al., 1978, p. 17)

The Toy Lending Library would provide opportunities for

parents to:

l. Involve themselves with their children through
the home use of learning materials and activities
of their children's own selection.

2. Gain greater understanding of the developmental
needs of children and greater insight into how
children learn.

3. Learn how to reinforce and expand the child's
learning at home. (p. 17)

Heavily'used materials included puzzles, blocks, Tinker

27

Toys, Lincoln Logs, lacing beads, peg boards, Tupperware
balls, Viewmaster, "Reading Lotto" game, "School Day Desk",
magnetic alphabet boards, records, rhythm instruments,
puppets, balls, jump ropes, and carpentry tools.

Because of the growing awareness of educators and
librarians regarding the impact of the environment during
the early years upon later development and learning, Smardo
(1978) undertook a study which investigated the role of the
public library in serving children from infancy to age six.
Through questionnaires and interviews, he obtained
recommendations from early childhood education authorities
pertaining to five areas of public library work with young
children. The five areas included services, programs,
materials, physical facilities, and personnel. Data were
used to develop guidelines for public libraries. The
following were recommendations for including toys in the
public library; A majority of the participants recommended
"provision of materials such as cloth, cardboard, and
sensory books; educational toys, musical instruments,
costumes, audiovisual equipment, and realia for use at home
and/or at the library by young children" (p. 6).
Educational toys should include "games, dolls, puzzles,
blocks, and stuffed storybook characters" (p. 9). Thus, the
importance of toy lending libraries was supported by the
research.

The purpose of toy lending libraries has been to

provide toys for loan and to instruct parents and daycare

28

providers on the use or construction of toys. The toy
lending library"s value as a promoter of parent-child
interactions has also been established. Toy libraries also
have the potential for providing valuable data on use of
toys at home and parental involvement with children through
toys and can become a vehicle for conducting research in

these areas.

Rural Educational Resources

Current research on learning theory and child
development emphasizes the importance of the years of
childhood before age six. However, programs for young
children are generally'not available in rural areas.(Ford,
1978, Haller, 1971; Isenberg, 1971). Although good data
on rural areas are hard to come by, there is considerable
evidence that many rural communities "rank high in terms of
both socieoeconomic and educational disadvantage, even when
compared to inner cities" (Bass, 1979, p. l).

A condition typical to poor rural people is lack of
access to good educational, recreational, and social
services (Bubolz, 1974). Children from these rural homes,
especially'those in low income and isolated or semi-isolated
areas, are at an extreme disadvantage when compared with
children from urban or urbanized rural homes (Fratoe, 1978;
The Quality of Rural Living, 1971). At the preschool age
level, these children tend to have far fewer sources of
intellectual stimulation and social interaction than urban

children (The Quality of Rural Living, 1971; Sher, 1981).

29

Also, support of quality education programs becomes
difficult in declining rural communities when the resource
base is decreasing (Bubolz, 1974).

Few programs exist for many rural families who, though
essentially self-reliant, have very limited access to
intellectual and physical resources necessary'for promoting
optimal intellectual development.in their Children.

Rural families have limited community resources, such

as nursery schools and play groups, and those that

exist in the villages may not be accessible. Head

Start programs are operating in many communities for a

few families. Even though many other families desire

and need the intellectual and social stimulation for
their children, the family income may exceed Head Start
minimum guidelines, and they are, therefore, ineligible

for the program. (Whiren, 1976, p. 2)

In a Council of Europe report, it was argued that the
rural disadvantage in terms of preschool education was the
result of three interlocking deficits:

1. Educational and social services [at the preschool
levell are either missing, inadequate or poorly
linked to the overall education network;

2. the differences between urban and rural
socialization processes and motivational
structures have rarely been investigated and taken
into consideration; and

3. alternative [preschool] educational programmes for
rural districts have not been developed and tested
sufficiently. (Schleicher, 1977, p. 36)

The need to enhance the intellectual development of

rural preschool age children is critical. "Investment in

family development as well as in economic development must

be a part of rural development” (Bubolz, 1974, p. 63).

30

Summary

A review of research literature has shown that an
increase in verbal interaction at home between the parent
and child through toys and play will aid in promoting the
child’s cognitive development. The toy-lending library‘s
value as a promoter of parent-child interactions has been
established. Although little research exists on rural
educational resources, there is considerable evidence that
many rural communities are educationally'disadvantaged and
would benefit from programs aimed at increasing the
intellectual stimulation and social interaction of rural

preschool children.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

In this study data which were collected from an earlier
study will be utilized. The Michigan State University
Agricultural Experiment Station funded a project which began
in January, 1974, entitled “Development of Guidelines for
Creating Preschool Resource Centers." The purpose was to
create a preschool resource center (PRC) in selected rural
community libraries from which parents could obtain
materials to strengthen their preschool child's skill
development. Data were collected from four preschool
resource centers developed as a result of this project:
Pigeon, Mendon, Vermontville and Benzonia. Data collection
began in September, 1979. Librarians in each center
provided names and addresses of all PRC participants.
Interviewers contacted each parent participant by telephone
and arranged an appointment with those mothers that were
willing to be interviewed in their homes. During each home
interview, information was recorded on the Interview Form
For Users of Preschool Resource Centers (Appendix A) by the
interviewers. Data were collected relative to the responses
of parents to materials, guidelines, and associated

procedures used.

31

32

Sample Description

The subjects of the study were mothers of children who
were associated with the PRC in their respective
communities. The total number of respondents was 133; 32
from Benzonia, 49 from Pigeon, 21 from Mendon and 31 from

Vermontville as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of Preschool Resource Center Respondents By

 

 

 

Location.
Centers N %
Benzonia 32 24.1
Pigeon 49 36.8
Mendon 21 15.8
Vermontville 31 23.3
Total 133 100.0

 

Community size of respondents consisted of 63 rural parents

and 70 small town parents as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Community Size of Respondents.

 

 

Community Size N %

Rural 63 47.4

Small Town (pop. under 70 52.6
10,000)

 

Total 133 100.0

 

33

The classification of occupations of the mother participants
was determined by using the occupation portion of the
Hollingshead (1957) two factor index of social position. As
shown in Table 3, the majority of mothers were unemployed
(57.1%), while 17.3% were employed in a lesser profession,
11.3% were semi-skilled laborers and 8.2% were employed in

clerical-sales-technical positions.

Table 3. Occupations of Participating Mothers.

 

 

 

Occupation of Mother N %

Major Profession l .8
Lesser Profession 23 17.3
Minor Profession 6 4.5
Clerical-Sales-Technical 11 8.2
Skilled Laborer 1 .8
Semi-Skilled Laborer 15 11.3
Unemployed 76 57.1
Total 133 100.0

 

Design and Procedure

 

Using data collected previously from the "Interview
Form For Users of Preschool Resource Centers," this
researcher analyzed mothers' responses to the interview
questions. Answers to research questions concerning the
families participation were sought. Comparisons of

responses by mothers living in rural communities and in

34

small towns were examined and comparisons of responses based
on the library locations of Pigeon, Mendon, Benzonia, and

Vermontvi 1 1e were examined.

The Instrument

The "Interview Form For Users of Preschool Resource
Centers (PRC)" (Appendix A) was the questionnaire used by
interviewers to record mothers' responses to materials,
guidelines, and procedures used in conjunction with the
PRCs. Information about their childrens' play was also
recorded. The interview form was used to collect
demographic data, occupational data, as well as data

relevant to utilization of the preschool resource centers.

Analysis

The data were analyzed using the Michigan State
University computer facilities. The descriptive and
statistical analyses were carried out primarily by utilizing
the SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie,
Hill, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975) programs and were
run on a Control Data Corporation (CDC) 7500 Computer in
1980 and 1983.

In this study, frequency distributions are reported
from these data. Chi-square analysis was used to compare
demographic and descriptive data from the sampleu Cross-
tabulations were used to compare library locations with
frequency of library visits, childrens' time spent playing

each day, and amount of money spent by families each year on

35

toys for each child. Cross-tabulations were also used to
compare responses from rural and small town users to
frequency of times toys and games were borrowed from the
PRC, frequency of library visits made by participating
families, frequency of time children spent playing each day,
value parents placed on play, and the amount of money

parents spend on toys for each child during a year.

CHAPTER IV
THE RESULTS

Research questions were designed to determine
participation in and utilization of preschool resource
centers by rural and small town families by examining data
collected previously from the "Interview Form For Users of
Preschool Resource Centers". The total number of
respondents was 133. However, not all families responded to
all questions. Therefore, total responses may vary on some

questions.

1. How often have families borrowed toys and games

from the PRC?

Over half (53.4%) of the participating families (N=133)
borrowed toys from the preschool resource centers eight or
more times. Thirty-five families (26.3%) visited two to
four times, while an equal number of respondents (9%)
borrowed toys and games one time or five to seven times

(Table 4).

2. How did families learn about toys and games in
the library?

Families learned about toys and games in the libraries

in various ways. As shown in Table 5, the majority of

36

37

Table 4. Frequency of Times Families Borrowed Toys and
Games From the PRC.

 

 

 

Times Borrowed N %

No response 3 2.3
One time 12 9.0
2-4 times 35 26.3
5-7 times 12 9.0
8 or more times 71 53.4
Total 133 100.0

 

Table 5. How Families Learned About Toys and Games in the

 

 

Library.

Learn About Toys N %

By visiting the library 83 62.4
Friend 19 14.3
Nursery school 10 7.5
Newspaper 10 7.5
Family member 6 4.5
Neighbor 3 2.2
Other children 1 I .8
M80 1 .8

 

Total 133 100.0

 

38

families discovered the toys and games by actually'visiting
the library itself; Word of mouth by friends was the second
largest factor in introducing families to the toys and
games. Other sources of information concerning the toys and
games in the library included nursery schools (7.5%),
newspaper ads (7.5%), family members (4.5%), neighbors
(2.2%), other children (.8%) and advertisement through

Michigan State University (.8%).

3. How frequently did families visit the library?

As shown in Table 6, most PRC participants (88%)
visited the library at least once a month with 36% visiting
the library at least once a week. Only 11.3% of the
families visited the library less than once a month. Thus,
the majority of the families made frequent visits to the

preschool resource centers.

Table 6. Frequency of Library Visits By Families.

 

 

Visit Library N %

No Response 1 .8
Once a week 48 36.1
Every two weeks 34 25.6
Once a month 35 26.3
Other 15 11.3

 

Total 133 100.0

 

39

4. What PRC toys and games were favorites with the

children?

Parents were asked to list the toys and games that were
favorites with their children. Various types of blocks,
including building blocks, Bristle Blocks, and puzzle
blocks, were mentioned most frequently as favorites with the
children (see Table 7). Puzzles were the second most
frequently mentioned favorite toys, while animals, such as
farm animals, zoo animals, and prehistoric animals were the
third most frequently mentioned toys. Games, trucks,
puppets, and cars were listed frequently, while peg and lace
boards, stringing beads, and pots and pans were moderately

popular.

Table 7. Ten Most Frequently Mentioned Toys.

 

 

Toy Times Mentioned
Blocks 46
Puzzles 33
Animals 31
Games 28
Trucks 27
Puppets 22
Cars 19
Peg and Lace Board 9
Stringing Beads 8

Pots and Pans 8

 

4O

5. Who plays with the child with the PRC toys?

Analysis of mothers' responses (N=133) to this question
showed that 75.2% of the children did not play with the toys
alone while 23.3% did play alone with the toys. .As
indicated in Table 8, a variety of other persons played with
the children with the PRC toys. Friends, parents, and
siblings played most often with the children with the PRC
toys. Since some mothers mentioned more than one play
companion for their children, the total number of responses

is greater than 133.

Table 8. Persons Who Played With the Child With the PRC

 

 

Toys.
Who Plays With Child Times Mentioned
Friends 41
Parents 38
Siblings 35
Relative l7
Child-care aid 1
Teachers 1
Head Start children 1
Babysitter l

 

6. What problems did families experience with any of
toys?

41

Most of the respondents (77.4%) experienced no problems
with the PRC toys. However, some families (21.1%) did
indicate having some problems with some of the toys. The
most frequently mentioned problems included borrowing toys
that had missing pieces, losing pieces of toys, and finding
that boxes containing some toys and games would fall apart.
Some mothers indicated that many toys had too many pieces to
keep track of and four mothers did not like bringing home
breakable toys. Two mothers were concerned with having
their infants put borrowed toys in their mouths because of
the possibility of spreading germs. One mother had
difficulty keeping the PRC toys apart from her own child's
toys. Another mother had difficulty restricting her child
to borrowing only one toy from the PRC at a time.

7. How much time did the children spend playing in

general each day?

As shown in Table 9, 94.7% of the mother respondents
(N=l33) felt that their children spent at least two hours a
day playing. Forty-seven respondents estimated that their
children spent at least eight hours a day playing while only
three reported that their children spent less than two hours
a day playing in general.

8. How important do families feel play is for their

child's development?

Most of the respondents (96.3%) indicated that play was

very important or important for their childls development.

42

Only one respondent (N=133) felt that play was not important

for the child's development (Table 10).

Table 9. Frequency of Time Children Spent Playing Each Day.

 

 

 

Playtime N %

No response 4 3.0
Less than 2 hours 3 2.3
2-4 hours 42 '31.6
5-7 hours 37 27.8
More than 8 hours 47 35.3
Total 133 100.0

 

Table 10. How Families Value Their Children's Play.

 

 

 

Value Play N %

No response 3 2.3
Very important 111 83.5
Important 17 12.8
Somewhat important 1 .8
Not important 1 .8
Total 133 100.0

 

9. How much money is spent on toys for each child
during a year?

43

As shown in Table 11, 42.7% (N=124) of the respondents
spent $26-50 on toys for each of their children a year. Only
18.5% spent 8101-200 per year on each child and 16.1% spent
$11-25 per year on each child. Three respondents spent less
than $10 and three respondents spent over $200 per year on
each child.

Table 11. Amount of Money Spent on Toys For Each Child
During a Year.

 

 

 

Amount of Money N %

No response 2 1.6
Less than $10 3 2.4
$11-25 20 16.1
$26-50 53 42.7
$51-75 15 12.1
$76-100 5 4.0
$101-200 23 18.5
Over $200 3 2.4
Total 124 100.0

 

Research questions concerning the comparison of
responses by mothers living in rural communities and in
small towns were also investigated.

1. Do families in small towns visit the PRC more
frequently than rural families?

44

A comparison of PRC visits by rural and small town
families is shown in Table 12. Chi-square analysis was used
to indicate whether or not a relationship existed between
the two groups. From these data, there is no statistical
evidence that small town families visit the PRC more

frequently than rural families.

Table 12. PRC Visits By Rural and Small Town Families.

 

 

 

 

Visit Library Rural % Small Town %
No response 0 0.0 l 1.5
Once a week 24 38.1 23 34.9
Every two weeks 14 22.2 19 28.8
Once a month 19 30.2 15 22.7
Other 6 9.5 8 12.1
Total 63 100.0 66 100.0
Chi square = 2.46672 df = 4 p != .6506 N = 129

2. Do families in small towns borrow toys and games

from the PRC more often than rural families?

This question concerns the number of times toys and
games were borrowed from the PRCs by rural and small town
families. As indicated in Table 13, there is no
relationship between these two groups. The data do not
suggest that families in small towns borrow toys and games
from the PRCs more often than rural families (pé .9036).

More than half of both the rural and small town families

45

visited the PRCs eight or more times.

Table 13. Number of Times Toys Are Borrowed By Rural and
Small Town Families.

 

 

 

 

Times Borrowed Rural % Small Town %
No response 1 1.6 2 3.0
One time 4 6.3 6 9.1
2-4 times 17 27.0 18 27.3
5-7 times 7 11.1 5 7.6
8 or more times 34 54.0 35 53.0
Total 63 100.0 66 100.0
Chi square = 1.04053 df = 4 p5; .9036 N = 129

3. Do parents in small towns play more frequently
with their children with the PRC toys than rural
parents?

Chi-square analysis was used to determine the
relationship between rural and small town parents in regard
to playing with their children with the PRC toys. A high
percentage of rural (85.7%) and small town (87.9%) parents
played with their children with the PRC toys. Thus, there
is no evidence from these data that parents in small towns
play more frequently with their children with the PRC toys
than rural parents (Table 14).

4. Do small town children spend more time playing
in general each day than rural children?

46

As shown in Table 15, no relationship exists between

rural and small town children in regard to amount of time

Table 14. Rural and Small Town Parents Who Play With Their
Children With The PRC Toys.

 

 

 

Parents Play Rural % Small Town %

No response 1 1.6 1 1.5
Yes 54 85.7 58 87.9
No 8 12.7 7 10.6
Total 63 100.0 66 100.0

 

Chi square = .13983 df

II
N

pf; .9325 N = 129

Table 15. Playtime Spent Each Day By Rural and Small Town

 

 

 

Children.
Playtime Rural % Small Town %
No response 2 3.2 l 1.5
Less than 2 hours 3 4.8 0 0.0
2-4 hours 16 25.4 25 37.9
5-7 hours 18 28.5 18 27.3
More than 8 hours 24 38.1 22 33.3
Total 63 100.0 66 100.0

 

Chi square = 5.32901 df = 4 p 4. .2552 N = 129

47

spent playing in general each day. Analysis of this data
indicates that there is no difference in the amount of time
rural and small town children spend playing each day.

5. Do small town families spend more money on toys for

each child during a year than rural families?

Rural and small town responses (N=120) to this question
were also similar. Almost half of the rural respondents
(45.8%) and small town respondents (41%) spent $26-50 on
toys for each child during a year. Based on the results of
Chi-square analysis, no relationship is shown to exist
between the two groups in regard to the amount of money
spent on toys per year (Table 16).

Comparisons of responses based on the library locations
of Benzonia, Pigeon, Mendon and Vermontvilleewere examined
concerning these research questions.

1. What is the frequency of families borrowing toys

and games in each of the PRC library locations?

A relationship does exist between the two variables
indicated in Table 17 at the .0003 level. The majority of
family respondents (61.2%) visiting the PRC in Pigeon did so
at least once a week. Families visiting the PRCs located in
Benzonia, Mendon and Vermontville showed a more evenly
distributed frequency of library visits from once a week to
once a month or less.

2. How much time do the children spend playing in

general each day in each of the PRC library
locations?

48

Table 16. Amount of Money Spent Per Child On Toys By Rural
and Small Town Families.

 

 

 

Amount of Money Rural % Small Town %
No response 0 0.0 l 1.6
Less than $10 3 5.1 0 0.0
$11-25 9 15.3 11 18.0
$26-50 27 45.8 25 41.0
$51-75 8 13.6 6 9.8
$76-100 2 3.4 3 4.9
$101-200 9 15.3 13 21.3
Over $200 1 1.7 2 3.3
Total 59 100.0 61 100.0

 

Chi square = 5.79152 df = 7 p .4. .5643 N = 120

49

«ms u z Hoe.mw a m u we om.om n mueeeu Lao

 

 

 

o.ooa Hm o.ooa AN o.ooa mv o.coH Hm Hmuoa

H.wH m 0.0 o H.w m o.m~ b Honuo

m.mm HA H.mm m m.¢H b o.m~ m nucoE m 00:0

«.ma m m.N¢ m «.ma m m.~m OH mxooz 03» aum>m

o.mN m o.aH v N.Hw om H.@H m xom3 m ooco

a oHHM>ucoEum> w condo: w commwm m mficoucom muwmfi> humunaq
.mcowumooa

ammuan can on» no comm c“ moEmu Cam

mace mcfisouuom umwafifimm no hocosvmum .ha manna

50

A relationship also exists between the variables of
playtime and library locations at the'.065 level. As shown
in Table 18, the majority of participating PRC children in
Benzonia (65.4%) spent more than 8 hours a day playing in
general each day. Children visiting the PRC3 in Pigeon,
Mendon and Vermontville tended to vary the amount of time
spent playing in general each day from two hours to more
than eight hours.

3. How much money is spent by families on toys for
each child during a year in each of the PRC
library locations?

No relationship exists between PRC library locations
and the amount of money spent by families on toys for each
child during a year. In each of the four locations, the
highest percentage of respondents in each group spent
between $26 and $50 per year for each child. The lowest
percentage of respondents from each library location spent
between $75 and $100 per year on toys for each child (Table
19).

51

e2 u 2 3o. Wu G u we 3.3 u 3366-20

 

 

o.OOH om o.ooH HN o.ooH mv o.coH mm Hmuoa
m.wN m w.m~ w h.Nm ma «.mm 5H mason m can» muoz
homm AH m.mm b h.Nm ma m.HH m munon hum
h.mm Ha H.mm m o.vm ha H.mm m muson «IN

w oHHfi>ucoEuo> m cacao: w cowmwm « mwcoucom oewummHm

 

.mcoflumooq humuan
van on» no comm a“ Son comm Hmuocmu Cw mcfiwmam ccmmm swuoafinu mafia mo ucsoea .mH wanna

52

 

e: u 2 38. um a S u we a 383-26
o.eoa ea o.oo~ ma o.oeH ea e.eeH mm deuce
m.mH m H.H~ a m.m~ NH e.e N eemuaeau
e.m H o.e e 4.6 m m.e H coarse»
H.HH m m.m H «.ms m e.m N meiflmm
m.am «a e.~m OH m.Hm ma e.ee ea onion»
e.eH e e.H~ e e.eH m e.e~ a mmuaau

 

# @HstruflOB—HQNV

m coocoz

m coomwm

w mficoncom

honor mo ucsoea

 

.mcowumooa snowmen Dam on» «0
zoom 5 new» m 95:5 pawno comm now when. co mowHwEmm an ucomm mocoz mo ”:3er .ma wanna

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The role of the caregiver as an influence on a young
child's cognitive development has been widely researched
since the early 1960's. In the early years, the essential
element.in stimulating the intellectual and conceptual
development of children is parent involvement. Play objects
have also been found to play an important part in the young
child's development as well as programs designed to train
parents to foster the intellectual development of their
children, essentially by promoting verbal interaction.

Toy lending libraries have helped parents provide
intellectual stimulation for their young children during a
critical period in their lives by providing a variety of
toys that may not be affordable to parents. They can also
offer guidelines in using these toys to stimulate infants
and young children, thus promoting parent-child
interactions.

Rural areas have been found to be generally lacking in
providing programs for young Children. A need for programs
aimed at increasing the intellectual stimulation and social
interaction of rural preschool children has been

established. Because of this need to assist rural families

53

54

in providing intellectual stimulation for their preschool
children, the Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station funded a project which began in January
1974, entitled, "Development of Guidelines for Creating
Preschool Resource Centers", the purpose of which was to
create a preschool resource center (PRC) in selected
libraries from which parents could obtain materials to
strengthen their preschool child's skill development.

Data were collected from four of the six preschool
resource centers developed as a result of this project:
Pigeon, Mendon, Vermontvilleeand Benzonia, Michigan. One-
hundred thirty-three (133) PRC participants were interviewed
concerning their use of materials, guidelines and their
knowledge about their children's play. This study used this
previously collected data to compare responses.of small town
and rural families using the preschool resource centers in
Pigeon, Mendon, Vermontvilleeand Benzonia, Michigan, by
analyzing participant mothers' responses to the Interview
Form For Users of Preschool Resource Centers. Research
questions about participation and utilization of PRC5 were
asked. Rural and small town mothers' responses were
compared as well as responses based on library locations.
Comparative responses were analyzed using Chi-square

analysis and cross-tabulations.

Discussion of Findings
Participation in and utilization of preschool resource

centers by rural and small town families was determined by

55

tallying responses to the "Interview Form For Users of
Preschool Resource Centers". More than half of the family
participants (53.4%) borrowed toys and games eight or more
times which indicates that families felt the experience
worth continuing. Since 62.4% of the participants learned
about the PRCs through their regular library visits, more
than half of the participants were already concerned about
utilizing out—of—home resources for their children. Further
interest in visiting PRCs would need to be generated in
families who may not already visit libraries regularly.

Traditional toys seemed to be the most popular among
children participants. Blocks, puzzles, animals, games,
trucks, puppets and cars were mentioned most frequently as
favorites. Dolls were mentioned only twice as a favorite
toy. The Interview Form did not distinguish sexes of
participant children. However, a rough tally of names
indicated that approximately 55% of the participating
children were boys and approximately 45% were girls. Further
investigation is needed to draw inferences about favorite
toys for each sex.

Since the purpose of the PRCs was to promote parent-
Child interactions through the use of borrowed toys, it was
important to determine who played with the participating
children with the PRC toys. Most frequently mentioned were
friends, parents and siblings. Additional incentive for
parents may be needed in order to increase their involvement

with their children with the PRC toys. Most frequently

56

mentioned play partners were friends, which supports Hess et
al., (1971) notion that positive effects of parenting
programs tend to spread to Children in the neighborhood who
are not involved in the program.

Most participating familiesi(96.3%) felt that play was
important for their child'sidevelopment. The high regard
for play on the part of these parents may have been their
motivation for visiting a PRC. In other words, parents who
value their children's play would perhaps be more likely to
visit a PRC than parents who do not value their children's
play. Although most participating parents valued their
children's play, over half (63%) spent less than $50 per
year on toys for each Child during a year.

Chi-square analysis was used to compare rural and small
town participant responses to selected research questions.
No significant differences were found between rural and
small town responses to these research questions. Families
in small towns did not seem to visit the PRCs more
frequently than rural families. The lack of significant
differences may be explained by the mobility that exists in
society today. Families in small towns did not borrow toys
and games from the PRC more often than rural families. The
majority of families from both rural areas (54%) and small
towns (53%) borrowed toys eight or more times. Parents from
small towns (N=58) also did not seem to play more with their
child with the PRC toys than did rural parents (N=54). A

high majority of parents from both groups (rural=85.7%,

57

small town=87.9%) played with their children with the PRC
toys. Though the extent of interaction is unknown, this
finding does indicate that most participating parents were
involved in their children's play through the use of PRC
toys. There was no significant difference in the amount of
time spent in play by participating rural and small town
children. Also, small town families did not spend more
money on toys for each chi 1d during a year than rural
families. Thus, no significant differences were found
between rural and small town responses to the research
questions posed.

Chi-square analysis was also used to compare responses
of participants from the four library locations to three
research questions. Families visiting the PRC in Pigeon,
Michigan, borrowed toys and games more frequently than
families from Benzonia, Mendon and‘Vermontville, Michigan.
Part of this difference may be explained by the length of
time this PRC was in existence. The Pigeon library received
toys and games in 1974, whereas the other locations were
provided with materials in 1977-1979. Greater familiarity
with the program may explain why Pigeon participants visited
their PRC more frequently; Children attending the Benzonia
PRC tended to spend more time playing in general each day
than children visiting the other three preschool resource
centers. No explanation is available for this trend. No
difference was found in the amount of money spent by

families on toys for each chi 1d during a year in each of the

58

library locations.

The findings of this study may not be generalized to
other geographical areas. This is, therefore, a limitation
of this study. Generalizations about the data are
applicable to families borrowing toys from the Benzonia,
Mendon, Pigeon and Vermontville PRCs onlyu Responses to the

questionnaire may or may not be the same in other areas.

Implications for Further Research

 

Continued research is needed to determine the extent of
the influence of preschool resource centers on parent-child
interaction. Amount of interaction should be measured
before and after use of the PRC. Amount of time parents
spend playing with their children should also be measured
before and after participation in a program such as this.

Research studies should also be designed to test the
preschool child's cognitive skills before and after
participation in a preschool resource center. A change in
the child's environment (ism, addition of a PRC to the
local environment) should result in a change in a child's
intellectual development, if the goals of the PRC are being
met.

Support for the hypothesis that use of the PRC would
result in an increase in the time a child spends playing
each day, is also needed. Research is needed to determine
whether or not an increase in a child's playtime improves

the child's cognitive skills.

59

To help promote parent-child interactions, parents
should be encouraged to use suggestion sheets which are
available for each toy. Effectiveness of suggestion sheets
could be determined by comparing parents who use them with
parents who do not use them in terms of time spent playing
with their child.

Differences in utilization of preschool resource
centers by urban and rural Children and their families
should also be determined. Would the same patterns of
borrowing toys, spending money on toys, and time spent
playing in general by children occur with rural and urban
children as it did with small town and rural children?

Finally, use of preschool resource centers should be
expanded to school age children. School age children could
benefit from toys and games which reinforce cognitive skills
and promote social interaction with their parents and peers.
Research studies could be designed to determine benefits
acquired by these Children, after use of a preschool

resource center.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW FORM FOR USERS OF PRESCHOOL RESOURCE CENTERS

ID#

 

INTERVIEW FORM
FOR
USERS OF PRESCHOOL RESOURCE CENTERS (PRC)

To be completed by Interviewer before or after interview:

Name

 

Address

 

 

Lives: farm -

in country, not on farm

in town (small - under 2500)

in town (between 2500 and 5000)

in town (between 5,000 and 10,000)

 

 

 

Occupation of Father

 

Occupation of Mother

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be obtained in the interview:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name(s) of child(ren) using PRC:

 

 

 

1 . 889 __
2. age _____
3. age _____
4. age

 

 

How often have you borrowed toys and games from the PRC?

only one time five to seven times

 

two-four times eight or more times

 

How did you learn about the toys and games in the library?

 

 

 

6O

How often do you visit the library?

once a week

 

every two weeks

once a month

 

other (specify)

When you first visited the library, what was your reason for going?

 

What toys and games have been favorites with your child(ren)? (If
possible, determine which Child liked which toys when more than one
Child is involved.)

Toys and Games Name of Child who liked the toy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.

 

 

Does anyone play with your Child with the toys you have borrowed?
Yes No . If yes, who?

 

 

Have you played with your child with any of the toys? Yes No
If yes, in what way and how often?

 

 

 

Suggestion sheets for ways to use the toys and games have been
developed for some of the toys. Have you seen or used any of these
sheets? Yes No

 

If not, would you be interested in having a page of ideas for ways to
use each toy or game? Yes No
Comments

 

 

 

 

61

Many children have enjoyed the puppets. Did your child(ren) borrow
the puppets? If yes, how did they play with them?

 

 

 

Have you had any problems with any of the toys? Yes No

 

If yes, what kinds of problems have you had?

 

 

Do you have some suggestions for additional toys or books which you
would like to have available for your preschool child?

Toys 4 Games Books

 

 

 

 

 

3.

 

 

How much time do(es) your child(ren) spend playing each day?

less than 2 hrs.

 

2 to 4 hrs.
5 to 7 hrs.

more than 8 hrs.

 

How important do you feel play is for the child's development?

very important somewhat important

 

 

important not important

 

 

Would you be interested in learning more about play and toys through
workshops or meetings? Yes No

 

Comments:

 

When do you buy toys for your Children?

 

 

How much money do you spend on toys for each child during a year?

 

62

Some people have suggested adding toys and games for school-age child—
ren and adults to borrow from the library. What do you think of that
suggestion?

 

 

Do you have any additional comments about the Preschool Resource
Centers?

 

 

The original set of toys and games for the PRC was donated by'a
project at Michigan State University. The community is responsible
for maintaining and adding to the original set. Do you have ideas of
ways which additional funds could be obtained for this project?

 

 

 

63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahr, A.E., & Simons, 8. Parent handbook: Develcming your
child's skills and abilities at home. Skokie, IL:

Priority Innovations, Inc. 1968. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 036 327).

 

 

ARE, The Journal pf the Toy Libraries Association. Sea-
brook House, wyllyotts Manor, Darkes Lane, Potters
Bar, Herts England. Autumn 1977 and Summer 1977. In
Evans, J., 5 Stewart, P. Toys: More than trifles
22; play. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory, 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 192 884).

 

 

 

Bass, 6., & Berman, P. Federal aid 32 rural schools:
Current patterns and unmgg needs. Santa Monica, CA:
The Rand Corporation, 1979.

 

 

Baumrind, D. Child care patterns anteceding three patterns
of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1967' :22, 43-88.

Bell, T.H. School leadership and the community. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association of Elementary School Principles,
Minneapolis, April 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 111 525).

 

Bing, E. Effect of childrearing practices on development of
differential cognitive abilities. Child Development,
1963, 34, 631-648.

 

Bloom, 8.8. Stability and change 12 human characteristics.
New York: Wiley, 1964.

 

 

Bradley, R.H. & Caldwell, B.M. Early home environment and
changes in mental test performance in children from
6 to 36 months. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 1;,
93‘97 o

 

Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., & Elardo, R. Home
environment and cognitive development in the first
2 years: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 1979, 15(3), 246-250.

Bronfenbrenner, U. lg early interventiog effective?
V0. 11, DHEW PublicatiSn No. (OHD) 74-25, 1974.

 

64

65

Brophy, J. Mothers as teachers of their own preschool
chidren: The influence of socioeconomic status and
task structure on teaching specificity. Child
Development, 1970, 41, 79-94.

Bruner, J. The ppocess 33 education. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1961.

 

Bubolz, M. Family adjustment under community decline. In
Whiting, L.R. (Ed.) Communities left behind: Alter-
natives for developmegg. The Iowa State University
Press; Ames, Iowa, 1974.

 

 

Bubolz, M., Eicher, J., & Sontag, M. The human ecosystem:
A model. Journal 23 Home Economics, Spring 1979,
28-31 0

 

Building concepts through verbal interaction: The key to
future success in school? Carnegie Quarterl , Winter
1979, g1,(1), 1-4.

Canadian Association pf Toy Librgpies Newsletter. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, Winter, 1978. In Evans, J., &
Stewart, P. Toys: More than triffles for play.
Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 192 884).

 

 

 

 

 

Carew, J.V. Effective home learning environments 13 Egg
pggschool years. New York, N.Y.: Carnegie Corp.,
1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED 125 759).

 

 

Chodorkoff, J.R. Infant development as a function of
mother-Child interaction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Wayne State University, 1960.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A. Interactions between mothers and
their young children: Characteristics and con-
sequences. Monographg pf Egg Society for Research 1_
Child Development, 1973, 38, (6-7, Serial No. 153).

 

 

 

 

Cowan, E.L. Personal communication, 1973. In Newman, B.
and Neuman, P., Infancy and childhood. New York,
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

 

Dallman, M., Rouch, R.L. Char, L.Y., & DeBoer, J.J. The
teaching pf reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1978.

Deverell, A.E. Teaching children to read and write.
Toronto: Holt,~Rifiehart and Winston of Canada, 1973.

 

66

Duff, R.E., Heinz, M.C. & Husband, C.L. Toy lending
library: Linking home and school. Young Children,
May 1978, 33(4), 16-22.

 

DuPan, R.M. & Roth, S. The psychologic development of a
group of children brought up in a hospital-type
residential nursery. Journal of Pediatrics, 1955,
21, 124-1290

 

Dusewicz, R.A., & O'Connell, M. The Pennsylvania Research
32 Infant Development and Education Pro ect.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Education (DHEW), 1973.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 103 094).

 

 

 

Earhart, E. Creating preschool resource centers. Children
Today, 1980, 3, 16-18.

Elardo, R., Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, B.M. The relation
of infants' home environment to mental test
performance from six to thirty-six months: A
longitudinal analysis. Child Development, 1975, 33,
71-76.

 

Elkind, D. & Weiner, 1.8., Development 2; the Child,
New York: New York, John Wiley 5 Sons, Inc., 1978.

 

 

Evans, J., & Stewart, P. Toys: More than trifles for
ploy. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory, 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 192 884).

 

Flavell, J.H. Cognitive dev§3opment, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.

 

Ford, T.R. (Ed.). Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change.
Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1978.

 

Fowler, W., & Swenson, A. The influence 23 early
stimulation on languago development. Paper presented
at the Biennizl Meeting of the Sodiety for Research
in Child Development: Denver, 1976. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 115 363).

 

 

Fratoe, F.A. Rural education and rural labor force 33 £22
seventies. Rural Development Research Report No. 5.
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1978.

 

 

Gilford, D.M., Nelson, G.L., & Ingram, L. Rural America
33 passage: Statistics for policy. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981.

 

 

67

Goldberg, R.J. Maternal time use and preschool performance.
Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development: New Orleans,

1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 154 909).

Goldberg, S., a Lewis, M. Play behavior in the year-old
infant: Early sex differences. Child Development,
1969, 33, 21-31.

 

Goldfarb, W. Effects of psychological deprivation in
infancy and subsequent stimulation. American Journal
23 ngchology, 1945, 102, 18-33.

 

Goodson, B., & Hess, R.D. The effects 22 parent trainiog
ro rams op child performance and parent behavior.
Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, 1976.

 

 

Gordon, I.J. Early child stimulation through parent
education. A final report to the Children's Bureau,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
June 1969.

Haller, A.B. What constitutes quality of living? In
The quality oi rural living; Proceedings o; g
worksho . Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
SCiences, 1971.

Hektoen, F. & Rinehart, J. To s‘Eo go. Chicago: 111.,
American Library Association, 1976.

Hess, R., Block, M., Costello, J., Knowles, R. & Larguy, D.
Parent involvement in early education. In E. Grotberg
(Ed.) 22y care: Resources for decisiooe. Washington,
D.C.: Day Care Council of America, 1972.

Hess, R., & Shipman, V. Cognitive elements in maternal
behavior. In J. Hill (Ed.) Minnesota symposia op
child psychology (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1967, 57-82.

 

Hess, R., & Shipman, V. Early experiences and the sociali-
zation of cognitive modes in Children. Child
Development, 1965, 33, 869-886.

Hollingshead, A.B. The two factor index of sociol position.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1957.

 

Hordezky, B. Family forces for preschool development of
health, vocabulary and perceptual skills. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International
Reading Association WCrld Congress on Reading:
Hamburg, West Germany, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 166 664).

68

Hunt, J. Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald
Press, 1961.

Huntinger, P.L. You can make it: £22 £33 g3 it (A group
2; toys and games £2 make). Washington, D.C.: Bureau
of Education for the Handicapped (DHEW/OE), 1978.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 180 162).

 

Iitaka, R., & Sano, R. Early language development in the
first two years: A longitudinal study of 10 children.
Tokyo, Japan: The Research Institute for the Educa-
tion of Exceptional Children, 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 215 757).

Irwin, O.C. Infant speech: Effect of systematic reading
of stories. Journal 2; Speech and Hearing Research,
1960, 2, 187-190.

 

Isenberg, R.M. Quality of rural education in the United
States. In The quality 2; rural living: Proceedings
gf‘g workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
Sciences, 1971.

 

 

Jones, P. Home environment and the development of verbal
ability. Child Development, 1972, 5;, 1081-1086.

 

Kagan, J. Change and continuity in infancy. New York:
Wiley, 1971.

 

Karnes, M.B., Teska, J.A., Hodgins, A.S. & Badger, E.D.
Educational intervention at home by mothers of disad-
vantaged infants. Child Development, 1970, 11,
925-935.

Kerlinger, F. Foundations pf behavioral research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.

 

Kight, J. The story behind toys 'n things. Day Care and
Early Education, 1976, 3(5), 15-17.

Levenstein, P. Cognitive growth in preschoolers through
verbal interaction with mothers. American Journal
23 Orthopsychiatry, 1970, 20, 426-432.

 

Levenstein, P. Learning through (and from) mothers.
Childhood Education, December 1971, 36, 130-134.

Levenstein, P., & Sunley, R.M. Aiding cognitive growth 12
disadvantaged preschoolers. Washington, ILC.:
Children's Bureau (DHEW), 1968. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 059 792).

 

69

Lewis, M., 8 Wilson, C.D. Infant development i_n_ lower class
American families. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Minneapolis, April 1971.

 

 

Marjoribanks, K. Families and their learning environment.
London: Routledge & Kegan, Paul, 1979.

 

Melson, G. Family and environment: An ecosystem perspec-
tive. Minneapolis: Burgess Pubiishing, 1980.

Milner, E. A study of the relationship between reading
readiness in grade one school children and patterns
of parent-child interaction. Child Development, 1951,
32, 95-112.

Moore, S. Mother-child interactions and competence in
infants and toddlers. Young Children, March 1977,
64-69.

McNelis, J.R. ‘5 practical guide for planning and gperating
3 toy lending library. Rockville, MD: National

Institute of Mental Health (DHEW), 1974. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 962).

 

 

Nagel, C. Parent involvement 12 preschool edugation:
Prqject I.D.E.A. at home. Project No. 0478,
Santa Barbara County Schools, 1972.

 

 

Nie, N.H., Hill, C.H., Jenkins, J.G. Steinbrenner, K. &
Bent, D.H. SPSS: Statistical package for the social
sciences. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1975.

Nimnicht, G.P., & Brown, E. The toy library: Parents and
children learning with toys. Young Children, 1972,
28(2), 110-116.

 

Poe, L.F., Caboodles of toys. Day Care and Early Education,

Poe, L.F., & Taglauer, A. Toy-lending library training
model. 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 013 371).

Poresky, R.H., & Henderson, M.L. Infants' mental and motor
development: Effects of home environment, maternal
attitudes, marital adjustment, and socioeconomic
status. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1982, 55,
695-702.

70

Porter, R. The effect of preschool experience and family
environment on children' s cognitive and social
development. Early Child Development and Care, 9,
155- 174.

Pringle, M.L.K. & Tanner, M. The effects of early depriva-
tion on speech development: A comparative study of
4-year-olds in a nursery school and in residential
nurseries. Language and Speech, 1958, l, 269-287.

 

Provence, S., & Lipton, R. C. Infants in institutions.
New York: International Universities Press, 1962.

 

Rheingold, H.L. The modification of social responsiveness
in institutional babies. Monographs of the Society
for Research Ln Child Development, 1956, 21, (2,
Serial No. 63. ).

 

 

 

 

Rosenfeld, A.H. Cultural enrichment _y means of a 52y
librar . Parent-child Program Series, Report No. 2.
Rockv1lle, MD: Center for Studies of Child and Family
Mental Health, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 013 371).

 

Rubenstein, J. Maternal attentiveness and subsequent
exploratory behavior in the infant. Child Development,
1967, 28, 1089-1100.

 

Rutter, M. Maternal deprivations, 1972-1978: New
findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child
Development, 1979, 50, 283-305.

 

Schaefer, E.S., Furfey, P.H., & Harte, T.J. Infant
education research projects, Washington, D. C. In
Preschool program in compensatory education.

No. 1. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1968.

Schenk-Danzinger, C. Social difficulties of children who
were deprived of maternal care in early childhood.
Vita humana, 1961, A, 229-241.

 

Schleicher, K. The use of television Ln pre-school
education Ln sparsely:pgpu1ated areas. Strasbourg:
Council of— Europe, 1977.

 

 

Sher, J.P. (Ed.) Rural education 12 urbanized nations:
Issues and innovations. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 1981.

 

Slaughter, D. Early intervention, maternal development
and children's p1 y. 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 198 917).

 

71

Smardo, F.A. An analytical study pf the recommendations
pf early childhood education authorities with regard
to the role pf the pgblic library in servin children
Tiom infancy pg six years of ag . -T978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction ServiEe No. ED 160 222).

 

 

 

Stern, G.G., Caldwell, B.M., Hersher, L., Lipton, E.L.,
& Richmond, J.B. A factor analytic study of the
mother-infant dyad. Child Development, 1969, 59,
163-1810

 

Stevenson, HAL Longitudinal study of individual
differences in cognitive development. Journal pf
Educational Psychology, 1976(b), 68, 377-400.

Streissguth, A.P., & Bee, H.L. Mother-child interactions
and cognitive development in children. Young
Children, 1972, 154-172.

The quality pf rural living: Proceedings 2343 workshop.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1971.

 

 

 

Together lg best: Families and schools. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Education (DHEW), 1976. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 178 159).

Toy lending library. Saturday Review pf Education.
February, 1973, l(1), 50.

 

 

Toybrary-A toy lending library for parents and children.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 161 228).

Walters, R.H., 5 Parke, R.D. The role of the distance
receptors in the development of social responsiveness.
Advances lg Child Development, 1965, 3, 59-96.

Wells, G. Language and learning: Talk between adults and
children 33 home 32g 35 school. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the International Congress of
Psychology: Leipzig, 1980. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 207 105).

Whiren, A. The effects pf pgrent education on parental
knowledge about and attitudes towards children's
play. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1976.

 

 

White, B. The first three years pf life. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

 

 

72

White, B, Kaban, B., & Attanucci, J. The origins pf human
competence. Lexington: Massachutts, D.C. Heath and
Company, 1979.

White, B. & Watts, J. Experience and environment: Major
influences pp the development pf the young child
(Vol. I). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Whiting, L.R. (Ed.) Communities left behind: Alternatives
for Developmenp. The Iowa State University Press;
Ames, Iowa, 1974.

 

Yarrow, L.J., & Goodwin, M.S. Some conceptual issues in
the study of mother-infant interaction. American
Journal 3; Orthopsychiatry, 1965, 33, 473-481.

Yarrow, L.J. Research in dimensions of early maternal
care. Merril-Palmer anrterly, 1963, 3, 101-114.

Yarrow, L.J., Rubenstein, J.L., Pedersen, F.A., & Jankowski,
JxJ. Dimensions of early stimulation: Differential
effects on infant development. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 1972, l3, 205-218.

 

r:a)firm](14mm '

3 369

   

I’ ‘(...__-“——_—_