I - I ‘ . . - I. -I-.l.! 01 I. 0 ... . 00-0 . . . I .010‘ 0 0 01.0.0- 0.0.—JII’AIT0OVIC"E00,-Oi.0.lf0 .‘000’f’0r- “0‘? .0 . . .I0 -. lchQ-O.r.. 0.00__-0.0.I..00I . c. wl -. \. -hui-II.0- D-Io 0. 0. 0-00.0.0}. 0.'-'0-.. -10' ...-000.0 .0. 0.0.... Q... ”$5. _ t . v.0A-I - ..... . ... - 0 3. .273 ..a... 0.. - n . «.03 .- 0 0 _. V? I: 0 I . -. ...- ..o.€-0 .....0.-0I....00 ...-r- ..I ...-..0 .-.0 or - -...a0..-00.-0' 0I0x‘l000-w‘h‘0-090‘3r000'0. 0“ . 0 .Yochs .0000 .. 0...... ...4-0o.. 0-\,.~00:.>0 ...-”£900. - $10.. $0.... 0» 0- c . .4&-.-030.0..00:.. ... .-.- \.. .. I50. «...-3.. .I K a . - . 0... 40 a. 0.. . .1 a. .. . I ...... ...(I-o_-00I---0.I00.f00's.0-4.1-uots .0010 .- .000100'0‘0’00 0 .fidwu zufifl >0. .0 n.0.0‘000.\'0.00.00..'..I .2.IO.’-§'-0’ .0. 70...... -.\.l000 0 .00.-., l". - . 0 .00.. 0.0- l5...§'. ‘ 000 .0 .2an n 0.- 0 .0 00V 0. .r - 0 0- .. L I .00-0 0 I . .I i 0 \.0 I II I 0 00f: P'o- "- 0P-z.’.0r0’- [9‘0"3‘." .I h 0 .0 000100,...00 00.00-01.00 000.000.. 2.00.-00..-£.00-... I 0.0.0.060»...0-..00..-! .. .00 ...-0.000... .0. . .0.0....-l0..v .W-- 09.0.0. 0 .v . A 000.30 ...-0.0.0 .v -...- 0- ... l (.0 -‘0I.0 - 000 00.- 00--000'J..IOVO..-.. 390.100.000.00. 00 ‘.0 3090-0... 0000 000500.000 0.5 0.0.0- .000‘.‘.§0 005000-30 0 0 .0 . 9- . . Q n0...0-I0.0.L 00. -.Q§'0 v00 9 . £- .. 0 9 ... 0.... 0-0.0.- l. 50. I . . II. .. r . 0.0 .L . 0. . _. -. ..f .0... .0 .- .. .0 1.0000 ot- 4'00 0 04010-0 0 '0 ..000-0'2,I00001 9020:0006!- 9. 0000 0..10 ...... 00‘}. I... ' "ODo 0'. 'L- 0Q.- OQ.0.'.’ ..‘.. ...-’00 ‘30-.- .I.- 0.0' 9.. 0:0... 1.00 - 0r. .0 ... O.- .. .... 5-0.).- .(TL‘ .- LC-O 0. o O ’00, I.» 0 L 0 o 00 .. O 0 00 I- "I- '00.-!0‘0.l‘ for 01.-I'.§'OI -" 5"! ‘ 0010000 000! 010.00. . V0;"000-.\r. ‘005500'3 '00.... 00.0..-00.00 .I..00-00‘I0|‘0’u I.0...\.0,0,.- .‘03 A9 . 0 v. .0 4.... o 0.0 u.0.0.!.I-0..0 .0 .8. ‘00.."6 L0: . - 0 . .. .0 . 0. 0 .0.- 0.0 0 ‘0 :0 0 0 0. 00-00I ... 0 0.00." 1.0:.00-00110) ri") .0350-3'.“ .00.! -.00..0-0..-..’. 9P0.A..00..0-.-_0L00.00.0 , 0 00 -00.. . 0 20020-0903... ....ca‘ 0.... .00. ...-0;... - .. . ... 0010. .00 0.91,.- I... 4 . . 0 I . . .002...- 0- .. -II. .o - 0 0.10.00. It's-0. 3-0 '00 .I‘O.0l-000-00' 000. .0003. 9-. £0.07. ...0-l 000,30...) 2900 0-..0.-0I0.... 00. 01I0- r00... -0 0 0.0.. O- 0.0 ...-.0 .00.9w-0.hr00 0-0 ..- . 0 . 00.. 00-... ...-$00. .-0.0.-J- -.. - . :15 .. 5-01.-.. ..0 - 0-... .-.P-40. . --.-.I.o-.0 -!r'0‘0.'b\-0tl:-F 0-00 f. 030 .9- 0-9-0 0 00.0 $000.00,‘ ‘.0§Vfi.04.'\00-.§V0 . 0.00.1.3-0u .- ...-\O\ 00‘000t0 ...-05(0. ..‘00'01- 00 .... .90 0 .0 0.00.. 01.! 0' ...-0 00'. -00’- .. 9.0- .0 . . . - 0- 0|-.0I00.'. . Q - 0- " 0- 00th 00.n-00 ‘-$‘I¢1 1’01.f’0 0’ 'l" O 0J’\.Z.‘¥- .0 90.00.. ..000 tic-0:00 .00 0 '00-0209. .Qfinvif 30...”...0Q.’ .00.. .40....‘. .V \. .1. ..I-. o I :0000. .07, .. ..00 ’0; {I}. 0\-0l0.- ..I -0 ......u .t 0- .- .. . 0 0-?0 6- 0 .0 .0- 0.. 00-. 0 ...-000000000 H 00‘ it” IOI' 001-... .3- 02- 0.0.0.0040. 092000.. 0. .020J.00...0 0...f.-...r.0-3 01.0.0 0......0" ..0‘: I .0L-r- .. 0. .0 000 0-. 00-031....”- . .0-.. lug-.....- _. -. ,.. .... 1 .0I .. . - 0.- L'. ,0 0-3.. . .9 l-9I000.-000..é.000coo-l0t-‘IQ'03-090.ll.l0- 0‘0“ cit-00.3 .00. 0.: 3.10.0.\..0s.‘0.0.-010000u ..g 09...... 0.80..! 0.0.x ‘0'... . .w .0 0 ...,0--. .I . ..-0. 00.19.10 .0.- ...0 .0... :00. .. I - . 47...... ...m. . a .- 0 - I. 0... p - I30 .0)I. oi...- -:000}0000Il..0- .- 00.0.0 - 1-. , 00- _ II00.90.400.. 0... 0.- $0.0h0..\0 0.4.0 00.0.3.- 0 .0000107- 0 00.... ..- 0.. ...- ...0. 000.. - ....0 a 00"...9- . P0. ......50. J00 . o I .... 0.. a- . -_. :0, 90‘.( ‘- x-r-wtl.‘ ..000000 .00.! 0-000000‘ 0‘0I-r0.0dv(0§..0600"-n\ . -.0.. 00.: (0-,: - - 0.9bI0-003 0.0.000. . .. ..0.- 00 i‘.0. 01.6. .30 .0. .00.! ...-0:0 -0 ‘00 . . 0 . . .0590; ...: .1- u’.50 ,3... 0 v 0.. 2-: -. 0 J. . a... .0: . sfifiI-r - ..00, II I .I - o‘ 0 .9! ..0 f‘.'-;f‘P-.600‘.03'I- .- .. .- ... «0.005, 0?. ...-’00: 0-9....0 .0400 .. 0... 0..- 00.. . .1003. 0 ..0'000000'000f0 .0 0.0 - . «at 3 ...-‘0! 30-0—- ..00.0’.- :0 f . 0.: . . . 0 O. 000.0-..0ad I.||00-..000 000- .)fodO-li‘i’on'flo -000 r0000. 00 _fhs-..0.. . (0 .. o0...-0002404-0000-‘0-0.... 3.0 0 ...9. .. ....- .».00-...-0_n.0.. 5.072., ...: 0-.0 0.... . I . u... .... ... .0.-. 00- -0 - k! - .0 I». e . - ... . .2. .... P- ’ .013 I... I In..- ..0000a-...f-0-0.0-0}"'0-0 ff. III I- - 0...... o .0000. 0 ..‘Q000.0.:.-0\0t .00..-.\-r.-00 .....00-0010. 00. ‘00-...000 .rn.. 00\'00-.- o-..0. .- . - 0- 0..l00o00-.i..‘00.s0\0-.. 0 I. x.- .. .fl -..- 1 0 0 .0. 0- I00 - A. 0.0-..0-0 \- .. loot-0!}Il- u -00.0’O._0- 000.0000 [0. .A. . .0010. -_ .0 \.....020I0.-.I 00 030.0 0:... 0.. I. l. .I .00.. .0 .,.0.~00:?..\. 0... 0:00.30103. . 0 ...-00... . n 50.4.: ..-.. {0:10. .- . .20... ..t. ... u . ..i -’:¢.\ 0-20 It 0! 030-.- - 0-‘I -..I. #010003. -t00o€ [009090000013 000-909... 0 -. 0.. 00 - .00-01 C... .010’09970. 5r.- ..9’00 090 -- . - .0.0..00 .0040‘00’ O! 0 0. .0- I 3.0 0- - oa- . -..00'I- - - 012.06...¢1 '0’- -O ...-.0 .0. .... ...! i - ... 0 .. .... . 0- 0.0-..) L. -0.I-. 0- 0. 00,000,00010-00-0301-0-0f: 9'00'0 ‘0'" A I. p .I- 7.0.. o000.00 0'0. 050‘ 0'0K’050! 99. .000 0000-00-0 30-. 0.....070... n-t-lrt. .00....0’3. .0. . 3.00 0 .-.Ilnh.0. .-I 0.000 I\.-I .... . - I . .0..0-.f. 000.0 _ . 0 ...!I *z-Pv’m-l-IA 0-0.r.: .-000.0.00.'O INA-bob, ‘00.£0"0§0\0‘ 00‘ 1-K '- .- 000-2 \9K00.. 009400., a .lt09.l.0 H... ...-{000- 190.00 00.0 -90 0.... 0- I. g ‘ 00-00 . .... . 2w. ...0-\_ .-. 00. .20. 0 .I...p-?...‘ (A. tif- 0 .00-0 .. 0 . . .. . .. ..0-0. . 01-'|.| l-IIL-O-II‘00:.00-0,l-r0.l00-00:.‘000'0'800-03". “...-£10.. 1 “0 .0.-.0.0 v-u. . 0 - -n ‘0-080-0i. 0 .310060 .0-100. 00.00.. {.0 0-0 .00 0 0 ?....00 - 0.1.000}... . : v! .0....0!.00 -... .3. 00 .00090..~. -,-..1-. 0/. .0..- -, I .. .0.-.0. ..p :00"! .900-‘Cnuu-000‘00 .00‘000.o0.00r-l-.0.b..0I0P'?.- ‘g .0 - 390.00.- 0- .00 Q'..‘1?0.\uo.¥! ... 0000-. -. Q 00.. .00. o - I. x .3010‘. ...I 3.I¢.-..o0 200.0 0. .0- V ..hvl. - 0 ...-RVI. ...-I. 0 B30..-..-_os......'. 0.0.. .9 ‘0 0. .0. . .-0- 0. 0.0 -.-0,0.-l-:\.l.-000 01*” .I00‘lt0'0-00- - 0.0-0.-\ 3 . 0.34%. -0 ‘90..000..’0I006W0:'00I00.... - .. .05. A0.- fiv -.0.0.\ ~ 2.0 PBS-000.000 .- .. -. 0. .0 0. .0-. . ‘09-‘- f- 0'01 0. 0 .- - 00$. .... 9.9-? .1 . . . .-.I 000... .0... S... 0-’II‘00000\0 .00 3'00'0 .01): 1| - . .0.-... C0. 0 0..0I....00+00..0:-;0+Ac.'0 0,. 1000...: -... {.0“ ' 9.0.10... 03-0... .. . ‘0.- I-.01 .-0 0.. ..I - 0 - .0 .0..00L_0:.. 30.000 00 r . .20.. .. -.- 0 - I ..I . .‘t .....fio I 0.-, 00.0.010-‘00-I00r00 00.0.0.5?- 0 0.!0II0 ......CI .3. 900.0.- .000- )00. 0.. ...-....0-3 302.00.. 4.0-r0 00.! 0’0. 0.0. I30 ... .... . .0. 0.00 0. 0. .. .00 00... 00020.. C -.o! . 0-. .0000. J01; .. ...... I 1 01.0 0 - 0.0¢-.,.-'\.10-l.-.00- ....50-‘o’lt..sh.. f... . v I ..0.. .0o30. 00. .. .....000....00.00. . 00 0:3... 000- -.0-0..-. .01 -%0 .0... 0 0,-0.3. I...0..80 .... . . 1 . ..\.t.u0.m.t 0-0.... ... ... -.0. 0.0-. 3-30 I \0 -.---...V. I- t... . 20‘....01-00-05l000-v3.‘000!.-0..00[.7’0. ;.0000 L.- 0*...0-0IO-AI0 0.00 0000000000000-90. 1.0.0.0, .I0 .\ fin. ...-7002.0..00 .CV- .- 9-0 0 -0 00.... 00... 0 00 2-. of... .... 701.....‘9. 0.... 0-0 00 ..0. - I.,- ..000r0..’nwtl.00.0 00.0 0.3.0.-.‘ ‘0‘0'.'00-0I-.-£|...-00‘00 .- ..0-00. 33.900. 0.. .0. .\.0. 0.....00 ...-0.. -.Il|| .v...0-0.0. 0- . 0.9.... . 20.0... 70.0- ...»...-00 .r. u? ... ., .0. - :2... . -l.- -. 011......- - o . ...-... : .5 -. 00 . t... .- I- I......II- «00-0- a. .\... 0- 0 00:. P000000.) v0.1.0‘00'0. 0.0- -I 0. .0; to 0.0.. 0 re 0......00. 070‘0- 30 I00 0.0.0.: - .0 0...... .0.«.. ... 0.0. 0'...I.0.0':- I! . .. ...- I 0...» . .0... 11-0.... -..0 01.030 3.00?” 52-0.. 0.30.3..- -.k-. .0. 1-in-00-0 . 00 000....\ It 3070!}...0. ’-00.\ ..o. .000 .25. - ‘00”-I III-i - 00 .... . 00.. ...-0.1 0000.0... .....n. .0 0900\009.0-0.00. (-01.0 .. 71-. .a. v- .00- . 0:- ..0..§000 000.00.. .10....0 0.0-... 0000.0 .. 30-. -p ’00-.0. 0 ..0 .- .o .0-3 .- - .00. ...-0' .00 0. .03 0000-300 {0-00. 000-30-0- .O- .000I’000..0’.00.0 0.. .0 ..0..0,.0000009 ..- ..0..-.-.0l0-.000-0£ r000 - .000 ..00 v-0 .0 -00....f ....T I 0 .-. .00003-00. .00 TI. .39. . $0.0- .oo-‘siflua- . .0.$..000-'fi.. . .00. . -.0Or- ...0?- ....l? -_.-‘0 n ) ...: obs-0.00\;--.- I-o-0I-lo' 0J00- 00-00-00. - . 0. .0 '00 o _-0 . .... ‘_.0-0..-00..0.,.. 02.00. ... .0 .0. :0 . 0 0 00:1. 0-0. 00.9 0 .w .30.... 8.0.09.0“. 70.00 (u, . 000%...7..\..0.000o.0 .IO 0.0..-0.... -..-do ...-. 0 3-0000- L00. 30$)» 00 0-. 10’0- . .0.QI0..-. .000.. 0.00.0.00L‘0I000 0. 0-'. (0- I-00f0000 .-0 .....I0.-0.. - 0- n.o.0 .0..+ ..o. ..000 - .00...0- .0. ...-0,. 0 .u00...to.. 00.00... - .0 ...-... ...: .. . ..00 :70...- .e-‘.-.. -0 v- - ....Io -.€\.... ...-.-. I. I! rv-QI 010 .....Pleu-Q ......0. 00.01. W -- ..0... 1.0.. r. .. ICC-000..- -.1.0 .0....0.\...-.000. ..00 .)\ ..a.0. 0%.;0. ... . 0 10-... 0.00. ..o .2... . . ....0- .- .., 0. 0 - .) 691......h-2. ..0... -s_-3 -- 2-00, -OI - ...-1.0.0. al-P03r0I-a -0\0- .00: t050.0¢00£.fl-fl v. 0.7.0.0..0! I0 0:- . I..fv..-..Q..0.V:00 ..- ..v..I0-0...0.00_u.00.-0 5..."...Il...sd,- ......0... $0....3.0.... ,..h-.f¢...-....-.1-.0e.. I 00.3. 00)... 1.0.2:. -. .- ...,v 0.... ..I..!: .21.. 5.383....03000 0-.lv.-...i.r )I500 06.},- ctr-000011.10 0. 5.070 .0. 0-0 0.00%....s..r..00_..5 . 0- ...-.0020._..00 . ..0. :00... .. .00...+ v00 I....0-: 9.2.0.0290... ..wr 0. . 0 . 0 ..vo-O? 0 N-zw-...-..:t..0i.:-. 1.0 o-Io..-... .. .- ... v.10...- 3037-vco‘ 0...- b..-r.--II..00.0-v (00.0-37.1. . - 000 .0. 9‘0\.0 - Li‘s-09.00.- ..sf ..0‘00-.0-.0.I..I. .00. 090. .0 I .0 .0. .0-40 0 .0010 .t- 00.? 0-. .. -...0- . ,7» 0.0.0010}. - ... 0-. .0 - .-.. 0-10 09-04-03.) 0 ..‘ 0 $930000.- ..»000-1'27 .0}0-I'-|743.l . .03.! _ . .h..00902-'0 I .0..-.pD-.... 005-... ._-0|.-\..-._..0-.\ .... 3.00.00 5-9 Rt... 400. ...-...- ..0-‘0..'.0.. ......30 .0 ... ..l. ....TJ'..0..-..ez. 0...». -0 .....sir’ ‘N. 10.00- H. ...: I-.\l0-I-f$-.ler-l4tl-:Al0.l-IO tub-IP00.- .- ....0000 0-0‘900000‘0': -,0v.m.‘ 0-00.09f000'00V I0 ion-{00.o000 00 V. )0. ogo'nto‘dv . ’0‘- \ 0.0....0: -,-_D .0 0 00.0 ....H .0. 0V0!f...-C-D0.o -0.0 0.'1-0.'.....M-\. -. .II.‘ ,0 ...0. o..IQ-00-‘;.‘I-.O0O..0 0.0 0-3...“(00-'0’00 .0 .0 l0.'.. . i ..00 00,-.tl -3. 0'! O ' '- ‘V0 0.0.6 0.010.000. .. 0.0- . , I..-I-‘0‘-§: .92}va0' 00.- 00793. i0... 0 0- 00.. .§0‘00-.00I 009.00.. 0:0. ‘.0 0 - v. 0. 0.0 .0 -. ,I 00. .0 .o a. 0' 0 2!.1‘00"!b.f10 {0.}.0rt00‘0000-zl W . - 00. 00 '--00..VA-0x9~c ..J-r-I . o0..-I . i .l .10 .03 .0210 ..-0.I .00...0.... 0-0-10». .. -. I. p... .200. . *1! 0.000000 .3. . ..0 .r c. . .Iéfwfr-C. . . 0..- --...f: . I . ..v IVII‘ o. I‘l‘Fo Io‘vi0 03000.0)...100. l . . 1....0. .- 01000.008-0.r0-0 .. \»..0.—...0vr1 0 ..tl..... I . 0... -. 1050-01-10.... -.0 10.... 0.-.; 00I o ... -....- - ) 0100).... ...-0.. ..r .00 . 0119.0. 0-. II 0.0.... ,. .. . ...- -0. ». 00.0“--.Pu-leO’O-Ji-Qa.te. (0-0.0.- . T. 00 0-. 0.000.. 00.00.0-.0 00 4 0 0 I.“' D .0." . 0a .ik-s. 0 .0.,..#....00 Or 0 .08 ’ 0" 0.5 0.0.9000 .0. 0r . - 0 00 A... v.... .- . '00-. 1),.- 0|| .0 00’ - .0 l .l 0 n -J 0 0000. . 9 c0 0! “0’ tz‘n..£0f\l.‘.0‘ ...- 0 - 00.00.:0.’ . I0! 1-.0 .0.0.6\.~ 000~0-".0 00-0-00“?! 0 .0... .0 0‘ 00 4.0.0R-913. ssh-31.0000- . 00.. I .)0 0-0. I «coil. 0' .-. 0.0-. 07-9-‘- 0..- 9.0- 0 0 ..1 .S...v.!\ -0 I04 0.. ‘l'v-IO ova-I'LL .I0u300' .-.-0LL 1.0.0 .¢~.r ou.n...I0.0. 07:0:- .-..f.-o. fine}... 8.0. o. u. .I 2.0. . {...!-.-.- . ..3. z. . . . .... ... ... 1.... ..r-I .-|-v ... :- .0-5 v.- bI. .. -.. 0. - 11...? .I 14-! - rE-.o.0.6.I.-.0- .r.-..-. ...-.- 90. . - o0 10 0 0 5- 000+. 0.1000.....00I9.1.3-0.0.rra0t . . .00: 070 ...-.00-0 0. ,2,- ..fi. “7.0. n '- 09 «.5... .. .- 0- 00000 N “to“ 3).. -100:. \.0-: -.- .c ... ...-L2 - 1.). . ...-..o - 17.... - .9105‘5-0? 03o. 0!v-....|!?z!0.- 00 $0.209." 0-0.. .0. -.- u 00. I300.-0 5.00000: 3000.00. .YoID.N.-0.- 0-0-- 0-00. .0 .00.. 2.0., (0;. ..- . .0, ...-90.»: 0 3:: ‘ . 00-.9-?EI.0 00.... c 0-... - .00.. 10. 10.0.0. ('0. .0003: ftT-oflillo05.0..0..I.r.P;-r-0.5.'0..0- 0‘0...- (Im' . - . -... 0...!0 ...!M33....I.0..08-.-1:.>:-0-53.2.1.1..0- ...-.1 t. 0.- ..-00..P0--..r. .. . - . .0 . ”.0 - ..0 0r 0 90 I- 0 00-00 (...-.. i . 0 - . - . .. -I.0.. flak-Inl- A: .1401. 0.31.16; 1..-.;L.....I0..!-\.c..’0...‘.-I-l0.0 00".an W 0- 4.--.w.~._ . .0000..0*.9.9000, ... .0- ‘0300-0-00!.a. T. .0..0-o0.. .et» {0:00-0:01 0-0... 5 - . . 2300??! a 0 -,.-I . _ :05; I.) 0.0- 0- 0 .0 0r-0 - L .- O Sbr .00. -- 01. Il‘. 1:51...v..t....l...03-0!!;.0.!’.L38-0.L0010t - 0‘0 00.0- . ..0 00.000 . o ,. 0-0.1.0 .- 0 0-...0..-'A.0..,. 10%|. 0. I.>.0!. I. if. ._ C.- ..o .0050 I0000.v.0; 00.0.0703'. £0 a. u. -.(d.. or . «\40-0- -0.. -?I hit... 0. . 0.00- 0.- I - 9.30.00.15.01! --l-‘.F0.-05..)-. I-I.0.0-0..-§0000.‘-0-P00b\.f¢0 . :00 ‘0 . 00-0. .....f0000 x. .0 .Nl0? 0'31? r Rik-.r .0.-.1u0 050.000....5100300- 0......00-0U-0. .. . Us 00 0'00. I 0H0.0S."0.:0 ...-I 4.60. .- r-. -¥b-\v-..-0.-... .0.02-0¢ 00,-“.00- 0-. -0--II-P..3I- 140.000.00.03 poll-£010!!!)xL’3 0-i- 0......000 .... .500“- ...0.0'0..V001‘:00010 ... J0. ..ab. 0- 3:... 0 . 90010.00”, .0‘0-(v.\u- ...-0. l. , .... LY. .0- ’0... ... .00- -0- i ‘.0&. 40-0 .-0.- . . . a ...-01.. 0-,. 0.. l. 0.‘..)-.0. 010.0000 0!. 0’9.-0-.- .0.- 0090 03K0.,. DifP 00-00,!!- 0“!- ..--0|. . .0000 U. - 0.000'0... .00. oTQ‘lb/bK 9.00.00. ... ...\‘...0.00 A01-. ..- 0 - i-...D..?-.4:0. . 0 .l. 10-0 ... ......0 ..LI€0 .-0-00 0. .1. (-..! 0033-0. _ o. ... 70. .. .0000.I... . I 0., 0300-. 0300803430... 5-0-00. ‘00...“‘-.£s .90.! 0‘-001’- ".4 0000-05Q00000 .. 0.2.0.1390) I 0. 0hH-U;‘.‘o I. .Po .0. Opt»- 0. .-...;.i-.00‘0‘0 0:20 0 00 0-0. 0. . ... .. of... - ..CJO-I0.0_..0.....0 Y- 00 I.‘.0.... 00-... I...-0.-.. ..0 -...I. ...-...f‘. 0:001:00; (50".0000300000lt01-‘I 1-087-0f-2i‘0’t 0 9.0.2.. .I. . 0.0- \0..0‘0 .H.‘ .. 0- .90.pp0- ....00 .. ....0 '00.€-09.0- .R00.Ude .00.0.-¢...-0.-l. 9.1.0... ..\. . .0.0’..\. ...-tripo- \ -.... \. ($02.2, ........-.n0.l00...r.0. \U .II0002.000-0.0.-0.- ..l-lr.ial..:.00.0o.-Q¢Cp0lg...-Ji '(lciniv , I) o 0 .000 NJ 0 .00. 0.1.0. ...I -.00 I-I0net). 016- \.0 0- rt- ... ‘-.’0v..0.0...!.-.-0- top-a 0.00”? 0 0- 4.. . ...f 0.. 0-0. .0. .-. 0r. ...-0 ..0.- Ox... .3...--‘- ...o 9.0.!0'0 ..It- .-.. ,. ... 0...;- .....0..r. l0? - --..‘.....\O 8.1-. (.010..-e-00*1-C0-.r.0.$0.0.0’£ . 0 A00 .0.-'l-...) 0. 0030-0 0.0». . 030-04. .03..” 0 0 0 it? ....0o0\.6 4 .00. .- I! 0-0 - 00-!0 0 ... O 037....«9‘..00V-00 ...». 0 -..-.90. 3.0.0 . ...l-fi... ... \ . - ...-.1 1C. 0.03.0 .x‘t-O-qu -0... 3-!0’0-0-00’l‘00'.t.f0 '- tl}.;....l§'\ 000' ..WOQUI00. '0- 00-02‘0C' {)0 .0000Qw0 !- 09.00. 0:10 .I.._-0\.00-.000. a! .050 0‘ .0-0P‘QIC..I.?- a0. .... .0 a. ...1. ...-.0 . )-0-§;00l...r0-09. - ...“IO .10 o -. PJ‘. .00?f’..’.. 0-... '1’ 'D-t. ...h'fi‘.’090 '0000‘-..0C010f0.0.0. ollfl-Is-vvt- .i000.’ -.00- 0! ....0-03 ‘0 \070 0&1V000.0 000,-? 00.0- 08- 0.000004. 0 .0 0. ... I 0v..I-0. 30.02.00,! 00 00-! J .0000 a. 3! ...}... .0-.- ...0 .- ln!--.‘I.I 00..., -€'300 .. . .0...‘ ...-0o.0“0O_i."’.J-.0"0-.;0>£00’. 0- _00' or; -.o s-Id’il'i! R .0 . 00- 0. 0. .c- - v0, 00000¢0\0- 0| (0-000. 000.30.0- . 91008-9000 ..C i I ’\0L 0-00.. 000- .00.. £030.» .0: 000 0... .0- 0 \- - .- 90 3 0.300 a. .— . -.-I-00'0L%.0...-... 0....)00 . . 33-?0 1...?) 3.1- 8....r. -|00-l00.-“.-.0|.I.Ir ..lo..-3J'-Hudllih0h 0.3000001 ionot 1-- .000 - It 0...! 0'200Lo 0.0 00.0.0.9 3'00 '00 ..0 : .Eé: 00f..‘0 05 00". 0.0... 00,0 . 000'00'.010.C0 -.v! 0 0. 0.. 00-. .001 0095-. -505i . .1.0- . 0 t. .40 - :0. . 0- 0 0' .0 ... i . 1.0 03"0890 . 'I ...ls.§.Ol-5 0?.JI-0’lo'3 ' o.“ 00 ..."I' . .. . .-§- . .- .0-t‘000. .609.)000-900)}...00-00-00 IN. 0.2-0 out-r0“. .. 0000 .‘0000-f ..1-0 ... ...-0.0.50.0-0..-I.0- KV-r ... _. ..3 .-I .01... ..v!...II-..I «.0 I. .. t . .... I... 0! ....0....I-.+-..p.-? 3.1 {IRA-:3!- .3.-’.-.0000)rb0\¢0‘8.0.v’0. 900 0.. .3”.- , - ...I.. i. .0 .T- 0-000-500’000rb ; 0-0 0'.0.0 I r s.P0.1.-...0.00. .' 00.30; ._-.l.. . .900... ..- .0.0.-.. -.. .... ...-..o .o x .t. -.-:C-0- 0- II: I . r ...-30.... 0 ...0-0. .33.!) 0 0. 0.. .0. v0.0.0. 005019-00 .fv-Iu- ..‘cctwl-fs-va. .-0 10“???) '00? ....00 I 0 0- ...,I ”.000 .-(.0~. I. 0 . 0A. \1. 900,-.01 .....0-0..\..0-.! 05507-0009.. 0.0.0.30 0100-0512906. .... .. .05 0 000,..9:0 '9Q-.0fi# . 0030-0- 0.w-b*.0-.. o...~. :- I .. ‘00-: -. ...-03“]. . 0.-.orb-.ll,.ll\oto 100000-09 0 74000000.- - o ....r .YL. .30..- ‘O -.. 0110- 0fiqlvbovi00-0 ...-0.0.0. ...-.2030 ,..-0§\ .6000000N0L 0.0100. .- -0\Ol.0. .1.- . .I. 0-.0- 00. .. . ... 31.1- 003......0 00.30. . I00 -2 0.. - 0-0 5.0 0-0 ...-L ...-......)0001 I- ‘fl-vr 0.00.0? LII-L0 -' .0.)\k¢0..0.& fi 0- . I 0r.- .I-...'-..- 0 7391?.0. .30 0-.00 .(0. . 00 u- N. l .0.. 0.10.0000..%-. .0 100).. 0-. o. 0.- . ....-. .- ..! ... .020 .. -. au-0\-.-.S.57. - . .0 o 5.0 a -. .-t .. .I. ..o-. ..."! 20-3- 0..0J..t.|-0.000-0-0:0.. o-ut'50 08-h”- -I&.0 00 . 1... I \- ....w.0 .0 0.- 0 0000- .0....0-0.‘ . .0200... . 0-. . o. 0009». (0' 0fio .-0' - ....w‘ 0.... . .0. l.; .u... ....05 .0- .J .- 13I..fo..!.7 .b-.*0I.. .00. 0"?.! €00.00i01-0: I- 00 - o0.(-00 ...-00.01001?! . Ip-0..l.‘.0".0000000.fl turf-0.0.30 “ . $3 .00. ‘o0’0. - 0-,...O’QQI 'Dtfi..oI‘Ob’D 0.00.0' 00-000. 6‘ I’d -‘ c'0NIA-I0v-0i :0." .00, ‘.ii - 0- I - Oat-.0- . .00 ' . z .....r..>.0 - 0|“4 0-0 \000 I. 0‘00. 0 0. ‘- - ‘00 I 0030-.0 00.- ! '00! .I- 0". .0.)0'.’.¢&..0.‘I{P§§0.0,000-100.0'0’fiIO‘I’ --.. 0. ...-.0 - .-.- bI...|00fI..-o10$ 550-050-8... ..I - .000.....00.-l.9.)-.4p-.00- :010 1-0.0- .- 0-. £0..-)....0‘... -0-...-3 - 0|... - 10-20.. 0.0.00. -. 00011.... -.0.-- 0.100.),p.0l..lftnat-00I-I:I.0-0-o.-3l buclffe’ini-O: . 0-. 0-. ...QI - I..—-|l0.-00 ... (0.000.;- Q-.- . 0.10.. -0..0.?..-..0. ... .10 .n u?.?...:00.-.KI-..0 . 0,00-0.a00 0 . 0 0. ._...!00§l.- i 0.0.0.!..-. ...-1.00 0-0.0...(2 0 .-. . .r .-.-I 9r..- 1,00; 1... . -0(. I0L0 trap-.7...)- -.A"..‘oh-‘0;. 0030.00.59.90? .. 0007.00. 0. .- .00 .,..~.0.0"\-¢0-.- ...P»!.0-...f- 0.00. 0-19.. 3-;- P00 .. - . I. put0 tit-000.50.? ...0 .0: . - 0. 0..., -.0....i1.0v‘0.0.0._ .-o‘)W- 0.0.0. .053 .- - ...- .1. 0:03.12... . 0-...cI3I-0I07J0i-00.rfblll-. -.0.I-’0.I0..'00.§.00l1.0-0 ".0 a . ..v. .o . - . .900.0-000.000.ol ..|.~w£010.0. .00§.000....0-0...r- .. 1000. 000.._-l.- 0.3.0.0.“.I5. ,. 00.0 ...-{9.9. 0. 00.9. fie-0.001- 7000... ...-0....»- \.- . 0... 00.?..o||£ 0... -. Irf 5002.03.061. ,1. ,0. 010;. 0.|- ..007t'..l-.. cI’L-0310 .1li-i-0-I." 0. 0. 0-0 0. t04|L .0‘0.a'10 0 0. .0 00.. 0.10 0000._0.-0Q0._- 090.0-3-‘004. .... oéwa-Qv. 0.9 'MI-voL 0|... 0.- 0.70 0.... e 390......rn ..0 0... 0000).?! 1.0.2- 7.033.912? - ....a 22.30:. 0 00-0-05! .0 120000.), 0 ...-.0- I :00“ ..7-00 . "-.I-0 .u .. . ..s-H. .- ..v0_£.6- ...: ... . I - ..-,. . ...\0...I ..- ...0. - I .0. .,0.-..+0:.. get-Wu. .-0, r... ......-0 . .o .- .000.- .--0 0 .I. AOL-9.0:.- _..0.! 0.30. . «02!! - 1%.: ...-i ..00-0.0:...04 ...rxvo -. 1.0-00 ... 010.01.010.00 P - . 0 . 0.000. 000. 'fO-r - a .- . 00000- 0 . 0 00.0.. 00-0‘90- .“h. (.0000 .-. 39010.0... . 0.3.00.0}. 0.0.0.0400, It - 0.0 .0..-. '03-0 0.- ... .0.0.0-.I0 ”010 - .0.- . .0 I000. - .40 0006.....0. . .. .. 0-.00 .- .(.-?0 50‘4“ ‘- .-o.0 . ..l Eng-03.00.290.000. lf-o 015 . I Q0090.0|0.00. 0‘050- . .00....‘010 a. 01 0.-".00 a-O - 0'. ...no . I.§.’.‘v.00 .00 ’00 00“... ...-0 - -\.0.-.00'0 09-0 on. 0 .Q’.'_ -0;.-..00 .3000; ... . -! 0 v-I..-.0.0 0-.0 ‘..0\- 0‘ 0-50.; I-F0.t0 tor-01¢, Iv. 03.“...00- 0‘ - 0“...” . ‘flx - ll 0 00. .. .I . I.» l. .0?.'0!-1000.0f0-0'0...0.0-0-.90000. Po. . 5700000.}..050-eis 0- .400 ’ 3'10.0.0.-~_’.-l0\-.0.2-. -.Y\: ... -0:h0. 0|..0- (0 4V. 0.1- o I; .....r- 0- ...... ls. ... Rs... {-00, 1 ....00...‘ .10 I ...... ...-00..L-...0l- .Ifbtf‘vln’: faD-l 0. ..0 .... ...- . .0 .0. 00._.- . . 0- 0 .... e). 1.0: .. 10-40-0000 0.. ..30 0.0- .. - .00.?5. 0-0 - sJ; t.0.. .02- .0. . 3.0-. .0030 - 000-. .0-0 . - 00. 00.....00-0 . .. .004 . 0050‘ -.o 100.010.? ..00- .50.. .-..0 .- . . 00-8.... .0 0-. .0D0 .0.0 0-0!! 0 {X’s-0.0.0.0) ills-000.1;- v.0 ... 000-1 .. 3.00 its-.09-9-0 090-0 . 0.. 00 I£\o0..0-.".--.. O0 . 0 00 05.0.20. 4-0090-000“. tit-$0-0 - 0 40 I- \.\..0 .IJdn. . 00’I0.I.0‘s. .0 0’..- .0 mu. 0. . I. .0 A. .0 ...-... .4 -.00-.£-I 0 -..0.. 0;.v{.000l VIII-0'. ,. 0I 0 0 u.. .0- .0 s ’- 0000,70. .9 .0 .00 .0.- ov0 ..I0000-...-.-. .9. [.00...’ ...00 ...-1’30 009 .0 0 9.0.0- - at. 3-0. ...-0.0..- I .2 .0 ’3‘)”0 .0. .80. ..0 .0 . . -. «‘00 L L. .- .I).I.-lu-Il0-.01.- -.-0.§80f010£0\r.gr40.0f0€ 0010.0.‘hflw ’I 0 - ...- - 0 ' -I 00 000.....9901. _ .I.-- ..0- 0000.00. 0 .30 . . 0 0 ,~‘-_ 0. 0.0003073}... I.r0-0.--.. .. f 1- .0 00.... 0. 0k.‘.’.. 0. . -{0 00-00-33-150! -0-I-oi - . -.- .00. 0... 1-00 ... .0 O‘- 00-00001.-0'00_.'.-I’0’0- all —' fl.ualloo 0” . c0 .0... .. 0 (I I . 305...? 00 o- 00 0 I 0.. .0. p 0 0A.. .90. .0001: I? 0. 0 00!...0-01- . . 0c-( .0900. ... p0- -...x.-L0:2 : (-0-? .0 0L. ...-,0... 0 I. - .I! ..| 000.5 DI..I...0-o.0.- 30.30.93... ...-0- n.-’)0"0I0 .0’090'6’00-2 .. . - . o-- 0 -0000000.01\ 0- ...0 .0-0I0. 0 0.... \v- 0 .00 0.: 0 3.0.07.2...‘0 ...-09.09 .h. 00.00. I. . -.. 0.0 ‘21:... 0 .-..-0..,000t0-00.01. 0 I. .-.00.0| .00r.\-0.00 . I0 .- . - 1- . - 000..- 0.0 0. 0-... 0-30.. 000 0-...--- .0i-0-vo.£-.-§t . . )- -. L- -. . -.0vb\ 0 0A 1...!- o.- .00.0 0-0 - .30 . ...-.350. 0-0. :0.” I. ”0.0-0 It 0... ..0 0. -.. ...--.....0. ---.55. .20.. -o,0. .. ..l 00 - .- 0. .90...- 02: - 3 I.) .Io-fbluurI-Ioo - 0-0...f 10,-... g.00«I-‘0.f3¥.0t00f 40 .00 o. 0 O .Q-h IV' 0\-... 0. .0 0, ....00.00- . .0 \. 00. I. Q70. f50..-01. 0' -'u . .. .0 0 .. .- 00-.0 ‘0... 0...-‘ -....0-.00 I..0-. .0- .b..- .o 0' ..0.. -0 0- ..- b},- i.‘!0-0.I ...! ’IDSOQVI 0” 09fo't. .0 - 00. 00.0.0.0 [(0.- $010- 90? ..00 01-2- - 0 . .0 r 0. - .0--0 .37- 0}. .000-Q0.30 00-0“ 0. .0 0 .0 .00. . .070 :Ja'..- 00$ ‘000..0- - .- -I0IW- .0-0 :0 10.3- .- 0 0. .0 00I\ ..Q '0':- t-n-‘ta 0 vfll‘ I50- . . -o 0 II .- ... -..3-.¢. . ......oa 03.00.0000 0 0‘ v... o..0.0.0,-000 ha... .000 00.0.... . . - a 0 0 0.90! a .- .0w00t - I” .00 0 ... ....0 #0.... I. r... - - . It ..a...’ I -. .- ‘1) ... ..n\0.0. tat-1(0- I...r-.ll|ln-.!-.0..I.0$- I .0 .0 ... ...l .0-0000006'0-0-o-0o o N -. 0- ‘c0- .0000. .0£0a$0\?!.00.0§0000.0 06‘. 0. . . -0 It... 0.0-0 0 $0....0rla ...-.70. I00- ..0 0 00.. .10 .C.P\v -00‘. 0.0-0.7, ficpotiIV-fi-ot .0'0)‘lo&000-0..l0” .00 . .. . 0100 .00. . 0 .0 0. 05%.0-0.0 0‘.0 -..00 0 -n.000.0-..0’ .0 ...-0:20.00. .0000 “100:0. 0’ . 00 I 0. 0.0.00 000 . r005; .l.t‘.. 0...! ..- ..-.--III!-. -.. -.-3-.0.-00..C .--.0s-.!. Lr {1.1kw40-0f0.-‘000.I-000 4 . .o . - a. 0 >009 090 0.0-9? I00... .I<0.0 0.0-00.0.l0' 6.1....300000.010.200.90...0.00 ...? .- .- I 00. . '8; IQ... 0:...0‘... I: .I-I 20.0.7. -. ..0- .6- ...0...’ --0. £3.01 -0 0- ! 0t..- .03-3000- .)I’.’A&0.§§0.¥00 . 0 0 - 0.0 .- l00.0000 00 .0 0 00 019- .00 G. I0 .0 ... 000.070 0-. .0‘0- 0.|0.0Q0~ 0-00, '00.- - 0 ‘0 0 20,0...» .0. .00.... 00l-‘0-0..0 00,0. 0-.0-0..00a.-I01..0..r. .. .0 .00 . I... 0‘0‘ v0... II0500- '-Pd|’.- [000.0 00E.00";?r 00" . - . r I .. 0 I0 0 0- I- .0.- IO ‘0 ...- . .009 . 0- . ,00 o. 0 .1 00¢in 0.0-] 00-00;. .I'..00000§.- 0.0 . 0.0.... .0 .’z':' Ii. ’-lol. I O. I‘..00..0- .390 08-.05. - It 0. 0.. 0*00 ..0. .0. -o. .00.. ,..0'0‘ -0I0.00I0r*0-l0f0‘0'0000'030{‘00t' 0- P -0_ - -. 0 - I!‘ I0... - 0-'.\ O .0. 1.0- 0 0-.. 0. 0 .00 s I a 0' 0.0...00'! 7- .0 '0 0 -I' O.- . '0 ‘0‘”!. .00., .. .0. 00 -_.I('.' 0 d) .. 0000.0. 00.00.000.00 I0‘.I..1. ‘- 0‘000 0. .‘0 00 '00 5-00 00‘300'0 00" 4 0‘OOIAQ’OOO-000 lCO. .0.'.0 0 .. . . o. 0. . - I 0 00. no.0 l0 0 0 \0 ao-V..0 ..0’0oQ.00 0 0.0! 0.05!- 0.-9C000..v . 2 .0130- .. \. 0 0. -.,0 9 -.. 0.-.I0.0..0.o!0. 00 ..,_30.00'...00..‘II: . .0. .- ., ollfi‘. l0. s.\-00 .0 o’:-00 0-.0I-006ol--{3-00.3-0‘000‘0'1’3'00-0‘30‘ -0 .- 0 0 .r Il-I .00 0000-“ “000000 030 0.0.0.000 [- ..9 ...-.0010 00... .0 0 00 .2000- I 0.. l .0 0. 0 . 0 ...-.25900,- 0-9-99... .345 ..F' .-.. .. 0-..0- 2.0.300.) 000- 0000- o 0 -- 0‘I0r0’Y’.‘I . v0'0’.0-‘0-II-’ ‘0' 000-)”.ftu-‘0 . 0 - I0 6: 00 L... o .00. 0A... 0-. 00000-.-00 00 .. - 1-100- :‘J... .9030 0. .910. . . .0. . .0 ......00-0. .. 1:0..0! .0. )0. I... .70.“. 1.... ...I . -0.. :1: 3.5000139.- - - .-¢-0I.3..- a.0s..-...0_0 n .II ....- 0I-l- 0 . . o - -00- 0 D .- . 00,0..o.-..l-.0. - 0- 0 l A. -)\.O00.-000 0-". 0 .... .0..0,0¢.00 l- 0 0 .0 00... ...-F0. .0 00.0 .0 {.0 0 0.0 n3... -. '0. . .3. .. “.n.00 .1- - ..0 I. '- 0AQ...-0.-\ .I -0 1-00- -PI-0.0.I-.l) --00l.-L.I-.0I’0-5l.. . 0-00". L . 0- - 0 LI(- 1.0- .. .0 ‘ 000....I a .... O ' .0 0 00.00 ...! ...! 0-0.0.fiv 2”. 0 o ‘0.- .- | n! (0- ’1..,O-...-0-0m0 .... It- .0 .I ...A0.- .0I o‘000..\09 c0...- \. ... I .I -0. .000-1-IIL-0-0l-0-. 00; .0.0.000¢0-0-v..0 0000 00- - 0 J 00 . l .00.. - 0 0.!e0. . . 0-... . o - 000. .....I. o0..10$0. 00L0-‘-.0000-?-00 .. 0.... . . 33.0.1.0-03... 00.00‘ .?.0 I92. I - 0.0.. .---- r5.-- I.t-a 000 .... ... ..r--ub..0.1)l...ll..'-.O-l?- I0!!0?‘!0.- 203?..- .0 I 0 0 -PO 0’0- ‘0. 00......0000‘ 0 -0 00 ‘00 I .000-A. - 0000‘..DI:“.-.0-0-§0 - . 0 - 0. . 0 .0r00’a30.o\ ..‘..0~0Q ‘ -! .II 0 0L! .0 00000030052130) I-0C‘ 0-.¢-0-. 0r-0..0_.I0--)00r0‘.. ‘ruf\0000l00‘0' f‘? o . 0- .-0- 00 . 0 .000 '0’! .0- on 00 0 0 30". 0 02.00.00. .... .00 C0-"0\O-. 000.. ...-900 .0001... 0.000 ’O. 0 00.000 40,... 0: 0'. 00,0 0.. -. _ -000 00‘ 00030I .00 ...-.CC!. :0.0-|-....ICII 0. 00... ...00'" ot‘ll' 00 (000 [00500000, . OI . - . 0 . - - 00- p... 6".00’.0 00.00 0’0 O 0.0 0-0 -'0--00 0...... u-00 .0. 004.7000. 00- 0. . 9-? . .90. 0. 4-0-30... ’0'.'.: 0- 0-00,. .- ..s. . 0- -.. ...-.... I}. . ..lb.0- .. ....0 - .00'10 ...-fi3-0-i' 00.00.’I0l000-E0I0 ['0 . 0 .. 9... . I .v- 00...! o-0. ...00-. ...-.L. 00-... - 000-..0.0-. .0?- ., (00......0. 00-.‘0 .... ..F .-.. ....f030-v_OII. .0-.-I-0-0r v.0»...f‘0.0.-. .- 0| 0. - 00-:- ..0-,-l-.00 .0-1rv.\.s.l!l|..- 0' £(DI-O . .0- -0-. . . .. 0-.1-00- 00.0.I ..0.-0 -.. -. .vev .. - . >...---0 ...-.00. 0 ...0-0-7 -..-. . .0.... .00 --.~p!I0.00.-0-.0-. 021.00.... ... .0.- -0 Z ...: ..0.0 I .l. - 0 0| - . - .fv-0h‘0 l?!‘ .5. {...-7‘... 0. .00-1: - -. of I . - .. 01.00- 00._ 0- .0. :0... 0 .. ....0.-. . .11).... .twrv-of-VIO,: . 6.... ..‘0h0 for-.tvrvtlnzll. ...3.0-.0- p..-.I. I 0. 9-0:. 00- I: ...qu- -..)-00-0.JO-1700.I-0(0-o )0.-I.-f|ll.n..’l 0 . o 0 u .v' - 0.00 I. -. -0.00. 0 ..0 0.00.9.0| ' 3000“ .00r0...0.-0 0' ..0. .-0 .0. 30‘st‘I-V'o: popcovto. ’00-‘55. , -I. #0.',\00 01.. _ 10-0-1-0..00 $00000 \fr-Do-c'g-0003. l-"§-bl0:! . .o I o 0 . a n. x. 0 -0. 0. 21-1-3300- 0... 0. 10. . .0 . 00 20. .0‘00-.0005.00.0 0 . oi. . iuua0'. 00.0-00.1?! 0.00- .030 ollr. A. I’.0-0 ‘0 09.1...- A. .I-I .-. '0 0- .0....0 .-V$rv.-.\-. $0.05.: 8,-- 0-1'00 I . ..O- - i . .00 -I-0 0 .q r .0. -.-. 00210 f -0 ‘1 0300§000003I 05,-2.5-0- 0.0 -0 ..I0. ...... A...- a'Jsfi, )0. V0070. ..0- ‘. 0- 0 .--0...0 . 0 .00 . .3-00' ...0 .00.... '0. I0. 0-00..0 nil-.0. 00. -000IF.P 0".0. 0’ III-- a - o 0x- . oo . 00.0- - 00- '000:.... 0 {0- .. 00.400 (-0.000....00 00-0. ..V.0-. .0 r0.- 0 -. 0 .0. - ‘0. .0 ICC-0.0.8.3.. $I. . .II,-.0 0 O. 3 . .-. 0.0.. . o GIL-.0000 ’0-0’0 Chg-.0400.- ..00. ' '.‘.0-0I0'(00.'_ ‘r‘.’ 0, ' . 00- .0 0- - I 1-. -..-.0 0.. v.0 . ..000 0. 0 .I. sv-e.51|00-001\00.-.0-.0.- ,— .00.... . .... . .0.tE0-l ....s,......! I: . 03.0.0.9- . .00 000-0- 510.. 0",...-0,-500-.00. f0..0-0.- I0.-\.I-o-0 ’- .- - 00 0 . - . I0. , --..-..-0.. 0. . 5910. .o .o. . v.0 .‘I-.( .....ro 00.0.0.3.0: . c.0391 ......0‘8-00-100v-0-‘h-n \-. .IO -.. x 3.0.7 .0 I. ...o. .....I,O -) I-.-.\l.l 0-83. .I.I-1-.-b-.- -t.f?.lu- - .. I. 0 . 0-..0 0. -0 - . - \ 0v 0. I. . 0&0 S .0. 0 “1.0 I...-0..-00I0 6-00" 0-5000... 0“. 00 0 -hu.s.-00I0..£0.v .0 «An-.03}.- L 00.0. - ...: 0.! .-\|. . -. 0.9- 00‘.-00. .0:- 0-.0 1.0.00 0 -.-Y.0..r\- .0?- - o - Q 0 - - .00 0 I300). 0 0" .00 0 0-... .0-9 0 . I- I. . .00 0 ‘u - 000 0 0 0.0--'.000I -0 .0 0 - .' {bu-o‘olo-I" u0-.'0 .I. 0 ...I .I‘l.\ 0 0,1?! . o. I0 ”0. I 0 O. 000 0‘ -. .-0-0 0000.0 . co - -00 - 00 II .000 . .0 ... 04-000.”?!- -..‘. I - . 0 ...0 0- 00... fol-.00. ..I- ...-O -‘-I 009 . .l o-- . 0-.0- O n. .-0 00.2- I t.”:” bflvidi-io-hcvoo 00“- .fl) 0 . ..- .... 0. 0.0 -.r-I .-.. 0-0. 40.. r 10.0. -. ..0.’ 01.0 ..2- 1 T.- o. 0.0.)! 0 .0. .0. v 0 I.’ 5.0 0Ofl0- 00 0 .I.. 0 P o .30 3-7. .0 000-0. 0.. - .001:- 000‘.--.I 0 3005 P .-0.0.0I.0Ir-0-J-00., ’f-LOI ' . - 0. -. .- . 0.. 00...... .v 0 . 0- 0-0 0 I000. ‘50 00000 r 000.0000.-.0§-Ill’ P .l- . q. :09 00- - . {2 1.00.-0..-..0.. 0-00 ‘0 ....00-00 00 A. o .- .. ..0 s .. .voonco-c 0... - 001000 0If0._-\--I-..f0.000 Div-P0. o .0 I.-- I 00,-00 I-'0-. I-In.-00-0 s..0 000600. hn-0 0.5.:0O'07’0‘0000‘: 0 -.0 I 0. 050.0 .- 0 COOL-I\.0. 0 .000.I-...I- 0'1.’0' - 0,.) ‘0 0' 00.0.!4 .- 00-.- .I 00II 0-0000..vo.0.-I.- -.00 - .- 7 4.8.0000 -I..--- 0 0 1.... 050.00: . ..r 0-34-10. I C. 0-051§10%000. 00-0 :00 0 ..0.¢0.0. 0-0 0-. 00 0-0. 20-0. .- 0-0:. .0} 03,-, "'I- 5. '0 100-3000. ..0-0-01‘.I-010.Io.‘)‘.fl-.0 . l-l . .0 - 0 - .000 0-0- 0! - I.-0.-- 0 C‘0P00 0' -..-0.. .-0 020.002.04- 00. 0- . I.- 0-0 .01. m ..0 .... nopl.‘.. 0-. 0-30.!!1 0: I 000'... - l-fi-oo...0l’ 0-00-1319. ‘0I 00-0 0009- .00000I0 10.. O . - .1 0-00 .. .f . o I Q. .000 -. 0 - L0 0 .0-000.0-‘r-... 8.0... .‘. -0 0 Q0..- -0\0-0 0..».00-'. ...-.‘00 30 0 - 2r...- -.. .0 av. ..,..00 : -. - QII.0...0 {lo-If'ovl\-I.)00 -.0.0...u0-00.2.0A-I .P 0 0 .08A-v- 000k...-- -I . I 001000.0- 00 5 . 5. 0!. 0‘ 20. 0-90 3.0-0 i I .0\.. 13.000.00.09. o0. ...9 0. 00. I .. . .f -00. 00.0. a -.0. ,_.'-{.. . B.- *.00{0-0- .- . :0\.0-0!00 0‘ '5". 0-00. 05.0030? ‘. Q ‘ . . . . '.D0 00 - 00 .0.llt..\-l. 00 A 0 3-0... . .v’: 0-0 I100; 0.. .. 0 ....I 0).) 0'010160 .020- 00. - - t .o- .38 0- .0....‘ 0-. . ... I..0 - 0.00- 900 0.- .- . oOI'VI- 0‘00I0 0A0 .h‘o ‘f¢.-0"‘.0 - .. - o - .-0 0 - -.. 0 ... -. 0’- 0 .- ..0000 .- . - J. ...-...-.. 0.0... 3 0-. ... 0.0.001. . ...002 10.0.0040. II{.. n. 0 9.00.0. 0-0. .00.?! .9. v..- ..0 - . 5:3..02- .0003. 1.. -..... . 1-,..313-n-‘ISv-0. Ito-0- 0....0: l§.0l-0uI.-I-Iv- .. ‘ I ~0 0- . 0 q 0 _‘1..- a I . 0’ fl #:0. - .. . -,I 0 \10'0 - 0'! 0.3 ..I.0 00. V C. . ...-r A. - 0aI.I’0-5ol- 00,- .0‘.’0O . 0-004 0.0 000. 0.0 .0-0. - ..0. 3.0-0 § 00 0-.0: .0 I - .I-..rl.- "0.l-0 0':io-rlpzzb),.‘l.B--pn’;l 0 . 00 O 0.0 ‘0'. . 00 .900 -.O0 0-.-.. .- 0-.00. 00.0t.000..-I .0u.\00 0 ...9 -.\§ 0.... . . 0 00.0.... s 00" ..\ I..0J-.0.. -. :0. o'00... .0 Q 0' 00- .:‘I-Oé -!00-I.0 00I0 0.1-00.0‘40-'0'0.5.I'0000300. ”0 0 I 0 .II .00. - . . -. .I 0. . . ..00 )0 .00’0 00,0 0. .1..- ..90..00n-00.- .9 .- -. ... .0000-0 .00‘...‘ .0.0\.. 0- 0. . .-0u\|00_0- . 100 500.00!- 100 0.3 .- 00 .000 I10 010-.550 .;1.0}l0' .'- [10* D . 0 c -. oo-l -.-.- 00-.... 000.0 0 .... ...0.-.0.0. 0 01"),0‘w.0IL.0000.-.. 00) c. ’00 ,. D0. 00.000.1-5: -I.AI‘0000.0.00. .-‘ .... 00.0,! ......r .79.! 000.00.4-0 ‘00“ 0'0... .00 03'l000.00‘-00.0‘0.N f i. ’ . . .0-.. 0-0. -.01.00- - 0 -00. I- - .0- 0. -.00| 00p.t0. .IOO’s- 1.0.0 - 0.,- 00.0.0300. 00- .0.. .00-‘..000..‘-.00-..-.0 3-4. ...-.0 . - 0’ I 0.... 0 .0- 0.0 .o.. 00 ‘00-! nr00-I-4l-b‘90llbloz‘\‘-0.'0‘.‘0...3.0.vI-l-I’ 00 . 0 o 0 -. - .0 . 0 0-! 0.0 0- -. .0 I . 0 0-300..- .0 .5. .0 0.- .00 '00-. - 4. - 00-0 o . . 0. 0000.0- . ...-.0 .- ..-I.I. 90-..- . -00- ISL-0.. - .. r?! .2000. 0 ’00!‘- 00 0 .....-.0( .‘Obalka00-o - 00- 0 r 0 .- 0-D- . ... I '00- -0 0 0 0 00 . I..0-\ 0'0 :0. -00 .o- .‘-l .0 0. 0 a. .00.! -0 00-,0. .0-2I. ,DIP 00-. c - .030 -'.0..-- 00...)... - ... .- 0110-!l0 “0 0'0 !'-§. 0.00 :000-‘150’ 0‘}--0-’00.OA0, -- 00- 5.0 .35000 .-0 III 0 .0‘0 - .. 0.1.0. I 00 0 I 00.00003 . 0.0.000. 9.0.00.7- .I 0.v 1. .... ..0-2' 00.; 010-010 0 .’ - ..0.00. 5.0-..010Latl ...0.00,’r..’.b'-0.. ...-’20t- .P‘Il’-0r000.-l -. '.0000I0 oil-\(Ir‘E-l 0 P Q- 00 .0 00-. 0 9 ....00- ‘01-. \- 0o -0 ..l- .0. I . .0’0-.-\00. $.17... 0 ..0. 3-. .0. ‘f-, ...0I0-.00.-0.\0. .9070. 9.0-: 0. .9 .0 ’3 .0 . 0-0.0.- -.---0I.- 0. :0. l.- La-J- ..1,‘,-. 0...f."0._0 ‘0‘3: fiscal-.0003!) - ll..l. . -. 0 Io '0. 0?. 0 )0 I 09 0 .0 0‘ . '00 - 0 I0 0.0-...0.0 02.0'0 C... .l-. 4... L I, a ..AO-‘t- 0 Is. .0.- 0,‘ A‘- 3' f. 0.0 .- 0 .-.0,.. of A0- \.I 0 . .-00 .00. .. 0 0 02' '1'. - '0-0050-08- ((-00? gn’IF-‘D-0tt'0 ,'000- I . - 0 - . . 0 0 a. ...-Q. .00 . .. a. .... 0-- - ..¢ 130-: 0-0 .- 0.0:0I0 .00 0 . - o 0- 0.10.8. -\- .... s-In-t .0 . .8t-.- ..0... .. .0 ...-50.... .-..--o 00.. 30.1.00 --\5. -a-.\.-.lv- . r-G-.-0- ..000. -9..-A)l‘- 2-.JIOII. -|-0 ” .- . r I . I - - 0.00.. .0 o . . ..0.. 0 000.0 0-0-0... yo-0 .-0- o-. I ... .v..- i l- I-cI 0.0-0!IZ-...... 0. .90.I..I.§--I:O.0 .- I. - 0 II.-\9'0I-.0n\'.|ll-lc0¢--oo.I-"VIII.)-\- . . I- . 0 I - n ,0 000.. 0 00.0.!0 0 I. s o ,9... 00-000 I00. 0 0 I ‘- 0. .0- 1 .I 0 0.0.0 0- .0 -00.0 -0 0 I300. . - o - 00 023000.. 00’, - 0 0000’. - 00 I00.'009\0’I ’0 0- ‘il ‘00.!‘1’I0‘0’Dr0. . . 0 . I 0 ... v- .. ... .. 0 - - . 0. o. 0 ... 00.0. TX‘ 000.. 00 -0 0 01.0 .0. It. -a .0 ‘. 0.09000 1‘ 0- -0-.?-0 I . 000‘... .. 9-0-0 P . .l- .06 ITI)*oI-f0l‘..-:0’0I«0.O-Iv0-I nil -. 30133-0. Igtg-t- . . 0 - . 0 0V. - .. 0--O - ..0 \orco00 .9 I. 0 0. .0 -- '0-2. 9 . 0 0 .- .- -DI.0 0. - 0 'E 0.50- - I 03.0 0. 2-010-3ut. ‘S’0.-.00. I-QI.-.0I0-0-0.00 I..Yf(If-.\00I IL0- 00$.‘t00 - M * 0 -h -00 - 0 - I . I. L 0. u. 0 \0 .0 0 Y: 000-- 0 0 p 0 .0 0. 0- 001I0 -} -'.00 - .-.-.l9 05.0 00.. III-....-E. .0...--0.- ...-If. ‘- *v-5L’0’3‘0-lff0 - 00 I ll .IO‘0-0-f.-lkl'0.l. ,I , o . I. J 0 - .- I - - .f -0. .Q o .0 . . 0-.05- 1.0.0.. . t 0 .. .. 0. 0 a 0 - 2.-. .0 . 6 ...-VII-o .0.0- .00. . 0.. 0| .0- OA, -.-.-.. 0-.- .u .. 1-. .0I0I..0-t - - J - 0. I‘-l.\5.’t0-v.0c0....’..r ....000 ;'-¢,P( .0.— 0 . q 0- 0 0.. _ I 00 . 00 0 O 0 .‘0- .9 O I O . 0. l‘l .. I - -‘ O’.70-...V".0 .0040 \ ' 0 - O - - 0- I. ll I0. 0‘. '00-00‘?.. . 000-...0 - P ‘..0 I!'--‘ - |.-000.'0.v -.0‘l’..O-0‘. .00 0'.0 o’cr‘.|0f.'lr.ltl’l.'-’ .” - . 0 0 0 I .0 . o (I I I. . .. 0-0 . .. . 1000 . ‘ - r0 . 00- . 0 . .0 . I O .0IO.0..\ £0,025.- . ...- ‘u' 0 .0.- ‘00..Ifl . o0!- l-O-.D-.- 0700....00, 0.!- .-I0 00-0040... ..0-0.00-00.C.00', ,-a ,I.?OI-0ri,-’C£O I 0. n . 000l- . I. ... 0| 0 .. - III-‘0. .. P 9-... |C . - .0 | 02 D090 0 ... 0. :0 . 0.0....'- 00- .000 ..I00 1....» 0. It . I o coo-t-0- -00.‘l 0- 0- - yl‘ 1.0.00 ‘00:! (3".0I-00.0.- 0 '0 (‘0, _" 0-0 I- s V .0 . Q .0_- 0.. 0 I I o . -. 0.-000- .0...fi.|-!0.-. .Qom-‘C-Is. ..-0\.. .. .0.D-I Inf-.00 - ... 00.1! Iii-.90. ... 00- . ut‘ I0 .-. -0I.I.'0-.I.00 0.0-.l.’ toi-..vr.0E.-0o\00’z.r. _ 0 - ... I 0 . I 0- . a 0 .... - . . ... 0. . o .0. 0 . 0. .0 f 0. '- ... 0-).- 5-10|-.-\ . I. . . -0..0 .0! J, .v ...I-. 0 ....0._ .I.-.0¢-(.- O‘c. .ro-vr... 0-010 4--p‘00000‘: 5.01-0.30 .J‘l‘l - 0 - 0-0 I x \ 000- D- o \ 0 L... _ 0. h.. . - 0 00 .0.‘0 -0 - 0., .- . o '01‘.’ ‘ 0 . 00,0...,1-0. 0L}! .0. 0.0.00 0-000- .0-0l\-0 f0 -”I-"I‘-"Il I '0 ‘n0.0- 00"100')"\00‘Y0' ‘ . _C. .- .0. 0 v I -0 - v.- - - 00 o o .- ...t-O‘ ..l.0 I .0 r00! 9 - . .. ... .'o 3.0 .0 .0--!-.L’ ... . .. - 000 -- I 0 01- --'{r00 0.! 0" 5.0.00 0-00 --$-o ..‘0000’0 -0.9I. .cL' IJJQ-r-‘0 I- . 0 0- - 0 I 0- I. 0. I 0 I o 0 - 0 . I '- - .o . ..u-0so. 0 e-00S0. 8. o 1-. . .0..._.... s.- .3 -. A .0. - '- 0-0I - . 0 0. - ...-0 out-0.0 If .4- I. -d (ll-g," .00‘140I- Joolf-II‘I. - I. I Q 0.0- o 00 . ... - - . . - . I- . ...-0. '0 .. 0 .o- - ..00 - 0r-. . . .. . .. 0 0 ..0 - 0v-0070. .70. .. 0 - 1-“ .I o -. 0-. I - .\ ...-...: 0-. 0 ...-.50.?! .0.‘ .0.- - 001))‘40.‘- I0}.00..-Ll.1-'.-I\f0’.’-' I00 01- 0-.0 . I u 0.04 0-. -.o .0 -0- 0- ... ..I\$ 00. 0 ..0'0! .0 . . .0 -. .C-...-.0?..-0.:J.t-.I-0 .0 .005. 00. .00! ,§-.I.00...0 ...! 0'.-0.501)I-0r-.0.’1.-I-0-l-0:0- «...-:00. ‘0 ‘06.?‘10o0-..I-‘n€l(l ' . . - A - 0 . .-f I . 0 - II-I0 0 o .... -. . . . r .00 . I! 0 J3- .- 0 O 0.. -’0.0v .0..- ‘C-IO- n0 0 2, ...0-- u- ..t- .. .\.l-.. ,0-00 ’II’.’-.|I\0I .0' .0..-l-Iaoil I.’0‘.30)(‘|.(1’0-l0-? o -l- o, 0 - 0., -.— I. .0 0 0 CI ‘19 . ...-I... - .- ... ‘20. ’0‘...- I00 0.. 00 00 00.0- 00000000‘.-0..02 ~00 0-.‘1.l-0-l0.-. .... 00000 v-Jn‘-'.0-'I( 1.0 40,000 - 00-0?‘00" tl - I ‘ .. n 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0-00 . - I 0.. .0. I. ..II 0000 . .0 . I o 9 .k.- 0 00- 0.0.00 0‘ I00. 0. 0.00.0.0. 00f.0.0..0. ‘0‘00..\ I-0-’00-I’.f-I-P000}0 05(03- '0 .0-0 lust-0.009.103. - R 0} -. Io- - I I 00 - . 0 .00 P50. 0 0.0!. [0-00 . 0‘ 000 ..l 0 ..00 .0- 0 . .§ :00" 0 ‘.0.’-I 5 - "nlfl o...’ .0 0 - r-a'l -. ' 0960.!- l- .00.?!00- 0.000Ill0 00' 0-30gi-.-0-t\\ - - 0 .( - -I - 0- I .- .. 0. II . 00.0. 00 I 0.000 .0! 00 0 0 0P0 - x -0-..0 u 0'00 -‘ 0 0’ 0 0 0:30 0-0 I.‘ .u- 0-...,-M..vr‘lt 00110-0 [-0 0-0-0- -.l 0 Os‘UIII- I (000 00" I00 000.. 0 5-0000 0 0- II a II 0- . - I. p- . . . o 0. o .0 -- -_0-0-0.- 0 - -. 000- -00. . 0.. 0 -.- .I-o- -0 - ..0‘ ... bi . I-O - ...-\I. 00-00;? ,1000! -§-.-lf0-..O.0.-0‘.- 'I0I.0-.00I00-IIAI . ol 0 . 0 I 0.00.0 - . - 0 00 o - . .00.! 0 c ..I. -|- 0- 00- r? 01.. .. so - 00 . 0-.0. .0... A. I -I-. I 2 0 .5. I- .- . . 0. ..., rn. 0.0(0-00000r.\-v--0-0- f. 0-!- -0r) it'I-!0£;.'I$Isll000 '- O .- .-. ll .-§0 O I 0.00 9 O .0 0 ...-cl I 0.. ‘.0I000 0 . ..-f.- 0 r00. 0 0‘0.- 00‘ 00‘ .l 0 0 U- .00 .0‘00’ 0. ‘-0- a. I O 00r‘lh‘." 0"S‘9’.‘ ....‘ - -. o .- .... O .- 0 . . . . J 0 - 0.0.00... 0 0.. -I .-A-0 0:0. :0.- ..I.A- -..0 .. .90 - ..10. 0000- 020 :0" .0. . - 1- 00-) 0‘ ubl0- 0.--$I--0. 0!)!‘of0 I.nI‘-0.P..I.0‘-000 I I - . . ‘0 00 00- 0 , ‘0 0| .00. 0.0..0- 0 I00.- -.500003’: 0- o... .0 b. C a 6.... 0 .00 Il.".-\ f- II 0 . 001-00005 .10. -0r0-’.-l00'.0‘\ c...0.-0O 00- 0011“} 0'0ll‘fyf,‘ .- .- .I .0 . .- -.- t 0 .- - x...» . -.o .. - :0 ....0 .C 0 0. . .v..0-.....-... ... 0. 0. - 0 0. .- x 9:25.. 0 00-01...- ‘C 0-. LI 0...... 0. 0.4. - al. -0. {Orv-0 \I t... 0.0. ...- 01-01-0000...0--0-IV0-0-brv000-'I1-0 { 0 I ... 0 .- .0- 00 0 I I I . .- . o 00 V0 00 .0I.0.000 I 01 0| 0 - 0 3-0 --.-000 0 - 00 .02... .0r [0. I. .0“: . -\ 0 . .0: 0| - o 0 000- "0 . 00 . .‘0- ‘0 $300+ .nci-0.£00.'00IIIOD ' - 0 u- ‘l 0 - I. 0.3 -000 . V I0. If0 - \ - 00-00 00 Fl ’lTb.0-.0 . .. 0 0- . v 0.0 n 000 0.000 ‘30. -"0 O:- ..‘.. \Iu- 00,0‘ 0.0 0 .0. 0.00. o. .0 .-‘00000.0- O’I'IO .‘ - l....'0-00...!-| Viiib .I'Y . 0, - I o . 5- 0 I- 0 .-0.. 0 0 0 0-0 0 .D-. .00. .00. -... ’0. .10-0 70. o . 0‘ - I00 ......60.- 04.01.015.300! ..- '- ..0u0- . 0‘- P-O - 0) ..0; l .. [...-0 0; . . .3- 0. ..--0I-0N.".o.'.lp is n I 0 - . - .0 o ,v 000 n. 0. . -. ... 0.0L- 0. \00...‘ 000 ...0.r00 .. 0 I - 0.1 2 l.- -.’..i’ v‘.‘000r-..0n.!0. l-0 IVs-0100‘ -0 -0-f 1-5.04 .loI-Y-D-p 0.0I00 .00- .09’0:‘1"|-‘0‘0.’000'- .0 - . 0 . 0 .-0 .0 00 0 0 c-Dn-o.00 - 500€.I 01. 0000-00000. 020- 0,. 0 900l- - 0.0 '0)‘ a 0 I0... .3 J0 .0-0.09-0. -’- oonI 00.....0- I 0 0 .I. 0.| 01-00-I- ... .. 01,00-‘7‘30-‘0-000'-00lb’090 '0 0 - - 0 V 0- 0- . - 0 -- 0 . A 0 . Gs. III .\ 00 80 0-00 0-00.0- .~ .1 .0-0 .0 0 0 0 00- xr0.30'0|0000-00. .- 0 III .. -0.O,I.. on. J 0f-001I Cl. 6. I -00- ----- a? 0’ 0.000. I-o-00.0l.‘ 0.00100500000‘0 .0 I0 - 0 O N I . ’0 0 00000.- I - 0 . . .0- 0-0. 00-0-0.-.I0.-0 0. I ... P... .0 .00 .0 r- .- 0.300.000 .!.}0ol- Q..- 00 ...-.100 - 10.... -.- 0 0 -00 0 .(0a-V000 V 0.‘ C .0 -.-I.-3.-0I:0-0P-J00‘000 .rr - - - ol 0 «SI. #0.? I O. or. 0 . - . .0 I. 00 00...I 0-00c’0 -..0- .-..-| - 0 .- .. 00-.0.00|- .0“ 000. 00 0 -'.-0. . 4 I 0-0 0. - 5 (1’4... '0 ulotolwIII.‘ lo-Irn-D-Pll..0 0-0.“ H 0 . o I . .L 0 I .x- - - I-0I. - {I 00 0 L000. oli- . 00 0-. 00.0 0.... 0 - .0 ..!.....0-..-,0-0n-0 '0. -.'. 0.0.070 00l0-‘. .0300.- .l Ila-‘10- -1¢0-L'J-I 000l-0.0 -- Iii-o0I0060: ...-(00000.1.0": - - I . - 0- a .. 0. 0 0.. 0 - I 00 0- . c;.v.. . 0-0-0-0 . - 0 0- .0..- 2 0-0 - ... . \ ..- I 0. )300? 0 0.. 7009.0. .0. I . - . 00.0 - . 0.‘0090.9!Oo.p .- .3.P00'.‘I"0-03. lot-30,000 I I I 0 .II.-0 0 - 0- I.- 00 0 600 . 0.0000. .0 .. . .00 00 ... P . .I. . .... - -0 "00-..-.II- 0‘. .0 0.90. .0. .-\I. III-0 0 I 0. ‘I 10aI-l.0.lI-0-00§0ln.‘00 ...-0|..- 40 0-00."|-.'0-§ n0 0 I I .0 - - . - .00 0 It 0 .9 o 0 I: . 0.00.90- 03 -0 . . o". A: 0 -0 .- a O .10- 0 -. 0-00-1010 .5... .o.’-0 0 . vI . I0 ..-I..f 1-0-0-0n’..lrff\0-4.030-000f0-II'IJ'IIII-)5! w -I - u . ... - .kO-o0 b 0 - o 00- -1- {I ..- v. . -I0 . . - I..,hl.b-0 0.0. 0-0 v.30 ..sI -0 .3- 3.0 «l7... 0 0. - ..- . .-0..4 .00- at oi...-- 03.19-(0000-51... ..- -0-0-02007r010050’ .--07’ \0- 00-0 30-0- 0 - l - .. o I - nv I l. 0. 0-! 0 -. 00 0 00.0 t 00 :0 0.! 00-0 ul’ 00—. - - o 0 .00 00, - 0 oo -0 .0 ..09-8 uf- ;. .0010 0-!‘.... .I 0‘ 0 0.. .5..- . o-Pu 0.0:... 00- 05.0. D... 3‘P0009-00‘glv'0’0’019000 ii}!!- I I 0- 00 0v-0 . 0 - 0 - c 0 0 .0 .. . 0 . 0 0 .00 r- 0000...- 0 ...0r0 -. ...!- .0..-0'00. - 00 0-!- AO)0.00.P \0 v.30! ..0000000" 00‘- .‘0’0‘ 000000-200:- 0 :00...)0 [“1'00‘-00'1 r0 0. 0. 0. . 0 O 00- I. 0 0 . 00- 000- I 0.00.00 0. 0 . .- .- I. 00’00’0 00 In. ...-I 00-. .0 .-.0r - . I- I..- .00. I. . 00‘ .-..)0’.ll40 ...-III - .0 0-0.000- .0 Io..l....0 Ila. 000000 0’ 8.0!. I. aloz-Cig. Iii-0"0’O0OPI-00 0‘30?!)- 00'. 0 - I II 0 I. ...0. 0- r. 30-00 0.. .. -- -Pl1 .. -.. ...-.I- 0 ofoco- .Y.tD. 0-0 v-ot . WI .00.. 90-. ... 0-1-9]. 1.01 . 10.01.- r0. ‘0’..- ! fps-0.0...op-w0 IO. - t I).- .01...00...0(€00000\Il0.0- 10-00(0)?!" 0 I. 0. Iv II ‘ o I I0? .0 0-0 0 . o -0 I . 0u(.- .00“ '0.‘ 00 o 00-0 I 2.1 0 00.04. ...-00? 0 - . {’00.}. 0&1. I: o J-BII- (I.- ..0? 0 ...I C 0 010-0! 00! . -000000.0050000f|.*0 ave-L‘r-o-IJ . - 000 I .0 ..- ( . 000000 v. o 0 0 0-9 100 .0000... *0 00. t.-0’0000 I :0 .0 . --. 0.0JD0.1..-I.-0 ..L-I-I 0090 00‘ {-007.10 0(0!..00.0 0. - 0!:00-.OI¢ - I". )I-or0‘fi..0trI-.-II0 . ’II - .. - I0 - 0 -, . . .0I I.A-0.0 . 0 ..l0 .0.‘ .00.. .0 {Gr-.0 . '3- . ... - 0 0 i - . 0:31.01.» 0‘0- .8..l. . 1-35 ..I0 oz... 0?.)- -.I.'- 0-03.3lf00; .0l‘iov 0-0-0 P-pl'"..00 0.0.00.0}! I 00 .1- ‘V I. O 0..- r0 I\.l-.. 0-1 0 00. 0 0'0. 0 . O 0‘1000’I 0 ,. 0 .0,0070-l J’\.IPQ.0 00- !0 0 9- 000-0500. .0U‘.'v-\.0 0 003-0 . 4- ..00 .0..- '4 0 {‘P’LO‘. 00 00 ‘0'.€r00 0-0 000.010."-lb 0-000.’.'D’I0l"'10 ' I-‘0 0000‘ ”-1. 0 0 4 - . I 0 0..I-..0 .00 0- .f..-. ..000-1... 0-0 4.00 0 0 0000.- 85.05: '10-... ..l- |§0.30-.0.-Q 6.0.stfu... . - 00000-000300..- >.-IP.-I."0[III$..L.'JII...00000al0-0IDI-30 0.10 00" C.Il_I-0r.'-f‘.:lo Q I . I 0-... 0 - .0\'-0. - -t- I- 0 II . . 0.-.r 0-r 00-0 0 o 00 0; 00- -t.0r-0- .- 0 ...-100000. - .- II. I .. 0 ...i.0-. 3050-09-20..- -00 1- .8!. .. .f.- . 0-;- 0-0 - ...-0.0000,: 0.3!‘(000-0}... 2C00.Ool0a\044000 . ¥ - 0- 0 0... 0 ... o I -I .0 1-... I..0- .0 90-1.!- -I .0 ...-.00.. :0; .0|.0..Z .1 .... . a-Qito ... .. 0.8M ...-1100 0-2.2. - ... 0- .0 -0. 0.0.... of-sl . ...-)I rll.)04:) VIII. 0...; .t0-.0-.)0-o0000.|0-(0t0 ...-'00}! 0 0 000 ‘. 0 -0.-0 .- -- 00..-..4.0\90 0..-0-- 0-0 . -..-0L‘-0 0.000.$9 . .0.. .- - -000...’OJ-.. 3‘51..0 0-..ni- t.’000fl0:-0-..0.0-0.0 .0 0-. (01-0 0,... I-0..-0.000I0-01)}‘. til-200570.00 £0100 . - 0 - 0 .00 0f. ‘0. .- o ...!0-0- 0-0- .0000. .-.0 . . -(0 00\00 0’00 - -\ . q I... ...-v- . In... - .- 0'00 .P00‘... - .50... 0. 0.. .o’00.».0000!0‘.f-. ibuo. -0I-.IIO‘0.0000J-0009‘II ...-lfzivi't II‘IIJI'JIJP’0IIla0-wr . -0 . u . -0 L - r - .I I o O 0‘ u 0.. 0 0I.0 I . 5.0.! - .0 b 00 O or 0.1- . L0.-000Q 0 W0 0'0 ..‘2 .00. f r*’0 0| .0.’ .I}...‘.F 00.40:,0Il Y’- ‘40- \l-io’CiK 40" 0“,"0090'.‘0-- I0t.'.£- .I. ‘- . a . 0 00 . . 0 I .‘ll- v 0 -. 0 0-.0 .I v. ....90I - 00- 0 .- 00... 0 0 09...! 0.0. 0000 0- . .10-90. -_.. .. 10 '40.!03-I00 0‘ ..f ...-.0. 0.. -I 10-0.0. ... 3.0 0r-0 .-0'-0_.00-.oIt-;‘-0$-’P'i‘oi0¥.- -. 0 . - I .0 .0 -- .-I . 00- u - - ‘.- ..- 0- . 0 ... I.- - .0 I ... - . .0 0- ‘0- 3 t . . . ... 1'0 . 3. . 10.. .0. U, o. .0 0. ...00 o-J-s.-LI... ... v.1..- AF".0 0.0!0-09..-0§¢0 .«Obhv-u)-00Yt0"$-JI"-.a 0-000”- I- . - - - I I 0.- . 0 u I 0 I'.’ 070 . . 0 3 .. . I .0 I .. ..0 I cl .,.0. -.r I . ..‘00-0. 0?. 90...: 0.00300. 0-. 40’. .0.. 3.277- -0 o . I..¢...0o.....01(l.’0 . ’0.IP-'Iafunh.0000 II -|00000-.000"050...J"0.- rill-.00 ‘ - 0 0. . I I - I 0- I- ... I- 07 0 0.0- 03.0-0- - 0-50 - _. .- 0.I 0'0 6 0 . - V -_ .0 -..I - .I 000 -..,.i-.0- 00.0. 10-0 01.0 £0..00.0l0..00 .0. .0 - 7.0.‘0? -00 l00l-00. 0001000. 0:33.05 100;i{;-.§..;$J . I0 0 . . . I - - - - . 0.0- o 1.... n .010 .. ll-Q 2 0.0.3. ...-0 - II 0.. ...; ‘00-)- 00-..0.0 00,... Isl .0._0.00 ..0. ...-10370 -.000-0’l0.\f01 ...-.0 .0-4'00 ..at'.-I-0i-IO-I.'n0io.-IO -.0-l-'0-£"-l-’-II0-O-Io . I . 0 - (iv-I - -I 0'01 I 030-0. 0 O -. . .. - 0 [0.0 0- r0-0- 0 - 0:0 ...-0.... 0.. I ... 0-. .0 .0-00 . . 0 .§0€.l00 9...080-0-.-..00.' .00-0 .0443-0 . I0 00-00 0.0- .00-50. $010- 0 . .. 0 I .I- oOI0uO0 0.1 I 0- -.o o- .I 00 ...0 _ 0 0 000 0 00- 0 O0 - n--..-. - 0-.0 | - . - ... 0 I. -.J 08h....I-.0o.05 --0 ...)0000010fi-Ir-000 - of- ’0!‘00§.’l'0 0 - O . '00-‘00: . 10- - - - ..II --o .0!.00.-. -. o . - 0 I-O-vo .00. I . ..r--. n... .... -..; 00 ....‘fAPo-0 ....rttv 0- . ‘0 VI-o...‘ s! 3-O0D-.00.dI00IP-l-.0lullo - "0‘ . ¢ 0 . 00 O I - .- 0..- \-.00 O 00. 0 0 I5 «03.0 0 00 -I- 1 .0 0- E- r 0 7 0-0 0. O0 . 009- 00 0.0.00.0}.0IUOSi ‘0.O-.l00\0 0J0-. ’I.309l01000 0 I 0' ' -. I‘xl’.".o.“0" - .. .o -.0 -. 1.0-0 I0.0-I- .I .\I 0 .0- I 0- ...0-0\- -. 0 0-90-1750 ...-0- . I. . ... 0...... 0.0. 10.32.0S-1-0. .0-17- 0.0.0... 3! 0 .ol I \- -.O0..0- .0oI- .-kl0£lI-IAI00-0 0.01300 09'.) - . . I0 - 0 . I C a. 00 -O. .0.'000..r-I Al'l- .’ \0.l 00.00004‘0 0.0-0.0... 00 090000.000 . oI 00030000..) 1‘00 70-0000Ono'00-.,0l|.m0.03.00-I9Ih- - .00 §‘- r0-0 . (‘00.. 0- .0. ".’n.0'-'Il‘ 0%, I I \. 0 . .0 0 a - 0 lo .- 00-I- 0'0 I‘tl .- 0‘00-01 - 00000 0 0 0. D II ‘0 ..I .00. .0 b. . 0 . 00 ..I: 0000...: 0- .0-0 03-00. 0 I000, ..0H...'l0.300”.v0.0 Pt. ifs-'o'fo - O b~’§" ‘0.” fit-Vi . - 0 - - 0 . 000 .005 . 0L. 0-00 It _. 0 III .. ...0...-- 0I-0 0000-000. 7,0 40.. 0-00. . -§-llo 0.3.0.0..0ifi06 .0.“ 1.01.0 ‘3,- aIO-.0-I I1’rln. I {03.0.0.0 .50..- l.0'A-M.-. ‘Or-‘l-ill-io I.- - .- . - p 0.- 0 . 0. 00 -0"O‘ #010 I .41. . .J .0. O‘.II.'..‘| .- V 0 0 .. - . ..0'...-HI% ‘0 0... ‘00:... 0000-00 .0 0-0’0... 0... 00 .000 .000. 0’". 03-0-90. 01-,i0 0’ .0.‘ (05.00. . .I,. \ . . . O 3. 0 - .... .n :09. II\. 00.0 .0! 00-00 ..I 4. 00-. 0-00.. -I I - - - I ‘00- 000 .0}, D O 00 ...- [0-34'0 -I£.- II‘,-.. .0. 000‘ .0, 01.0.0.00’nofi‘0... 89—10:? I'. 30-o-o .0 0 0 W . .... O. . 0- .- . I-,-0-0.00-...000.‘00- r0.§0|0000..-0 .-0r.' AID-I 0-0-0900..w-:. 300-0.}..0... 02.00:..1 ....0., -.. 0, .- . o . . . - ll .- 000-. ..I 01.. -00{ ...I“ .0... ...000.'£0.‘ .-..0 00! I - 0. .01 . .. 000 0 “- 0 .. I 0 0 -. 0.0 - . O. - 0 . ‘ ’ I 0 III . II? 0. OQEI _ 0.1 “ I . - I -..‘ -.oo .. .0 I1 nll-z .0. na‘n .g ’0‘? . Wiv‘fl“ Harsh-”0‘ .m-Ou- .0 . . O , ‘*0 . . 1 PF fig. 0‘. sPY-Ohfivrt.- .00... I...”- OrIK-ab gag.5§000-00h3.t..nodt .aI0 O.n.00 -.08. .0.. ...-10. . 8 0 . .... .05. fl 0! a .- - .0. 0 I 00,0‘00- -00-||.... . - - 0 . III-Il- III-III- t I ..I I | IIIIIIIIL THEM! UISNVER SILITY | IIIIIIII IIIZIIII 3 1293 00891 3562 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Contextual Factors in Receptive Vocabulary DevelOpment of Three-Year-Old Children in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Day Care presented by Louise Marie Mackley Snyder has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctoral degreein Family and Child Ecology v6; git/WM, J Major professor Date 2% "2/9‘5 MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I ——I“I MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution osmium-9.1 CONT EXTUAL FACTORS IN RECEPT IVE VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT OF THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN IN HOMOGENEOUS AND HETBROGENEOUS DAY CARE By Louise Marie Mackley Snyder A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1993 ABSTRACT CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN RECEPTIVE VOCABLLARY DEVEIDPNENT 0F THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN NHOMOGENEOUSAADHETmoeaveousoAYCARE By Louise Marie Mackley Snyder The purpose of this study was to look at microsystem contextual factors that contribute to the vocabulary development of three-year-old children in day care. Receptive vocabulary development was studied in the contexts of age in heterogeneous and homogeneous day care and the home environment. The subjects for this study came from eight day care centers in two metropolitan cities in Michigan. Five centers grouped children heterogeneously, while three centers grouped their children homogeneously. The data for the study were compiled from June, 1991 through October. 1991. The study was conducted in a series of procedures utilizing three assessment instruments. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) was used to assess the quality and sameness of eight day care centers in procedure 1. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-Fl) was administered to all subjects and to best friends of high and low scoring subjects to determine levels of vocabulary ability in procedures 2 and 3. Finally, the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME) was used to measure the quality of the home environment for high and low scoring subjects in procedure 4. The Mann-Whitney U was the statistic used to analyze the data collected during the center comparisons and the home evaluations. A two-factor ANOVA and t-tests were used to analyze the vocabulary scores. All statistical analyses were computed at an alpha level of .05. The day care centers did not differ significantly on the qualities assessed by the ECERS. The study determined that three-year-old boys and girls in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care showed no significant differences in vocabulary ability. Vocabulary scores differed significantly between high scoring and low scoring subjects and between low scoring subjects and best friends. Learning stimulation and father's education were found to be significant factors that were associated with vocabulary development in the home environments in this study. This study investigated only one aspect of language development in just two settings of the microsystem. Future research would benefit from a more in depth look at other contextual factors that affect vocabulary development as well. To my parents. who always supported my efforts to learn. ms The achievement of the doctoral degree has been an eight year process for me. It I has required the support and understanding of many people whom I wish to acknowledge at this time. Anne Soderman was the first person to introduce me to the department and encourage me to apply. She became my advisor and chairperson as well as a friend. She guided me through the process and helped me through moments of frustration and uncertainty. My gratitude to her is immeasurable. The other members of my committee, Linda Nelson, Donald Melcer. and Carol Akamatsu, were each helpful in their own way. Dr. Nelson shared her love for teaching and had a way of making me feel that my work was of value and interest to others. Dr. Melcer's suggestions at my proposal meeting helped to get the study launched. His words were always encouraging. Dr. Akamatsu's knowledge and expertise helped in the formulation of the hypotheses and the statistical procedures. I am deeply indebted to her for this as well as her long distance commute for the final stage of the process. Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik and Dr. Margaret Bubolz, though members of my committee for just a short time. provided valuable input toward my program and my proposal. That input was greatly appreciated. I gratefully thank the directors of the day care centers for their time and efforts to make my study successful. I also thank the families who allowed their children to be a part of the study, and who allowed me to come into their homes. The home visits made the data collection enjoyable. My coworkers must be acknowledged for their tolerance of my behavior on both 'good days' and 'bad days'. They listened to me talk of my successes andfailures as if they were truly interested, even though I know there were days when their own needs V were more important. My appreciation goes out to Cristy Nagle who was able to take my computer disk, ' make sense of it. and turn it into a completed document. I could never have finished the degree without her expertise at the computer. I lovingly thank my parents, siblings, and their families for their support and encouragement throughout the process. It was a long undertaking. but they stood by me throughout. Finally. though they will never know, I thank my dogs for their hugs and kisses when I needed them most. I regret the walks that were missed, the squirrels that never got chased, the moments we could not spend together because I needed to work at the computer, and the outbursts of temper only they had to endure. Now that my goal is accomplished, the squirrels had better beware! vi TAEEOFWTBVTS Pans UST OF TABLES x UST OF FIGURES xii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem- ........... -- 1 Conceptual Framework. ........................................................................ 2 Need for Study. . ............... - _ - -- - 6 Purpose of the Study............ ...... - - - - -- . 7 Objectives ............................................................................................. 8 Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 9 Procedure 1 Hypotheses ..... ......... _ - 9 Procedure 2 Hypotheses- _ - 9 Procedure 3 Hypotheses . - 10 Procedure 4 Hypotheses - - - - - -1 1 Assumptions--_-.__ - _ - _ - - - - ..1 1 Conceptual Definitions .......................................................................... 1 1 Operational Definitions.-..--.-_._._ - -- _ _ ...... . _________ 1 3 Overview ............................................................................................... 1 4 ll. REVIEW OF UTERATUFIE 1 5 Introduction........... - - -- ......................................... 1 5 Overview of Speech and Language Development _ 1 5 Variations in Language by Gender _ ________ - 19 Home Stimulation/interaction and Implications- - -- . 22 Language Development In Day Care -_ - - 2 5 Summary--- --- _ -- - _ ----- -- 2 9 III. NEH-W 3 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3 1 Research Design .......... - ..... -_ 31 Sample ................................................................................................... 3 2 lnstru mentaticn ..................................................................................... 3 3 The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECEFlS) ............. 34 vii Chapter Page The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) ........ 35 The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment- Revised (HOME) ................................................................... 3 5 Data Collection Procedures .............................. ------ - - -- 36 Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 39 Limitations .......................................................................................... 4 0 Number of Subjects ..................................................................... 4 0 Depth of the Study ........................................................................ 41 Reliability .................................................................................... 4 2 Definition of Terms ...................................................................... 4 2 Summary .............................................................................................. 4 3 IV. ANALYSIS 4 4 Introduction ........................................................................................ 4 4 Procedure 1: Comparison of Day Care Centers on ECERS ................. 4 4 Procedure 2: Comparison of PPVT-R Scores for Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Subjects ...................... 4 6 Procedure 3: Comparison of PPVT-R Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects and Best Friends ............................... 52 Procedure 4: Comparison of HOME Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects .................................................................. 5 8 Summary ............................................................................................. 6 8 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 1 Summary of the Study .......................................................................... 71 Discussion of the FIndIngs - - .................. 71 Procedure 1: ECERS............ - - _ - -_ -- - 71 Procedure 2: PPVT-R ................................................................. 72 Procedure 3: PPVT-R with Best Friend ..................................... 75 Procedure 4: HOME ...................................................................... 79 Summary of the Findings .................................................................... 8 4 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 8 4 Implications for Further Research ....................................................... 85 Implications for Practical Use ............................................................. 87 viii APPBVDICES APPENDIX A. TEST INSTRUMENTS---- -- _- 8 9 B. INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS 9 6 C. DAY CARE CENTER INFORMATION - 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................ - - - -103 ix Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. . Means for a Comparison of PPVT Scores by Gender.. UST OF TABLES . Milestones in Language Development—O to. 24 Months ........................... . Summary of Language Development-2 Years to 7 Years ........................ . Summary of Scores for All Centers on ECERS ....................................... . Results of Mann-Whitney U for ECERS .................................................. . PPVT Scores and Demographic Information for Subjects In Homogeneous Centers- . PPVT Scores and Demographic Information for Subjects in Heterogeneous Centers -- - - -- ....... Means for a Comparison of PPVT Scores by Group-_---- . Summary Table for Two-Factor ANOVA for PPVT Scores as a Function of Gender and Group...- - ........ High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject Scores/Best Friend Scores and Demographics for Homogeneous Centers--- -- - -- High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject Scores/Best Friend Scores and Demographics for Heterogeneous Centers ....................... Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects - -- ------ Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for High Scoring Subjects and Best Friends..................----- -- Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for Low Scoring Subjects and Best Friends ................................................ Page 17 18 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 57 58 59 HOME Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects in Homogeneous Centers ........................................................................................... 62 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. HOME Demographics for High Scoring and Low “Scoring Subjects In Homogeneous Centers- ------ -- - HOME Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects in Heterogeneous Centers _ ............ HOME Demographics for High Scoring and Low “Scoring Subjects in Heterogeneous Centers----- - Summary of HOME Scores for All Subjects---- Results of Mann-Whitney U for Comparison of HOME Scores for Subjects Grouped by Center Type - - Results of Mann-Whitney U for Comparison of HOME Scores for Subjects Grouped by High Scoring and Low Scoring== Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of Ages in Months for Best Friends of High Scoring Subjects .................................................. Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of Ages in Months for Best Friends of Low Scoring Subjects ................................................... xi 63 64 65 66 67 68 77 78 LISTOFFIGURES Figure P399 1. Conceptualization of environmental levels for a child in day care based on the ecology of human development - ----- -- - 4 2. Communication model demonstrating the ability of humans to exchange information between parts of the system as well as between the system and its physical and social environments - - - -- - - 19 3. Sequential model of the research design .................................................... 3 2 xii CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION W The traditional view of mother as 'teacher' of children prior to the start of school has spawned numerous studies of mother-child interaction and its effects on language development. However, Belsky, Steinberg, and Walker (1982) state: Anyone familiar with the changing demographic profile of the American family is well aware that the 'traditional' American family-two-parent, nuclear, nonworking mother—is no longer the 'typical' American family. Indeed, if we hold to this definition of the traditional family, we find that the vast majority of families in America have broken with tradition. (p. 71) Current research must increasingly look at nontraditional families and the variety of environments in which children find themselves growing up and 'Ieaming to talk.‘ Those families whose structure is nontraditionalusingle-parent families and those with working mothers-are most likely to use some form of day care. Belsky et al., (1982) projected that the population of 0-5 year olds in 1990 would reach 23.3 million. Approximately 50 percent of the mothers of these preschoolers would return to work before the children turned 6 years of age. Therefore, millions of children in these critical ages would acquire much of their skill in language development outside their own home through interactions with adult caregivers and other children. Phillips (1987), in her preface, estimated that by 1995 two-thirds of all children younger than age 6 and three-quarters of school age children would have working mothers. For many children, childrearing is no longer the responsibility of the parents alone. Growing numbers of children are spending larger portions of their young lives in non-parental child care. 2 Caldwell and Hilliard (1985) defined professional child care as a comprehensive service to children and families that supplements the care children receive from their families“ (p. 4). As a supplement, they do not believe that child care is meant to replace parents or compete with parents' methods of raising their children. Caldwell and Hilliard view child care as a version of the extended family, since almost all children are raised by their own families but are often in the care of others for periods of time. Supplemental child care programs vary immensely in structure and experiences. The three most common types of child care include: in-home care, family day care, and center day care. Results of the Chicago Study done by Clarke-Stewart (1987) indicated that each of these forms of child care was used by about one-third of the working mothers of preschool children. Major factors influencing all aspects of the development of a child in day care include: 1) licensing of the day care, 2) professional training, 3) adult-child ratio, 4) group size and age make-up, 5) experiences with peers, and 6) variety of formal Ieaming experiences. Depending on the size of the day care facility, children may not be afforded these facilitative conditions that will enhance their language development. A factor uniquely related to size of the day care facility is child grouping arrangements. Small day care facilities having few children have little choice but to group together children of varying ages. Large centers with large populations of children often choose to group children with same age peers in separate classrooms. W Children develop language through the modeling that occurs when they interact with people in their environment. A critical period for language development falls within the first five years of life. Past research has focused on language development 3 primarily in the home environment. Increasing rates of single parenthood and maternal employment over the past decades, however, have necessitated an increase in the need for and utilization of alternative care arrangements for children. It is no longer feasible to assume that a child's home is the primary environment for the development of language. For many children, the home is only one of many environments in which exposure to language interaction and modeling occurs. It is necessary to view childrens' other environments and their impact upon one another in order to obtain a total picture of language development in a child. Bronfenbrenner's (1989) ecology of human development provides a framework to view language development from other perspectives. Bronfenbrenner believes that the ecology of human development is comprised of five levels of the environment, each imbedded within the next. These may be conceptualized as a series of concentric circles, similar to those surrounding the bull's eye of an archery target (see Figure 1). The bull's eye represents the individual child, with the five levels progressing out from the center. The first and smallest circle represents the MICROSYSTEM. Bronfenbrenner states that the microsystem is ' a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical and material features, and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament, personality, and systems of belief ' (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). Both the day care center and the people present, as well as the child's own home and the family members present, represent settings that are part of the microsystem in this study. The MESOSYSTEM constitutes the second circle outward rom the bull's eye and comprises 'the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings Figure 1. Conceptualization of environmental levels for a child in day care based on the ecology of human development (adapted from Bronfcnbrmner, 1989). 5 containing a developing person' (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). The mesosystem characterizes the interface of microsystems. The influence of the day care center and the home upon each other comprise the mesosystem for this study. The third circle outward from the bull's eye on the target is the EXOSYSTEM. It 'encompasses the linkage and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not ordinarily contain the developing person, but in which events occur that influence processes within the immediate setting that does contain that person' (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). The exosystem may include, for example, the parent's work, the neighborhood, and government agencies. For this study, one exosystem would be the relationship between the amount of time the parents spend at work and the amount of time their child spends in day care. Another would be me relationship between the amount of money earned and the ability to purchase the services of a day care that best meet the needs of the child. The MACROSYSTEM is the fourth circle surrounding the bull's eye. Bronfenbrenner states: The macrosystem consists of the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other broader social context, with particular reference to the developmentally instigative belief system, resources, hazards, life styles, opportunity structures, life course options, and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems. (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 228) The macrosystem may be formal laws or informal customs and practices. For this study, governmental regulations from without and center-made regulations from within define the particular day care that a child attends. These rules and regulations interface with the rules and values instilled in a child through parents and culture. This interface has an impact on the quality and quantity of interactions a child may 6 experience in the day care setting. These interactions, in turn, impact on vocabulary development. The fifth and largest circle is the CHRONOSYSTEM. Bronfenbrenner (1986) believes that the chronosystem represents transitions which occur at all levels throughout the life span and may result in developmental change. Transitions may be normative (such as puberty, marriage, retirement) or non-normative (such as severe illness, divorce, death). In this study, the child's relationship with the environment at all levels and the development of vocabulary vary over time. mm It has become increasingly necessary for both parents to work outside the home in order to finance the necessities of life. Millions of Americans are faced with the dilemma of placing their children, in particular their preschool children, in the care of someone else. The preschool years are the most critical years for the development of skills that children will utilize for the remainder of their lives. Therefore, it is not uncommon for parents to wrestle with the selection of an appropriate caregiver for their children. Many parents choose to place their children in day care, including day care centers. But how do they determine which center will best meet their needs and provide an environment that stimulates the growth and development of their child? Are all centers of equal quality? Is one type of center, homogeneous or heterogeneous in age grouping, more advantageous than the other for specific areas of development such as vocabulary development? More research in these areas is needed to assure parents that their choice of caregiver and day care placement will best meet the developmental needs of their children. 7 W The home environment is the primary source of language development for most children. Clarke-Stewart (1973) stated that a mother's verbal stimulation and mediation of stimulation from the environment enhance cognitive development and language ability in young children. Children of mothers who provide a variety of play materials and activities tend to excel cognitively. In reviewing studies involving the home environment, Gottfried (1984) concluded that mothers of high intelligence, as measured by vocabulary, provide a more stimulating environment for their children. Although research indicates that a stimulating home environment enhances language development of young children, millions of preschool children are in the care of others outside their home for part of the work day. Therefore, the responsibility for the language development of these children rests with caregivers in addition to parents. Many of these children attend day care centers that vary in quality and in other factors as well. Parents have the responsibility of choosing a day care center of high quality that best meets their needs and most closely resembles the methods and values of childrearing they practice in their own homes. Although many studies have been conducted in recent years on what constitutes quality in day care, little research has been done to determine which form of child grouping arrangements in day care is most beneficial for language development. Katz, Evangelou, and Hartman (1990), in their review of available research on multi-age grouping, suggest that 'muIti-age grouping in early childhood settings may benefit participants by providing contexts for interaction in which a variety of models of behavior and levels of social, intellectual, and academic competences are available' (p. 49). Freedman (1982) indicated from her review of the literature that the greatest benefit of heterogeneous grouping in preschool years was in the area of language 8 development. Bates (1975) and McCartney (1984), however, stated that adult interaction was much more beneficial than peer interaction for language development. Since preschool children are spending increased amounts of time outside their homes and more time in day care, including day care centers, it is imperative to determine which factors in these environments enhance language development, and, specifically for this study, vocabulary development. Therefore, MM O H I:~ ° t'A'L 3 IIL ’3 ‘ 3II’1'I 3.113 '_L (St: II: K'IIII' 3‘! ll"- L‘xfi' 1‘ | I III II I'll '| El . l' The primary purpose of this study was to view vocabulary development of three- year-old boys and girls in two contextual settings to determine what factors impacted on vocabulary development. The specific objectives of the study were: 1. To determine if three-year—olds in heterogeneous day care would score higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-olds in homogeneous day care. 2. To determine if the vocabulary scores of three-year-old girls would exceed the vocabulary scores of three-year-old boys in both homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. 3. To determine if three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care would interact primarily with children of equal vocabulary ability. 4. To determine if factors in the home environments of three-year-olds had an effect on vocabulary development. 9 mm; This study was conducted using four separate procedures. Hypotheses were developed for each procedure. Major hypotheses and alternatives for each are stated. Emeduraltlmthesas Procedure 1 involved the administration of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) to eight centers for a comparison of levels of quality. H1: There will be no significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. H1.1: There will be a significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. Weiss Procedure 2 involved the administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) to 22 three-year-old subjects in homogeneous day care and 22 three-year-old subjects in heterogeneous day care. H2: There will be no significant difference in the vocabulary scores of three-year- old children in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.1: Three-year-olds in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-olds in homogeneous day care. H2.2: Three-year-old girls in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old boys in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.3: Three-year-old girls in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old girls in homogeneous day care. H2.4: Three-year—old boys in heterogeneous day care will score significantly 1 0 higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old boys in homogeneous day care. Maugham Procedure 3 involved the administration of the PPVT-R to children identified as best friend by the 21 subjects who had achieved the highest and lowest scores on the PPVT-R in Procedure 2. H3: There will be no significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year-olds an homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.1: High scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than low scoring three-year-olds (In homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.2: There will be a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. H3.3: There will be a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of low scoring three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. WW Procedure 4 involved the administration of the Home Observation for Measure- ment of the Environment (HOME) to the families of sixteen high scoring and low scoring subjects. Eight of the families represented children in homogeneous day care and eight families represented children in heterogeneous day care. H4: There will be no significant difference in the HOME scores of three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H4.1: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of three- year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. 1 1 H4.2: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of high scoring three-year—olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). Assumptions The assumptions upon which this study was based are: 1. Children learn most of the skills necessary for language development within the first five years of their lives. 2. Vocabulary development is one aspect of language development. 3. Girls develop language skills earlier than boys. 4. Children develop language through interaction with and modeling of others within their environment. 5. Home stimulation is a major factor in language development. 6. Most children are exposed to a variety of environments outside the home that promote language development. 7. Children in day care will be exposed to many language models, both adult and peen 8. Children in homogeneous day care are with same-age peers one hundred percent of the time. Q | I D [i 'I' The following concepts were relevant throughout this study: Wig—A comprehensive service to children and families that supplements the care children receive from their families. As a supplement to family care, professional child care is in no way a substitute for such care nor a competitor for the role of parents in the upbringing of their children (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1985, p.4). 1 2 Environment-The immediate settings of a developing person, the interconnections between such settings, and the external influences on these settings that emanate from the larger surroundings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.22). Why-The practice of placing children who are at least a year apart in age into the same classroom groups (Katz et al., 1990, p. 1). WWW—The practice of placing children of the same age into the same classroom groups (Katz et al., 1990, p. vii’). Interaction-A two-directional relationship that is characterized by reciprocity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). Language—A complex system of mutually agreed-upon symbols used to express and understand ideas and feelings. Speech is the vocal component of language, which includes expressive and receptive functions (Snow, 1989, p. 214). W is word comprehension (Snow, 1989, p. 215) and the process used by both children and adults to understand both spoken and written language (Morris, 1988, p. 11). Quality-The formal extemalized descriptors through which a profession chooses to identify itself to its clients and to the general public (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1985, p. 6). A Wis one in which they are safe, healthy and well-nourished with adequate space, materials and equipment for Ieaming through staff who are knowledgeable of child development and teaching methods and are able to plan and organize effective programs with parental input (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1985, p. 19). WA place where people can readIly engage in face-to-face interaction (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). W—ln one sense, effective mother-infant interactions are part of a stimulating environment, but there is also stimulation provided by the 1 3 nonsocial environment that involves things to look at, hear, and manipulate (Horowitz. 1982, p. 26). Magnum-One of the semantic features of language. It includes the acquisition of words, their meanings, and the relationships among words (Snow, 1989, p. 215). Q I' llJli'I' In order to conduct the research for this study, the following terms were defined to meet the specific needs of this study: Wre- Homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers provided the child care in this study. Enximnmem- This study viewed environments at the microsystem level. These included the day care facility and the home. Heterogeneous-The maximum age difference of children in a heterogeneous classroom in this study ranged from 30 to 42 months. Homogeneous-The maximum age difference of children in a homogeneous classroom in this study ranged from 10 to 12 months. Interaction-Reciprocal relationships occurred within centers, within homes, and between centers and homes. Language-The primary area of language in this study was receptive language. angling-Each day care center was assessed for quality using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS). Setting-The settings for this study were the day care centers and the homes. Sum-The homes of subjects in Procedure 4 were measured for quality of stimulation using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME). 1 4 Vocabulary—In this study, vocabulary was the area of receptive language that was measured. Specifically, receptive vocabulary was measured utilizing the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), Form L. 912mm Chapter II contains a review of literature related to speech and language development in general, gender differences in language development, home stimulation/interaction and implications for language development, and aspects of language development in day care. Methodology is discussed in Chapter III, including research design, sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures, limitations, hypotheses and data analysis. Chapter IV pertains to the specific analysis of results for each procedure of the study. The final chapter, Chapter V, includes a summary, discussion, and conclusion of findings, as well as implications for further research and practical use. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF UTERATURE Introduction The research literature relevant to the various aspects of this study is reviewed under the following headings: Overview of Language Development. Variations in Language by Gender, Home Stimulation/Interaction and Implications, and Language Development in Day Care. Language is learned not because we want to talk about language, but because we want to talk about the world. (Cazden, 1981, p. 14) Biophysically, humans are endowed from birth with the physical equipment that enables us to employ verbal and nonverbal behaviors for purposes of communication. We are capable of considerable variation in the sounds we can produce. These variations of sounds are mentally categorized and combined to form units of meaning. We can also control the pattern of inhalation and exhalation to provide power for speech, while simultaneously meeting our need to obtain oxygen. The combination of brain, neural system, and vocal tract physically sets the human being apart from other animals. We can remember what we said in the past and can verbalize what we will do in the future. We can teach our children by using the written word as well as the spoken word. Early speech development is highly dependent on the quality of the caretaker- infant relationship and is mediated by the child's cognitive development. (Ashbum, Schuster, Grimm, and Goff, 1986, p. 257) Infants begin to make vocal sounds at birth. At first, their vocalizations are undifferentiated; however, they quickly develop a variety of cries. By 6 weeks of age, infants are also making a variety of cooing sounds. At approximately 3 to 4 months of age, infants begin to add consonant sounds to their vocalizations and soon begin combining consonants with vowels to produce babbling. It is usually not until they are 10 to 13 months that infants produce their first meaningful words (see Table 1). 15 1 6 The first words produced by infants are mostly nouns and are words that refer to things that move, things that can be acted upon, or objects of special interest. Verbs, adjectives, adverbs and propositions are acquired later, generally in that order. Horowitz (1982) states that by 24 months of age, a child can string 2 words together and may use as many as 50 words (p. 17). Mastery of the semantic features of language includes vocabulary development and understanding word meanings and relations among words and sentences. Initially, children may identify only the very general meaning of a language code but will learn more precise or specific meanings later on. Between ages 2 and 7, the child will advance from using only concrete objects that are present in the immediate environment to an ability to bring to mind a representation of an absent object or an event. Table 2 summarizes the semantic growth over the 5-year period. Children acquire the rules of grammar over the course of the preached years. However, Zigler and Finn-Stevenson (1987) state that even in young children who use only one- or two-word sentences, the understanding of the basic grammatical rules of language is evident (p. 369). Once a rule is learned, its use is generalized to other words, even words that are unfamiliar. Language utilizes a system of codes understood by two or more people. Figure 2 presents a schematic representation of the verbal communication process. In viewing this model, it can be seen that the speaker must first encode the message. Encoding is the mode through which the brain organizes and forms the message for the listener. Ashburn et al. (1986) state that the transmission process begins by emitting air and then modulating and transforming the airstream into predetermined patterns of sound codes that represent the language (p. 258-259). 17 3.03'I13‘t04lib.lil',$ ' 30101131 . I. ‘ut'lll; It“. ° " WY AND AGE PHONOLOGY SEMANTICS SYNTAX PRAGMATICS Birth Crying 1 Month Attends and responds to speaking voice 2 Months Coolng, Distinguishes phoneme features 3 Months Vocalizes to social stimulus 4 Months Chuckles Pointing and gestures 6 Months Babbling 9 Months Echolalia Understands a Understands few words gestures: responds to 'bye bye' 12 Months Repeated First word Waves 'bye syllables, bye' Jabbers expressively 18 Months Comprehends Two-word Uses words simple utterances, to make questions, Telegraphic wants points to nose, speech known CY”. and hair, Vocabulary of 22 words 24 Months Vocabulary of Uses pro- Conver- 272 words nouns satlonal and turn-taking preposi- tions; uses simple sentences and phrases ‘ 18 Table 2.-Summary of Language Development-2 Years to 7 Years (Gard, Gllman, and German, 1980). AGE WY SEMANTICS MEAN LENGTHOF U'ITERANCE 2-1 70% intelligible uses 200 words 3.1 words comprehends 500 words 2-7 80% intelligible uses 500 words 3.4 words comprehends 900 words 3-1 p,b,m,w,h, mastered uses 800 words 4.3 words comprehends 1200 words 3-7 becoming very uses 1000 to 1500 words 4.4 words intelligible in comprehends 1500 to 2000 connected speech words 4-1 t,d,k,g,n,ng,y 4.6 words mastered 4-7 most consonants uses 1500 to 2000 words 5.7 words used accurately comprehends 2500 to 2800 words 5-1 1 mastered comprehends 13,000 words 6.6 words by age 6 6-1 v,th,l,ch,sh (6.5 yr) comprehends 20,000 to 7.3 words z,s,th,r,hw (7.5 yr) 26,000 words The auditory feedback loop is used to monitor the transmitter in terms of what the encoder intended. If the transmitter is found to be faulty, the error is detected immediately after the utterance is produced. In effective communication, both the listener and the speaker are active participants, because the coded messages that have been transmitted by the speaker must be received and decoded by the listener. The receiving process for verbal language is accomplished by the ear and the 19 Person A Person B Speaker Listener Encoder creatin Transmitter delivering Receiver receiver 1 Decoder understanding . the message the message the message the message Feedback monitoring the delivered message " Figure 2. Communication model demonstrating the ability of humans to exchange information between parts of the system as well as between the system and its physical and social environments. (Ashburn et al., 1986, p. 258) neural pathways to the brain. The listener receives the signals and combines them with knowledge of the rules of language and personal language experiences to predict missing parts of a communication. Ashburn et al. (1986) state: A child does not acquire language in a vacuum. The child must be provided with a rich, responsive linguistic environment. Although the urge to communicate may be present from infancy, the child requires the stimulus of, and interaction with, loving persons who respond to and motivate the child at each stage of development to acquire the skills and the rules necessary for achieving communication competence. (p. 272) 1!'|"l '5' Researchers disagree on whether there actually are gender differences in language development. Many researchers who feel there are definite differences cannot agree as to which aspects of language are significantly different. Nor can they agree as to the significance the role of age plays in gender differences. McCarthy (1953) stated that considerable evidence in the literature determined 2 0 boys to be slightly later than girls in practically all aspects of language development. She found the differences seldom to be statistically significant. 'However, although the . developmental differences between the sexes are small in magnitude, they seem to be of considerable importance for the later acquisition of the more complex and secondary language forms for the effect seems to be cumulative' (p. 155). Ervin-Tripp (1966), in a review of child development research, stated that 'forrnal differences in men's and women's languages in English are relatively small; topical and functional variations may be greater' (p. 89). Studies of verbal behavior indicate that girls' development is slightly faster than boys'. However, some well- designed American studies suggest that differences are very slight. Garai and Scheinfeld (1968), in their review of literature, stated that females are reported to possess greater verbal fluency than males from infancy on. Studies reviewed by Garai and Scheinfeld found that girls' speech organs mature earlier than boys' and result in earlier age of speech onset for girls. In addition, studies found girls to exhibit greater verbal fluency from the age of 12 months on through high school and college. From the age of 18 months on, girls made fewer grammatical errors and produced longer and more complex sentences than boys. Garai and Scheinfeld reported that 'in general, females perform better on tasks requiring verbal fluency and the mastery of the mechanics of language, while males excel in verbal comprehension and reasoning, with a slight edge over females in vocabulary' (p. 200). In a review of literature, Reppucci (1971) documented the acceleration of girls over boys in physiological and physical development as well as intellectual development. Girls were found to be more advanced than boys in all aspects of language, such as age of onset, vocabulary size, and number of phoneme types. Block (1976) reviewed earlier conclusions made by Maccoby and Jacklin 2 1 (1974) in their book, W On the basis of their review of over 2000 pieces of literature, Maccoby and Jacklin concluded that girls excel over boys in the area of verbal ability. Block stated that ' although the authors found many sex differences to be unfounded in their book, verbal ability was one that was fairly well established' (p. 518). Schachter, Shore, Hodapp, Chalfin, and Bundy (1978) contend that the discrepancy in opinions on gender differences for language acquisition may be the result of differing methodological approaches to research in this area. Schachter et al. found that older studies used mean length of utterance (MLU) as a method for measuring differences in language acquisition between boys and girls. More recent studies have not used this method. In a study of the play and speech behavior of a group of 2-year-olds and their mothers, Lewis and Cherry (1977) found that maternal behavior varied as a function of gender of child and was not related to the child’s linguistic behavior. In most cases, there were no gender differences in the children's language performance. According to the findings cited by Lewis and Cherry, girls are asked more questions, whereas boys receive more directives. Maternal utterances and MLUs show greater amounts directed toward girls than boys. Craig (1991) determined many ways in which males and females talk differently from each other. Girls and women speak in longer sentences and produce successive sentences so that their conversational tums are longer. They use adjectives and other modifiers that are stronger and more emotional. Females ask more questions and do not usually express their ideas in statement form. Boys and men usually speak in shorter sentences with conversational turns of only one or two sentences in length. Sentences contain few modifiers which are generally neutral when they are present. Males tend to 2 2 present their ideas as comments and statements, while requests are often made using commands. II 5|. II' III I' II I |' Parental practices in child-rearing have long term effects on all aspects of the development of a child. The manner in which a parent and child interact during the early years, as well as other factors in the home environment, can be critical to the level and quality of cognitive skills that a child ultimately develops. Freeburg and Payne (1967) stated: As a result of recent studies, there is reason to believe that patterns of verbal communication between parent and child, and the way in which language is utilized, affect not only the child's verbal development but also the ability to utilize higher-order concepts in problem solving ..... Still other aspects of the home environment, including 'social climate' and physical facilities, have been found to be associated with the child's academic and intellectual performance, as have parental personality characteristics and the mother's teaching 'style.' (p. 245) Recent work in child language has established that parents and other caretakers use a special register called 'Motherese' when speaking to young children. Wells (1982) stated that features of motherese include a reduction in the length and syntactic complexity of utterances, an emphasis on content related to ongoing activity or to features of the immediate perceptible environment, a high degree of repetitiveness, a tendency towards exaggerated intonation contours and a high proportion of utterances pitched at the higher end of the range. Gelman and Shatz (1977) have found motherese to consist of well-formed utterances that are short and simple in syntax. It is slower and higher in pitch which makes it more intelligible than adult-directed speech. The lexical terms are fewer and 2 3 more concrete than those found in adult speech. Gelman and Shatz report that both mothers and four-year-olds adjust their speech for beginning language learners. Whether they have younger siblings or not, four-year-olds tend to produce shorter and syntactically simpler utterances when talking to very young children than to peers or adults. Olsen-Fulero (1982) reported that mothers who utilize the features of motherese when speaking to their children are more likely to have children who develop language skills rapidly. However, some motherese characteristics (such as the use of imperatives) have been found to inhibit a child‘s development of language. Clarke-Stewart (1973) found that frequent verbal stimulation from mother through reading or talking has resulted in more frequent vocalization and greater language ability in young children. Mother is both a source of stimulation herself, as well as a mediator of stimulation from the environment. She stated that 'children of mothers who provide a greater number and variety of play materials and activities tend to be cognitively advanced. Moreover, mediation of materials by the mother is more closely related to the infant‘s skill with objects than is mere exposure to a stimulating physical environment' (p. 3). Bricker and Carlson (1981), in a review of mother-child interaction, found that mother-infant conversations are important for shaping early reference. Mothers accomplish this through gestural and vocal procedures to get their babies to attend to objects and events. The research, although scant in comparison to that of mother-child interaction, indicates that father-chfld interaction represents a much smaller percentage of a child's communication stimulation in the home. Friedlander, Jacobs, Davis, and Wetstone (1972) conducted a time-sampling analysis of the natural language environments of two infants in their homes. They found that of all the conversational 2 4 segments directed toward baby 'a', 65 percent came from the mother, 30 percent from the father, and 5 percent from guests. For baby 'b', 59 percent came from the mother, ~ 37 percent came from the father, and 4 percent came from guests. They concluded that the largest percentage of language stimulation in an ordinary American nuclear family comes from the mother. Studies of birth order and language development are relevant to the results of the study conducted by this researcher. Clausen (1966) cited studies related to birth order and position of an individual among siblings. It was noted that first-bom children tend to speak earlier and more precisely. In most instances, they will be Ieaming to speak before a second child is born and will receive more verbal stimulation from their parents than later-bom children who must compete for parental attention. It was also determined that the development of the first-bom and the effects of sibling position are not confined to just the first few years. The first-born is likely to continue to be the child to whom the parents direct their level of conversation. Clausen (1966) also cited studies relative to intelligence and birth order. Such studies found a tendency for first-born children to score slightly higher in tests of verbal intelligence, while later-bom children tended to score slightly higher in tests of ability to make perceptual discriminations. Research conducted by Dunn (1983) found a high frequency of imitation of older by younger siblings suggesting that an older sibling might play an important role in an infant's mastery of the object environment. Dunn also determined that children addressing their younger siblings adjust their speech in a manner somewhat similar to mothers addressing languageoleaming children. The amount of parental verbal interaction with children is another important factor in the study of language development. Numerous environmental studies have been 2 5 conducted utilizing the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME). The HOME was developed by Caldwell and Bradley in 1966 and revised in 1984. It has . become a widely used instrument for the assessment of environmental quality in the home. Areas of quality that are measured include Ieaming stimulation, language stimulation, physical environment, warmth and affection, academic stimulation, modeling, variety in experience, and acceptance. These subscale scores and total score indicate the level of quality that exists in a particular home environment. In a meta-analysis of home environments and early cognitive development, Gottfried (1984) summarized conclusions pertinent to the study conducted by this researcher. He found that children from relatively higher SES families receive an intellectually more advantageous home environment. Mothers of higher intelligence, as measured by vocabulary, provide a more enriched environment for their children. During infancy and preschool years, the environments of firstbom children as opposed to Iater-bom children are more conducive to enhancing intellectual skills. Gottfried found that in studies that used the HOME, no single factor (or scale) correlated with cognitive development across all of the studies. However, maternal involvement, play materials, and variety subscales tended to be most highly and consistently related to cognitive development between one and five years. WWW High quality child care comes from high quality people. (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1985, p. 22) Cazden (1981) stated that one of the responsibilities of a day care center is to extend children's verbal abilities. Children attending day care will increase their repertoire of words and meanings which they will use in communicating effectively in 2 6 their expanding world. Quality in day care is an important element in providing an environment that will stimulate growth and development, especially in the area of language development. Caldwell and Hilliard (1985) suggested that child care professionals must provide high quality services that meet the needs of parents who have chosen that service for their children. A high quality environment is one in which children are safe, healthy and well-nourished with adequate space, materials and equipment for Ieaming through staff who are knowledgeable of child development and teaching methods and are able to plan and organize effective programs with parental input. The measure of quality in day care used in this study was the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) developed by Hanna and Clifford (1980). The seven dimensions of quality that were evaluated were personal care, creative activities, language/reasoning activities, furnishings/display, fine/gross motor activities, social development, and adult facilities/opportunities. The National Day Care Study (Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Coelen, 1979) identified group size and specialized caregiver training as important elements of child care quality in center-based programs for preschoolers and added staff-child ratios to these elements for infant and toddler care. Ruopp et al. found that 'the association between these variables and children's development in child care is largely a function of their facilitating effect on caregivers efforts to interact in positive, stimulating ways with children in their care' (p. 77). Phillips and Howes (1987) indicated that the National Day Care Study was able to determine the importance of children's interactions with their caregivers, rather than with materials and other children, on cognitive outcomes. They report that research conducted since the National Day Care Study has reached the following 2 7 conclusions: 1. Adult-child ratio affects the amount of adult-child interaction, children's verbal interaction, children's play, and nurturant caregiver behavior that is present in day care. 2. Smaller groups appear to enhance positive caregiver behavior and developmental outcomes for children. 3. Caregiver training is associated with more interaction with children. College educated caregivers with a child-related major showed more indirect guidance, less restriction, and more encouragement of children's self-initiations and verbal expression. 4. Consistent presence of an adult caregiver is positively related to an infants' development in child care. A study of language in day care conducted by Tennant, McNaughton and Glynn (1988) found that caregiver training in language interaction skills improves the quality and quantity of language interactions with young children. A high ratio of conversations between child and caregiver results in increased rates of child language acquisition. An enriched environment consisting of toys and materials is not sufficient alone to improve language interactions that facilitate language acquisition. Studies conducted by McCartney (1984) and Howes and Rubenstein (1985) found similar results. McCartney found that children from centers with high levels of caregiver speech performed better on tests of language development than children from centers with high levels of peer speech. Howes and Rubenstein found that children at home and in day care settings with more adults per child had higher talk and play scores than children in day care settings with fewer adults per child. McCartney (1984) investigated the effects of adult and peer interaction on 2 8 language development. She found that the greater the number of conversations initiated with a peer in a center, the lower the language scores of children. She concluded that peer talk was less effective than caregiver talk in enhancing language development. In comparing adult-child speech with child-child speech, Bates (1975) concluded that children who spend time with peers are at a disadvantage when compared with children who spend most of their time with adults. Speech from children to adults is longer and uses both a broader vocabulary and more complex syntax structure than speech between children. During play, children often display task-centered monologues that provide very little useful experience in language comprehension. A final aspect of day care that is recently under study is heterogeneous grouping (mixed-age grouping). In general, heterogeneous grouping is defined as placing children who are at least a year apart in age into the same classroom groups. It is based on the assumption that the greater diversity of children present in heterogeneous grouping, compared to that in homogeneous grouping, will provide a variety of models from whom each child can learn. Katz et al. (1990) favor heterogeneous grouping because it ' resembles family and neighborhood groupings, which throughout history have informally provided much of children's socialization and education' (p. v). They state that heterogeneous grouping enhances social development, academic development. and leadership qualifies. Katz et al. (1990) believe that homogeneous grouping of children may have detrimental effects since 'homogeneous treatments yield homogeneous results only if the population to be treated is homogeneous in all relevant aspects' (p. 2). Homogeneous grouping is based on the assumption that children of the same age learn at the same rate and in the same manner. Katz et al. provide little information relative to advantages in the area of 2 9 language development from the use of heterogeneous grouping. Research studies that are available in this area are contradictory. Freedman (1982) found that children learn vocabulary from each other in settings with a variety of age groups. She stated: While children imitate adults more in terms of complexity and sentence length, they learn vocabulary more rapidly and easily from other children, even when the vocabulary is completely foreign. It is possible that adult language is too complex for a child to absorb all the nuances, while the language of the next oldest group of children may be just right. (p. 198) Freedman also reported that as children become older, they imitate adults more and peers less. Therefore, the greatest benefit of heterogeneous grouping occurs in the very early years of rapid language expansion. In addition, 'the processes important for verbal exchanges develop by three and one-half years of age, and thereafter there is no significant difference in effective communication between older and younger children' (p. 198). Studies by Bates (1975) and McCartney (1984) cited previously in this researchers review of peer interaction dispute the findings reported by Freedman and indicate that peer interaction is much less effective for language development than adult. child interaction. Therefore, although heterogeneous grouping of children in day care provides older models who may enhance the social and academic skill development of younger children, the research is unclear as to the benefits of older peer interaction for the enhancement of language development of younger children. Summer! The research indicates that language development of young children is facilitated by mother-child interactions that occur in a stimulating home environment. Similarly, language development in day care is facilitated by adult-child interactions 30 that occur in a high quality day care environment. The research is more ambivalent relative to gender differences in language development and the advantages of heterogeneous day care over homogeneous day care. CHAPTER III lntncducticn Chapter III will present the methodological procedures utilized in this study. The areas presented are Research Design, Sample, Instrumentation, Data Collection Procedures, Data Analysis, Limitations, and Summary. Won The purpose of this study was to look at microsystem contextual factors that contribute to the vocabulary development of three-year-old children in day care. Figure 3 presents a sequential model of the research design. In procedure 1, day care centers were compared for their level of quality, and only high quality centers, as assessed on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, were included in the study. Following this comparison, procedure 2 was begun. In procedure 2, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised was administered to three-year-old children in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and vocabulary scores were compared. A total of 21 subjects from both groups in procedure 2 became a part of procedure 3. In procedure 3, the vocabulary scores of the 21 high and low scoring subject from procedure 2 were compared with those of their self-identified best friend. In procedure 4, a home evaluation using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment was conducted for the high scoring and low scoring subject from procedure 3. Therefore, the contextual factors studied for their contribution to the vocabulary performance of the subject were factors in the day care setting, including interaction 31 32 Homogeneous Centre Heterogeneous Centers Number of Subject Number of Subjects ' Procedure 1 3 < ------------- Administer ECERS ---------------- > 5 All Centers Procedure 2 22< ------------- Administer PPVT-R --------------- > 22 All Subject Procedure 3 5 High Scoring < ------- Administer PPVT-R -------- > High Scoring 5 5 Low Scoring < ------- Subjects/Best Friends ------- > Low Scoring 6 Procedure 4 4 High Scoring < ------- Administer HOME --------- > High Scoring 4 4 Low Scoring < --------- Subjects ------------ > Low Scoring 4 Figure 3. Sequential model of the research design with best friend, and factors in the home environment. Sample The subjects for this study came from eight day care centers in two metropolitan cities in Michigan. The study was conducted from June, 1991 through October, 1991. Three day care centers provided the subjects for the homogeneous component, while five day care centers provided the subject for the heterogeneous component. There were 22 subject in the homogeneous group and 22 subjects in the heterogeneous group. All subject met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The criteria were: 1) children between the ages of 3 years 0 months and 3 years 11 months, 2) two parent in the home, 3) participation in day care 5 full days per week for a minimum 3 3 of 6 months, 4) average or higher family income ($30,000 to $35,000 or above) and 5) English as a first language. Two children who became a part of the study attended 4 days per week. Their centers of attendance did not require participation 5 days per week. University day care is often conducted on a 4-day basis, and since the study was attempting to secure a valid number of subject, it was presumed that there would not be significant differences in 4 and 5 day attendance and that inclusion of these two subjects in the study would not alter the validity of this study. Three-year-olds were chosen as subject because by the age of three, many children have mastered much of the grammar of their language. In addition, they can use and understand many of the words in their language. Amos and Ilg (1976) stated that at no other time will words mean as much as may do at three years of age. Attending skills improve as well and three-year-olds will attend to some tasks for as long as 20 minutes. Therefore, assessment instrument, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, become more reliable when administered to three-year-olds than to a younger age child. Instrumentation Three instrument were utilized in this study to assess the quality and sameness of the day care centre, the receptive vocabulary of the subject, and the quality and demographics of the home environment. These instrument were the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), and the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME), respectively (see APPENDIX A). 3 4 II E I El'lll IE . IBI' S I IEQEBSI The ECERS was developed by Harms and (titled in 1980. It has been used in several studies as an index of the quality of day care centers. The instrument consists of 37 items that are scored on 7-point scales, which are accompanied by definitions of each point. The seven dimensions of quality include: personal care, furnishings/display, language/reasoning, fine/gross motor, creative activities, social development, and adult facilities/opportunities. To test the validity of the scale, nationally recognized expert in the day care and early childhood fields were asked to rate each item on the scale In terms of its importance to early childhood programs. Seventy-eight percent of the ratings indicated high importance. The scale was also tested by comparing its ability to distinguish between classrooms of varying quality as determined by trainers who had been working with the staff in those classrooms. A rank order correlation of .737 was obtained when comparing the ratings of expert observers and trainers. A correlation of .697 was obtained when comparing less well trained observers and trainers. Harms and Clifford (1980) stated that interrater reliability was rated by classroom and by item on three and two independent test, respectively. Rank correlations for classroom were .899, .790, and .884. Rank order correlations for item were .937 and .932. Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's Alpha and Standardized Alpha, indicated low correlations for some of the subscales but high correlations of .830 and .863 for the scale as a whole. The PPVT was developed by Dunn and Dunn in 1959 and revised in 1981. It is administered individually and is a nonn-referenced test of hearing vocabulary designed 35 for persons 2 1/2 through 40 years of age. It was standardized nationally on a sample of 5,028 persons-4,200 children and adolescent, and 828 adults. It produces a raw . score that can be converted into age-referenced norms. The manual of the PPVT-R (Dunn and Dunn, 1981) states that approximately 100 published studies have reported reliability data on the original PPVT, while 68 studies have reported data for the PPVT-R. Immediate retest reliability coefficient for raw scores and IOs, respectively, were .72 and .84 when the time interval between test was less than 2 weeks. For short-term stability, defined as 1 year or less, the median correlation for IOs was .72: for long-term stability, defined as more than 1 year, the median correlation for IOs was .59. The median correlation based on raw scores for short-term stability was .75. The PPVT-R has been correlated with other vocabulary test and with vocabulary subtests of individual intelligence and psycholinguistice tests. The overall median value was .71, based on 55 correlations. The HOME, developed by Caldwell, Heider and Kaplan in 1966, was revised by Caldwell and Bradley in 1984. It is an observationally based inventory which provides an index of the quality and quantity of social, emotional, and cognitive support available to a child within the home setting. Three forms are available to be administered to families of infant and toddlers (0-3), preschoolers (3-6), and elementary children. The HOME (3-6) was utilized for this study. It contains 55 items representing eight types of environmental forces that make up the eight subscales. These include: Ieaming stimulation, language stimulation, physical environment, warmth and affection, academic stimulation, modeling, variety in experience, and 3 6 acceptance. The HOME manual (Caldwell and Bradley, 1984) states that standardization data , for preached age children was collected on 232 families in central Arkansas. The Kuder-Richardson 20 formula was used to determine internal consistency. Coefficient range from .53 to .83 for the HOME subscales and .93 for the total scale. The HOME manual also indicates that HOME scores for 33 families were correlated with five socioeconomic-status indices including maternal education, maternal occupation, paternal education, paternal occupation, and the amount of crowding in the home. The correlations between mother's occupation and father's occupation and the home environment were negligible. Moderate correlations were recorded between the remaining three SES factors and several HOME subscales. The HOME has been found to correlate with measures of achievement at .51 to .58 for total score. The three-year HOME has been found to correlate with measures of cognitive development at .23 to .47 for subscales and .55 for total score. W The proposal for the study was submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subject (UCRIHS). Approval was granted before the study was initiated. A list of day care centers for two metropolitan areas in Michigan was secured from the Child Care Directory provided by the Office of Young Children. The list was reviewed by the researcher to determine possible centre for inclusion based on subject criteria. Centers were contacted by telephone to cenfinn their ability to meet the criteria and their willingness to participate. Many centers declined to participate including franchised centers found in many large cities in Michigan. Centers willing to 3 7 participate were then contacted by letter (see APPENDIX B) and pennissien to becerne a part of the study was secured from the director of the center and/or the board of directors for the center. Once pennissien was obtained, procedure 1 was initiated. In procedure 1, each of the centre was administered the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) to determine if the centers were of high quality and comparable to one another. All the centers that agreed to be a part of the study were found to be of high quality based on the ECERS. All center evaluations were conducted by the researcher to insure reliability in administration of the ECERS. A list of guidelines for inclusion in the study was provided to the directors of the centers, and they were asked to provide a list of student whom they felt would meet the guidelines. Introductory letters and permission forms (see APPENDIX B) were sent to the families of these children. Once the permission slips were returned, Procedure 2, which consisted of the vocabulary testing of the subject, was begun. The subjects were individually administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised-Form L (PPVT-R). Before the assessment session was completed, each subject was asked to respond orally to a Best Friend Questionnaire (see APPENDIX A). At that point in time, it could not be determined which subject would become a part of procedure 3, so all subject completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was felt to be an appropriate manner of determining a child's preferred peer at the day care center. Gallagher (1991) stated that through such a norninatien method, children can determine their peer preferences. Any number of questions can be proposed, and any limit can be set to the number of answers the children are asked to provide. Adaptability and versatility are advantages of the nomination method. The questionnaire for this study consisted of the following items: 1) 'When you play inside, who do you like to play with the best?‘ 3 8 2) 'When you play outside, who is the best person to play with?‘ 3) Who do you think likes to play with you the most?“ 4) 'Whe do you like to sit by when you eat?“ 5) 'Here at the center, who is your best friend?I The final item, 'Here at the center, who is your best friend?‘ was the primary item used for determining a child's best friend. This item was specifically placed last in order to allow the children to have given some thought, by answering the other items first, to which child was truly their best friend. As a verification of the reliability of the child's responses, the teacher was given the questionnaire in advance. If the child's responses were different from that of the teacher, the researcher discussed with the teacher which response was most appropriate. In some cases, it was necessary to choose a name given in response to a different item because the child listed as a best friend was unavailable for testing. Several of the centers started their summer session in late June and some children no longer attended or attended less time during the summer session. When a 'best friend' could not be available for testing, the name that appeared most often on the questionnaire was chosen as the best friend. Such decisions were discussed with the teacher for her consensus. When all subject for procedure 2 had been given the PPVT-R, the scores were rank ordered to determine which five student in each day care group had achieved the highest scores and which five student had achieved the lowest scores. Explanation letters and pennissien slips (see APPENDIX B) were sent to the homes requesting that these student become a part of procedures 3 (testing of best friends) and 4 (home assessments). In addition, explanation letters and permission slips (see APPENDIX B) were sent to the homes of children who were determined to be the best friends of the subjects for procedure 3. 3 9 There were ten scores for the homogeneous best friend group and eleven scores for the heterogeneous best friend group. The heterogeneous group exceeded the homogeneous group by one since two children had the same score on the rank order of scores from procedure 2. Therefore, both children,'as well as their best friends became a part of procedure 3. Nine children determined to be the best friend of a subject were already subject in the study. Therefore, these children were not tested again; their original scores were reported in the best friend column. When testing of best friends was completed, procedure 4 was begun. In procedure 4, home visit were made and the HOME was administered to the families who agreed to be a part of the procedure. Sixteen families of the 21 families eligible agreed to participate. There were eight subject from homogeneous centers and eight subject from heterogeneous centers. Demographic infennation was also obtained during the home visits. All data were collected over a five month span of time. The researcher collected all data herself in order to maintain reliability in the administration of the assessment measures since conditions for testing varied among centers and homes. Manila]: The Mann-Whitney U test at an alpha level of .05 was the statistical test used to analyze the data obtained from the administration of the ECERS and the HOME. The Mann-Whitney U test is a nonparametric test done on the rank orders of the variables within groups. It is equivalent to the parametric test for the independent pairs t-test where the null hypothesis is about the group means (Brent,1988). The Mann-Whitney U test evaluates the null hypothesis that the 4 0 distributions of two independent samples are the same. It may be thought of as the ordinal equivalent of the Meet and is usually equal to or greater in power than the t- test (Brent, 1988). The small number of day care centre and the small number of subject in Procedure 4 necessitated the use of the Mann-Whitney U test. The Mann-Whitney U test compared the dimensions of quality for the eight centers by type of center; that is, homogeneous centre were compared with heterogeneous centers. It was also utilized for a comparison of centers for age range of student. The centers were compared on several other demographic issues using nonparametric statistical analyses. These issues included accreditation, availability of an infant program, availability of a drop-in program, percentage of time each day that the children were grouped with children of other ages, class size and attendance, teacher-student ratio, and daily routine. A two-factor ANOVA at an alpha level of .05 was used to compute means and F values for the PPVT-R scores that were obtained in procedure 2. The ANOVA was used to test hypotheses that compared the scores by group and gender. T-test were used to compute means and t values for the remaining hypotheses in procedures 2 and 3. l' 'I I. The following factors were seen as limitations in this study: 1. W. This is viewed as a major limitation of this study. Every attempt was made to secure at least 30 subject for each type of day care, homogeneous and heterogeneous, for procedure 2. Contct were made to all eligible centers in two major cities in Michigan. Many centers chose not to be a part of the study 4 1 for various reasons. Since the number of available centers was small, the number of available subject was small as well. An additional restriction to the number of subject was the specific list of requirement for inclusion in the study. In an effort to limit the number of variables that might taint the results of the study, the following requirement were imposed: a. The children had to be between the ages of 3 years 0 months and 3 years 11 months. b. The children had to come from a two-parent home. c. The children had to participate in day care five full days per week. d. The children had to have attended the day care for at least six months. a. The children had to speak English as a primary language. f. The children had to come from homes of average or higher family income. Many of the children fell within the necessary age range but did not meet the other requirement for inclusion in the study. There were at least three more students in each group that were eligible for procedure 2. However, no pennissien could be secured for their inclusion. Procedures 3 and 4 had a small number of subject by design. This was not viewed as a limitation of this study, but larger numbers in future research would provide much more data than were obtained with the number of subject utilized for procedures 3 and 4. 2. W. This study investigated receptive language only and did not explore expressive language. Specifically, it investigated receptive vocabulary as one aspect of receptive language. It viewed the subject' understanding of words rather than their use of words. Future research which explored the expressive vocabulary 4 2 component in conjunction with the receptive component would provide a wealth of additional information about language development. This study viewed vocabulary development at the microsystem level only. Children were viewed in the context of their day care center and their home. The study, by design, did not view the child at other levels of ecological development or at other settings at the microsystem level. Future research could expand the study to other settings that contain the child at the microsystem level and to aspects of interaction of settings at the mesosystem level. 3. Reliability. Each day care center that became a part of the study had it own set of rules and regulations that the researcher was asked to follow. In addition, each day care director had a busy schedule with limited time and space to accommodate a researcher collecting data. It was virtually impossible to create the same conditions for data collection in each center. The one aspect of reliability that was consistent was the use of just one researcher for data collection. Every effort was made to administer all tests in a consistent manner to all subject. 4. MW. Concern is expressed in the literature relative to the limitations and benefits of homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. These types of programs are generally defined by the ages of children grouped together. It is a common assumption that children in homogeneous day care are always with other children who vary in age by not more than one year. This study was based on that assumption. However, it was determined from daily schedules (see APPENDIX C) and director input that, in actuality, children in homogeneous centers who arrived very early or stayed very late were grouped heterogeneously for a period of time due to small numbers of 4 3 students. Future research comparing homogeneous and heterogeneous day care should take this important factor into account. Summer! Microeystem contextual factors that contribute to vocabulary development of three-year-old children in day care were researched in this study. The study was conducted in a series of procedures. Homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centre were compared for quality, while subject were compared for performance on a test of vocabulary ability. Subjects who became a part of the third and fourth procedures were compared with a best friend for vocabulary scores and interviewed in a home assessment. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, and the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised were the measures used for the assessment. The researcher conducted all evaluations herself to ensure reliability in data collection due to the variability in testing sites and conditions. The Mann-Whitney U, a two«factor ANOVA, and Meets were computed at an alpha level of .05 on the data obtained from the assessment. Limitations to the study were discussed relative to their impact on this study and future research. CHAPTERIV ANALYSIS 101m The results of the data analysis will be presented for each procedure initiated in the study and for the hypotheses that relate to each procedure. All statistical analyses were computed at an alpha level of .05. Day care centers were compared using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS). Vocabulary scores of subject in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers were assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), and this measure was also utilized for the assessment of best friends of high scoring and low scoring subject. The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME) was used for the evaluation of the home context. The major hypothesis for procedure 1 is presented. One alterative hypothesis is presented as well. H1: There will be no significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. H1.1: There will be a significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. Table 3 present a summary of the scores that were obtained when each center was evaluated with the ECERS. A total of eight centers, three homogeneous and five heterogeneous, were evaluated. The total possible score that could be achieved is 44 4 5 presented for the seven subscales and total score. Result for each center are displayed, along with the weighted means. Weighted means were used since the subscales do not represent equal values. Table 3 Summary of Scores for all Centers on ECERS Subscale Personal Furnish- Language Finel Creative Social Adult Total Weighted Care ings/ Reasen- Gross Activities Devel- Needs Score Means Routines Display lng Motor opment Experl- Actlvl- ences ties Total (35) (35) (28) (42) (49) (42) (28) (259) (38.41) Possible Home- 30 32 24 40 42 36 19 223 33.29 geneeus 34 33 28 42 48 40 26 251 37.27 Centers 32 32 26 41 44 39 24 238 35.35 Hetero- 34 31 28 41 47 39 28 246 36.70 geneous 33 34 28 42 49 41 28 255 37.84 Centers 33 31 28 41 47 41 28 249 36.89 34 33 26 40 46 40 25 244 36.24 26 29 28 41 45 36 25 232 34.43 n a 3 homogeneous centers n s 5 heterogeneous centers The Mann-Whitney U was the statistic used to compare the scores between the homogeneous and heterogeneous centers. Table 4 present the results of the computation of the Mann-Whitney U. Both the U values and the P values showed no significant differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous centers on all subscales and total score on the ECERS. Therefore, H1 was accepted and H1.1 was rejected since no significant differences were found. 4 6 Table 4 Result of Mann-Whitney U for ECERS Corrected for Ties Subecale U Value 2-tailed P l. Personal Care 6.0 .6447 ll. Furnishings/Display 5.5 .5437 III. Language/Reasoning 3. 5 . 1 685 IV. Fine/Gross Motor 7.5 1.0000 V. Creative Activities 4.0 .2936 VI. Social Development 4.5 .3594 VII. Adult Needs 2.0 .0909 Total 5.0 .4561 U and 2-tailed P showed no significant differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous centers on the qualities mentioned above and the total score. n a 3 homogeneous centers n a: 5 heterogeneous centers In procedure 2, 22 subject in homogeneous day care centers and 22 subjects in heterogeneous day care centers were administered the PPVT-R. All subject met the following criteria for inclusion in the study: 1) children between the ages of 3 years 0 months and 3 years 11 months, 2) two parents in the home, 3) participation in day care five full days per week for a minimum of six months, 4) average or higher family income ($30,000 to $35,000 or aboveubased on census figures for 1990), and 5) English as a first language. PPVT-R scores and demographic information for the subject in homogeneous day care centers are presented in Table 5. The PPVT-R scores and demographic infennation for subjects in heterogeneous day care centers are presented in Table 6. 47 Table 5 PPVT Scores and Demographic lnfonnation for Subject in Homogeneous Centers ID Number Score Age Sex Years/Day Care Days Attending 100 67 3-6 F 3 5 101 56 3—5 M 2 4 102 51 3-8 M 2 5 103 51 3.1 1 M 1 5 104 50 3-0 F 2+ 5 105 48 3-2 F 1+ 5 106 48 3-6 F 3 5 107 47 3-8 M 3 5 108 47 3-4 M 2+ 5 109 46 3-8 F 1 5 1 10 45 3-8 F 3 5 1 11 45 3-9 M 1 5 1 12 44 3-4 M 2 5 1 13 43 3—9 M 2+ 5 1 14 42 3-4 M 3 5 1 15 41 3—8 F 3+ 5 1 16 38 3-0 M 2 5 117 37 3-10 M 1+ 5 118 36 3-2 F 3 5 1 19 31 3-0 F 2+ 5 120 30 3-9 M 1 5 121 29 3-0 M 1 5 n I 22 females a 9 males 2 13 + represents additional months but less than another full year 48 Table 6 PPVT Scores and Demographic lnfonnation for Subject in Heterogeneous Centers ID Number Score Age Sex Years/Day Care Days Attending 200 56 34 F 3 5 201 55 3-9 M 1 5 202 54 3-9 M 3+ 5 203 52 3-7 M 1 5 204 52 3-5 F 2 5 205 51 3-11 M 3 5 206 50 3-11 M 1 5 207 49 3-11 M 2 5 206 49 3—0 M 3 5 209 48 3-9 F 3+ 5 210 47 3-11 M 1 5 211 47 3-2 M 3 5 212 45 3-5 M 1+ 4 213 45 3-4 M 1- 5 214 45 3-8 F 1+ 5 215 42 3-4 F 2 5 216 41 3-9 F 2+ 5 217 41 3-7 M 1- 5 218 40 3-11 F 2+ 5 219 33 3-3 M 1 5 220 32 3-1 F 3 5 221 28 3-0 F 1 5 n 8 22 females : 9 males a 13 + represents additional months but less than another full year - represents less than one year 4 9 The major hypothesis for procedure 2 is presented. Four altematlve hypotheses are presented as well. H2: There will be no significant difference in the vocabulary scores of three-year- old children in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.1: Three-year-olds in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-olds in homogeneos day care. H2.2: Three-year-eld girls in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old boys in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.3: Three-year-old girls in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old girls in hornogeneousdaycare. H2.4: Three-year-eld boys in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-old boys in hornegeneous day care. A Two-Factor ANOVA was computed for the mean scores on the PPVT-R by group and by gender. The Two-Factor ANOVA was used to assess the effects of the two variables simultaneously and reduce the probability of error. Table 7 present the means and standard deviations for the comparison by group. Table 8 present the means and standard deviations for the comparison by gender. A comparison by group resulted in an F value of .312 and a p value of .580 (see Table 9). These values were not significant: therefore, H2.1 was rejected. A comparison by gender resulted in an F value of .191 and a p value of .664 (see Table 9). These values were not significant. Therefore, H2.2 was rejected. Since both H21 and H22 were rejected, H23 and H24 were also rejected. The null hypothesis was retained. 50 Table 7 Means for a Comparison of PPVT Scores by Group I‘m Homogeneous Heterogeneous ID Number Score ID Number Score 100 67 200 56 101 56 201 55 102 51 202 54 103 51 203 52 104 50 204 52 105 48 205 51 106 48 206 50 107 47 207 49 106 47 208 49 109 46 209 48 1 10 45 210 47 1 11 45 21 1 47 1 12 44 212 45 113 43 213 45 1 14 42 214 45 115 41 215 42 1 16 36 216 41 117 37 217 41 118 36 218 40 1 19 31 219 33 120 30 220 32 121 29 221 28 mean 44.18 45.55 standard deviation 8.77 7.47 F: .312 98.580 n a 22 homogeneous n = 22 heterogeneous 51 Table 8 Means for a Comparison of PPVT Scores by Gender Homogeneous 6 Heterogeneous Homogeneous & Heterogeneous Female Scores Male Scores 67 56 56 55 52 54 50 52 48 51 46 51 48 51 46 50 45 49 45 49 42 47 41 47 41 47 40 47 36 45 32 45 31 45 28 44 43 42 41 38 37 33 30 29 mean 44.22 45.31 standard deviation 9.38 7.20 Fs.191 pafi“ n = 18 females n a 26 males Summary Table for Two-Factor ANOVA 52 Table 9 for PPVT Scores as a Function of Genderand Group Source of Variation df ss MS F p Main Effect 2 32.99 16.49 .252 .779 Group 1 20.46 20.46 .312 .580 Gender 1 12.53 12.53 .191 .664 Grouprender 1 152.49 152.49 2.327 .135 Explained 3 185.47 61.82 .943 .429 Residual 40 2621.71 65.54 Total 43 2607.18 65.28 In procedure 3, 21 children with the highest and lowest PPVT-R scores from procedure 2 completed an oral questionnaire to determine their self-identified best friend at the center (see APPENDIX A). The subject for procedure 3 were five high scoring homogeneous children and their best friends, five low scoring homogeneous children and their best friends, five high scoring heterogeneous children and their best friends, and six low scoring heterogeneous children and their best friends. There were six children in the low scoring heterogeneous group because two of the low scoring children achieved the same score when tested with the PPVT-R. All best friends were administered the PPVT-R if they had not already been given it as part of procedure 2. 5 3 High scoring and low scoring subject scores and best friend scores as well as demographic infennation for the homogeneous centers are displayed in Table 10. High scoring and low scoring subject scores and best friend scores as well as demographic information for the heterogeneous centers are displayed in Table 11. Table 10 High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject Scores/Best Friend Scores and Demographics for Homogeneous Centers ID Score Age Sex Center Years Days BF ID Score Age Sex Years Days Number Number Day Attend Number Day Attend Care Care High 100 67 3-6 F 3 3 5 110 45 3-8 F 3 5 101 56 3-5 M 3 2 4 106 48 3-6 F 3 5 102 51 3-6 M 4 2 5 140 47 4-2 M 2 5 103 51 3-11 M 4 1 5 141 46 4-1 F 1- 5 104 50 3-0 F 3 2+ 5 110 45 3-8 F 3 5 Low 117 37 3-10 M 4 1+ 5 102 51 3-8 M 2 5 118 36 3-2 F 5 3 5 108 47 3-4 M 2+ 5 119 31 3-0 F 3 2+ 5 104 50 3-0 F 2+ 5 120 30 3-9 M 3 1 5 110 45 3-8 F 3 5 121 29 3-0 M 5 1 5 142 27 2-9 M 1 5 mean (yr) 3.43 3.55 n a 5 high scoring n a 5 low scoring + represents additional months but less than another full year - represents less than one year 54 Table 11 High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject Scores/Best Friend Scores and Demographics for Heterogeneous Centers lD Score Age Sex Center Years Days BF ID Score Age Sex Years Days Number Number Day Attend Number Day Attend Care Care High 200 56 3-4 F 1 3 5 240 42 4-1 F - 5 201 55 3-9 M 7 1 5 241 48 4-10 M 3 202 54 3-9 M 1 3+ 5 242 66 4-8 F 4 203 52 3-7 M 2 1 5 243 66 4-2 F 1+ 5 204 52 3-5 F 2 2 5 244 35 4-1 F 1 3 Low 216 41 3-9 F 1 2+ 5 245 73 4-2 F 1+ 5 217 41 3-7 M 1 1- 5 246 63 4-2 M 1 4 218 40 3-11 F 7 2+ 5 215 42 3-4 F 2 5 219 33 3-3 M 8 1 5 206 50 3-11 M 1 5 220 32 3-1 F 6 3 5 208 49 3-0 M 3 5 221 28 3-0 F 1 1 5 216 41 3-9 F 2+ 5 mean (yr) 3.49 4.02 n a 5 high scoring n a 6 low scoring + represents additional months but less than another full year - represents less than one year 5 5 The major hypothesis for procedure 3 is presented. Three alternative hypotheses are presented as well. H3: There will be no significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year-olds (In homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.1: High scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than low scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.2: There will be a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. H3.3: There will be a significant rfifference in the vocabulary scores of low scoring three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. A comparison of the PPVT-R scores of high scoring and low scoring subjects was made to determine if the scores differed significantly. Means and Meet values were computed; the results of the comparison are displayed in Table 12. The mean value for the high scoring subjects was 54.4, while the mean value for the low scoring subject was 34.4. The I value was -9.37 with a p value of .001. The test was significant; therefore, H3.1 was retained. A comparison of PPVT-R scores of high scoring subject and best friends was made to determine if they differed significantly. Means and t values were computed; the result of the cornparisen are displayed in Table 13. The mean value for the high scoring subject was 54.4, while the mean value for the best friends was 48.8. The t value was 1.61 and the p value was .131. The test was not significant: therefore, H3.2 was rejected. A comparison of PPVT-R scores of low scoring subjects and best friends was 5 6 made to determine if they differed significantly. Means and tvalues were computed; the results of the comparison are displayed in Table 14. 57 Table 12 Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Homogeneous and Heterogeneous High Scoring Low Scoring ID Number Score ID Number Score 100 67 117 37 101 56 1 18 36 102 51 1 19 31 103 51 120 30 104 50 121 29 200 56 216 41 201 55 217 41 202 54 218 40 203 52 219 33 204 52 220 32 221 28 mean 54.4 34.4 standard deviation 4.93 4.66 I: -e.37 p = .001 n a 10 high scoring n a 11 low scoring 58 The mean value for the low scoring subject was 34.4, while the mean value for their best friends was 48.9. The t value was -3.78 with a p value of .002. The test was . significant; therefore, H3.3 was retained. Since two of the alternative hypotheses were retained for procedure 3, the null hypothesis could not be retained. Therefore, H3 was rejected. Table 13 Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for High Scoring Subjects and Best Friends Homogeneous Scores Heterogeneous Scores Subject Best Friend Subject Best Friend 67 45 56 42 56 48 55 48 51 47 54 66 51 46 52 66 50 45 52 35 mean a 54.4 for high scoring subject mean a 48.8 for best friends 131.61 p: .131 n a 5 homogeneous high scoring subject and 5 best friends n z 5 heterogeneous high scoring subjects and 5 best friends Wham ill'lS' ll S'Sl'l In procedure 4, home visits were made on the high scoring and low scoring subject. During the home visit, the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME) was used to measure the quality of the home environment. Home visit were made at the convenience of the family being visited. The visit 5 9 occurred primarily on weeknight or on weekends during the day. Every attempt was made to meet with both parent during the visit, but this was not always possible. The subject was always present during the visit. Table 14 Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of PPVT Scores for Low Scoring Subjects and Best Friends Homogeneous Scores Heterogeneous Scores Subject Best Friend Subject Best Friend 37 51 41 73 36 47 41 63 31 50 40 42 30 45 33 50 29 27 32 49 28 41 mean a 34.4 for low scoring subjects mean a 48.9 for best friends I 2 -3.78 p a .002 n = 5 homogeneous low scoring subject and 5 best friends It s 6 heterogeneous low scoring subjects and 6 best friends The major hypothesis for procedure 4 is presented. Two alternative hypotheses are presented as well. H4: There will be no significant difference in the HOME scores of three-year-olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H4.1: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of three- year-olds in homogeneus and heterogeneous day care. 6 0 H4.2: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of high scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year-olde (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). HOME scores for high scoring and low scoring subject in the homogeneous centers are presented in Table 15, while these for subjects in heterogeneous centers are in Table 17. Visits were made with the families of eight high scoring subject and eight low scoring subjects. The remaining families declined the home visit. Table 16 presents the demographic information compiled for the homogeneous subject in conjunction with the administration of the HOME, while Table 18 present the demographic infennation for the heterogeneous subject. The families were asked to complete a brief questionnaire concerning their income during 1990 (See APPENDIX A). Table 19 present a summary of the scores that were obtained on the HOME during the home visits. Subjects are identified by type of center and whether they are part of the high scoring group or low scoring group. Subscales are listed, and the total possible score for each subscale and total score are indicated. Scores for each subject are listed under each subscale and under the total score obtained. Items number 8 (At least 10 books are visible in the apartment) and number 37 (Child is encouraged to learn to read a few words) were deleted from the HOME with the permission of the author, Bettye Caldwell (personal communication, June 9, 1992). For item number 8, it was not possible to see a room where books were kept in all the homes visited. For item number 37, many parents viewed this as an inappropriate question since their children were only three years of age. Since the inventory was for children aged three to six, it was determined that a question about reading was more appropriate for six-year- olds than for three-year-olds. 61 The Mann-Whitney U was the statistic used to compare the scores obtained in procedure 4. The small number of subject in procedure 4 would not represent a normal distribution and would therefore necessitate the use of the Mann-Whitney U. 6 2 Table 15 HOME Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject in Heterogeneous Centers Sub- Learn- Language Physio Warmth Academic Medel- Variety Accept- Total Weighted scale lng Stimula- cal and Stimula- lng in ance Score Means Stimu- tion En— Accept- tion Exper- lation viron- ance lence ment Total Poss- INC (10) (7) (7) (7) (4) l5) (9) (4) (53) (716) ID Number Hist! 100 10 7 7 7 4 5 6 4 52 7.09 101 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 7.26 103 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 7.26 104 10 7 7 7 4 5 7 4 51 6.92 Low 117 9 7 6 7 4 5 9 4 51 6.92 118 6 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 52 7.09 119 8 7 7 7 4 5 8 4 50 6.72 120 9 6 4 7 3 5 8 3 45 6.23 Note: Items 8 and 37 were deleted from the HOME, since they could not be observed for all subjects. n s 4 high scoring n a: 4 low scoring Two subject were not available for HOME interviews. 63 Table 16 HOME Demographics for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects in Homogeneous Centre ID Number Family Income Siblings Father's Education Mother's ' Education High 100 550,000+ 0 Ph.D. Ph.D. 101 550.000+ 2+P J.D. M.A.+ 103 550,000+ 1- M.A. M.A. 104 550,000+ 1+P M.S. B.A. Low 1 17 $50,000+ 0 H.S.+ B.S.+ 1 18 550,000+ O 8.8. H.S.+ 119 550,000+ 0 H S.+ B A 120 550,000+ 1- 8.8. 8.5. n s 4 high scoring n a 4 low scoring Two subject were not available for HOME interviews. Siblings: + represents older sibling - represents younger sibling P represents sibling only part-time in the home Education: Ph.D. represent Doctor of Philosophy Degree J.D. represents Doctor of Law Degree M.A. represent Master of Arts Degree M.S. represent Master of Science Degree B.A. represent Bachelor of Art Degree 8.8. represents Bachelor of Science Degree H.S. represent High School Diploma + represent hours/credit beyond a level 64 Table 17 HOME Scores for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subject in Heterogeneous Centers Sub- Learn- Language Physi- Warmth Academic Model- Variety Accept- Total Weighted scale ing Stimula- cal and Stimula- ing in ance Score Means Stimu-tlon En- Accept- tlon Exper- latlen viron- ance ience ment Total Poss- ible (10) (7) l7) (7) (4i (5) (9) (4) (53) (7.26) ID Number High 200 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 7.26 202 9 7 7 6 4 5 9 4 51 6.94 203 10 7 7 6 4 4 8 4 50 7.01 204 6 5 4 7 0 4 6 4 38 6.04 Low 216 9 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 52 7.06 219 8 7 7 6 4 4 7 4 47 6.32 220 6 7 3 5 3 5 9 4 42 5.64 221 9 7 6 7 4 4 9 4 50 6.84 Note: Items 8 and 37 were deleted from the HOME, since they could not be observed for all subjects. n -.- 4 high scoring n a 4 low scoring Three subjects were not available for HOME interviews. 65 Table 18 HOME Demographics for High Scoring and Low Scoring Subjects in Heterogeneous Centers ID Number Family Income Siblings Father's Education Mother's Education High 200 550,000+ 0 JD. M.A. 202 550,000+ 1+ M.A. 8.8. 203 550,000+ 0 B.S.+ BS. 204 540,000 to 1+ H.S. M.A.+ 544,999 Low 216 550,000+ 1+ 8.8. M.A. 219 545,000 to 1+ H.S. A.D. 549,999 220 545,000 to 1- H.S.+ A.D. 549,999 221 550,000+ 1+ Ph.D. M.S. n a 4 high scoring n a 4 low scoring Three subjects were not available for HOME interviews. Siblings: + represents older sibling - represents younger sibling P represent sibling only part-time in the home Education: Ph.D. represents Doctor of Philosophy Degree J.D. represents Doctor of Law Degree M.A. represents Master of Arts Degree M.S. represent Master of Science Degree B.A. represents Bachelor of Art Degree 88. represents Bachelor of Science Degree A.D. represents Associate Degree H.S. represents High School Diploma + represent hours/credits beyond a level 6 6 Table 19 Summary of HOME Scores for All Subject Subscale Learning Language Physical Warmth Academic Modeling Variety Acceptance Total Stimu- Stimu- Environ- and Stimu- in Score Iatlon lalion ment Aocept- Iatlon Exper- ance isnces Total (10) (7) (7) f7) (4) (5) l9) (4) (53) Possible ID Number Him Homogeneous 100 10 7 7 7 4 5 8 4 52 101 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 103 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 104 10 7 7 7 4 5 7 4 51 High Heterogeneous 200 10 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 53 202 9 7 7 6 4 5 9 4 51 203 10 7 7 6 4 4 6 4 50 204 6 5 4 7 0 4 6 4 38 Low Homogeneous 117 9 7 6 7 4 5 9 4 51 116 9 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 52 119 8 7 7 7 4 5 8 4 50 120 9 6 4 7 3 5 6 3 45 Low Heterogeneous 216 9 7 7 7 4 5 9 4 52 219 6 7 7 6 4 4 7 4 47 220 6 7 3 5 3 5 9 4 42 221 9 7 6 7 4 4 9 4 50 Note: Items 6 and 37 were deleted from the HOME, since they could not be observed for all subjects. n a 6 high scoring subject It a 8 low scoring subjects 6 7 Table 20 presents the results of the Mann-Whitney U for the HOME scores compared by center type. Two subscales were found to be significant. They were Warmth and Affection with a U of 16.0 and a p of .0265. and Modeling with a U of 16.0 and a p of .0253. The remaining subscales and total score were not significant. Since two subscales were significant, H4.1 was retained. Table 20 Results of Mann-Whitney U for Comparison of HOME Scores for Subjects Grouped by Center Type Corrected for Ties Subscale U value 2-tailed P l. Learning Stimulation 20.0 .1826 ll. Language Stimulation 31.5 .9373 III. Physical Environment 27.0 .5223 IV. Warmth and Affection' 16.0 .0265 V. Academic Stimulation 27.5 .4675 VI. Modeling‘ 16.0 .0253 VII. Variety in Experience 28.5 .6797 Vlll. Acceptance 28.0 .3173 Total 19.0 .1671 W Father‘s Education 26.0 .5221 Mother's Education 29.0 .7452 " significant at the .05 level of confidence n a 6 homogeneous subjects n a 6 heterogeneous subjects Table 21 presents the results of the Mann-Whitney U for the HOME scores compared by high scoring and low scoring subjects. Only one subscale. Learning Stimulation, was found to be significant. A U value of 10.0 and a p value of .0145 were computed for Learning Stimulation. Since Learning Stimulation was found to be 68 significant, H4.2 was retained. Since both H4.1 and H42 were retained, H4 was rejected. Table 21 Results of Mann-Whitney U for Comparison of HOME Scores for Subjects Grouped by High Scoring and Low Scoring Corrected for Ties Stbscale U value 2-tailed P I. Learning Stimulation' 10.0 .0145 II. Language Stimulation 31.5 .9273 III. Physical Environment 20.5 .1411 IV. Warmth and Affection 31.0 .6897 V. Academic Stimulation 29.0 .6434 VI. Modeling 32.0 1.0000 Vll. Variety in Experience 28.5 .6797 Vlll. Acceptance 28.0 .3173 Total 16.0 .1368 W Father's Education' 13.5 .0484 Mother's Education 15.0 .0655 ' significant at the .05 level of confidence n s 8 high scoring subjects n = 8 low scoring subjects Stimulant In this section, the hypotheses for each procedure of this study will be restated. The decision rule for each hypothesis will be given. All tests were performed at an alpha level of .05. IIII'III DHBI H1: There will be no significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and hetero- geneous day care centers. Null retained H2: H3: 69 H1.1: There will be a significant difference in the dimensions of quality of the ECERS between homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. There will be no significant difference in the vocabu- lary scores of three-year-old children in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.1: Three-year-olds in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year-olds in homogeneous day care. H2.2: Three-year-old girls in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care will score signif- icantly higher on a test of vocabulary develop- ment than three-year-old boys in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. H2.3: Three-year-old girls in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three-year- old girls in homogeneous day care. H2.4: Three-year-old boys in heterogeneous day care will score significantly higher on a test of vocabulary development than three- year-old boys in homogeneous day care. There will be no significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year- olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.1: High scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) will score signif- icantly higher on a test of vocabulary develop- ment than low scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care). H3.2: There will be a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year- olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. H3.3: There will be a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of low scoring three-year- Altemative rejected Null retained Alternative rejected Alternative rejected Alternative rejected Alternative rejected Null rejected Alternative retained Alternative rejected 7O olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care and their self-identified best friend. Alternative retained H4: There will be no significant difference in the HOME scores of three-year—olds in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. _ Null rejected H4.1: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of three-year-olds in homo- geneous and heterogeneous day care. Alternative retained H4.2: There will be a significant difference in the HOME scores of high scoring three-year-olds (in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care) and low scoring three-year-olds (in homo- geneous and heterogeneous day care). Alternative retained Chapter V will discuss these findings and their implications for further research. Implications for practical use will be discussed as well. CHAPTERV SLMMRY, DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS AND RECMAENDATIONB W The purpose of this study was to look at microsystem contextual factors that contribute to the vocabulary development of three-year-old children in day care. The study was conducted in a series of procedures (see Figure 3) with children in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers. The first procedure involved the administration of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) to the eight day care centers that became a part of the study. The second procedure involved the testing of 44 three-year-old subjects attending the centers with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). In procedure 3. 21 subjects with the five highest and lowest scores on the PPVT-R were asked to identify a best friend at the center. The self-identified best friend was also administered the PPVT-R. Procedure 4 involved the administration of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME) to 16 families of high scoring and low scoring subjects during a home visit. W W The administration of the ECERS in procedure 1 found no significant differences on the dimensions of quality between homogeneous and heterogeneous centers. Of particular importance to this study was the fact that no significant differences were found on the subscale for Language/Reasoning Experiences (see APPENDIX A). The 71 7 2 statistics would indicate that the children in both center types were receiving language stimulation experiences of similar quality. A typical daily schedule was developed (see APPENDIX C) based on a composite of the daily schedules of all the centers in the study. The sequence of daily activities was basically the same for all centers, although the times varied slightly among the centers. Therefore, there was no difference in the microsystem contextual factor of center type with respect to activities conducted within the center. Both homogeneous and heterogeneous centers engaged in similar types of activities throughout the day. MB In procedure 2, the PPVT-R was administered to 22 homogeneous subjects and 22 heterogeneous subjects. It was assumed a priori that three-year-olds in heterogeneous day care would achieve higher scores in vocabulary by benefit of exposure to older language models in their classroom at the center. However, statistical analyses showed no significant differences in the vocabulary scores of the three-year-olds by center type. In viewing the Day Care Center Demographics (see APPENDIX C), it can be seen that, in actuality, homogeneous centers were not totally homogeneous. The directors of the centers reported that very early in the morning as children arrived, a staff person grouped all the children together in one room until enough staff and children had arrived to send the children to their appropriate classrooms. Similarly, as children departed in the evening and the numbers of children per classroom became smaller, remaining children were again grouped together in one room with a staff person. The directors of the homogeneous centers were asked to estimate what per cent of the time the three- year-olds were mixed with other ages. The percent varied from 10 percent to 20 7 3 percent. Therefore, periodically during the day, there was no difference In the micro- system contextual factor of center type with respect to exposure to older language models. Classroom size and teacher/student ratio (see Day Care Center Demographics, APPENDIX C) tended to favor the children in the homogeneous centers. Two of the homogeneous centers had the smallest classroom size and best teacher/student ratio of all eight centers in the study. This resulted in only four children in one center and six children in another competing for adult attention and interaction as opposed to seven, eight, and ten children seeking interaction with one adult. Some studies have shown that adult-child interaction in day care centers is more important for language development than child-child interaction (Bates, 1975; Fluopp et al., 1979; McCartney, 1964; Howes and Rubenstein, 1985). Therefore, there was a difference in the microsystem contextual factor of center type with respect to the facilitation of language development through adult-child interaction. This study did not investigate the number and variety of microsystem contextual settings that the 44 subjects in procedure 2 were exposed to outside the day care center. These other settings may provide opportunities for exposure to language experiences that would enhance vocabulary development. Although in procedure 4 home visits were made on a portion of the subject, the number of subject would not present a normal distribution and could not be said to be representative of all the children in procedure 2. Future research could utilize an ecomap to determine other environmental settings that influence language development. These settings could be evaluated for their importance in the development of vocabulary. The vocabulary scores of boys in day care were compared with the vocabulary scores of girls in day care. It was assumed agpriofi that girls' scores would exceed boys' U 74 scores because past research has indicated that girls develop language skills earlier than boys (McCarthy, 1953; Ervin-Tripp, 1966; Garai and Scheinfeld, 1966; Reppucci, 1971; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). However, statistical analyses found no significant differences in the vocabulary scores of the boys and girls in this study. Nor did statistical analyses find significant differences between girls by center type and boys by center type. McCarthy (1953) found that differences between boys and girls in language development were seldom statistically significant. Ervin-Tripp (1966) reported that studies done in America with well-designed samples found very slight differences between boys and girls. Garai and Scheinfeld (1966) reviewed studies that indicated greater verbal fluency for females from the age of twelve months through preschool, elementary school, high school and college. Verbal fluency included correct language usage, sentence complexity, grammatical structure, spelling, and articulation. All of these are aspects of expressive language rather than receptive language. In this study, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-Fl) was administered to all subject. The PPVT-Fl is a test of receptive vocabulary development and not a test of verbal ability. Garai and Scheinfeld (1968) stated that although some studies reported girls exceeding in all areas of language development, especially verbal ability, the majority of studies they reviewed found boys superior to girls in vocabulary development from the age of three to five years and beyond. Although Fitzgerald, Strommen, and McKinney (1962) also reported studies finding girls surpassing boys in nearly all aspect of language development, they did indicate that knowledge is lacking as to long term stability of differences. For example, they reported that at ages two and three girls have larger vocabularies than boys, but the difference disappears by age four. 7 5 Vocabulary development, an aspect of receptive language development, was the only area of language that was assessed in this study. No measure of expressive language . or verbal fluency was investigated. In future studies, assessment of both receptive and expressive language would provide a more complete picture of language development. WW Children from both center types with the top five and bottom five scores on the PPVT-R became the subject for procedures 3 and 4. There were ten subject in the homogeneous centers and eleven subject in the heterogeneous centers (two children had identical scores). Through a best friend oral questionnaire consisting of five questions, these children identified their best friend at the center. Best friends were then tested with the PPVT-R to determine their level of vocabulary development. Except for one outlying high score of 67 for the homogeneous group, the range of scores was almost identical for the two center types (see Tables 5 and 6). Statistical analyses of the scores of the high scoring and low scoring subject (see Table 12) found a significant difference between the high and low scores. A significant difference was assumed a priori since the scores were, by definition, highest and lowest. The range of scores for homogeneous best friends was slightly smaller than for homogeneous subject (see Table 10). However, the range of scores for heterogeneous best friends was much greater than for that of heterogeneous subject (see Table 11). This was to be expected since the heterogeneous subject were restricted by the age requirement of the study but had older children available to choose as best friends. Statistical analyses indicated that high scoring three-year-olds chose best friends who had similar ability in vocabulary development (see Table 13), while 10 out of the 11 low scoring three-year-olds chose best friends with higher vocabulary 7 6 ability (see Table 14). Although the researcher asked the children to identify their best friend, she did not ask the children I'why' they chose that person as a best friend. In many cases, the person named as best friend was not the person named for the other four questions on the questionnaire. Therefore, the researcher can only speculate as to why high scoring subject sought best friends of similar ability, while low scoring subject sought best friends of higher ability. Oden (1982) reviewed research on peer relationships and how they develop in childhood. A number of correlational studies Indicated that children like to play with or be friends with other children who are similar to them in characteristics such as age, sex, race, and cultural background. Similarly, Kostelnik, Stein, Whiren, and Soderman (1968) indicated that a child's selection of a friend may be the result of name, physical appearance, race, gender, age, ability and attitude. In viewing Tables 10 and 11 for ages and sex of subject and best friends, it can be seen that two thirds of the children chose a best friend of the same sex. Seventy-one percent of the children chose a best friend who was older, while 24 percent chose a best friend who was younger. Only one child chose a best friend who was exactly the same age. A comparison of the ages of high and low scoring subject and their best friend was made to determine if the ages of subject and best friends differed significantly. Means and Meet values were computed; the result of the comparison are displayed in Table 22 for high scoring subject and in Table 23 for low scoring subject. 77 Table 22 Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of Ages in Months for Best Friends of High Scoring Subject Homogeneous Ages Heterogm A900 Subject Best Friend Subject Best Friend 42 44 40 49 41 42 45 58 4 4 5 0 4 5 5 6 4 7 4 9 4 3 5 0 3 6 4 4 4 1 4 9 mean age 42.0 45.8 42.6 52.4 mean age of subject (grouped) :- 42.4 mean age of best friends (grouped) :- 49.1 t a 2.67 p a .028 n a 10 high scoring subjects (grouped) n s 10 best friends (grouped) The mean age in months for high scoring subject grouped together was 42.4, while the mean age for best friends was 49.1. The tvalue was 2.67 and the p value was .026. The mean age in months for low scoring subject grouped together was 40.7, while the mean age for best friends was 42.03. The tvalue was 1.64 and the p value was .1 36 . The statistical analyses determined a significant difference in the ages of high scoring subject and best friends. There was no significant difference in the ages of low scoring subject and best friends. High scoring subject chose best friends of similar vocabulary ability but who were significantly older. Low scoring subject chose best friends with significantly higher vocabulary ability but who were similar in age. 78 Table 23 Means and t-Test Values for a Comparison of Ages in Months for Best Friends of Low Scoring Subject Homogeneous Ages Heterogeneous Ages Subject Bea Friend Subject Best Friend 46 44 45 50 38 40 43 50 36 36 47 40 4s 44 39 47 36 33 37 36 36 45 mean age 40.2 39.4 41.2 44.7 mean age of subject (grouped) s 40.7 mean age of best friends (grouped) a 42.03 t s 1.64 p s .136 n a 11 low scoring subject (grouped) n a 11 best friends (grouped) In this study, the low scoring subject' choice of best friend appears to support the findings of Oden, 1962, and Kostelnik et al., 1966. Even though the best friend had significantly higher vocabulary ability, the friendship may have developed because of similarity in age with no relationship to the context of vocabulary ability. High scoring subject chose best friends with similar vocabulary ability but who were significantly older. Pepler, Corter and Abramovitch (1962) reported that older children tend to direct the interactions of younger children. It may be that the high scoring subject were not the 'chooser' but rather the one 'chosen' by an older best friend who could direct them. As was the case with the low scoring subject, the choice of best friend may have been unrelated to the context of vocabulary ability. 7 9 It is difficult to determine, based on one measure of vocabulary ability, the scope of the relationship between subject and best friends. This study compared children on their knowledge of vocabulary but did not address their use of it for communication with one another. No attempt was made to measure expressive language skills used during interaction with a best friend. Nor was an attempt made to determine if choice of best friend was based on a child's ability as communication partner or his ability as playmate. Althoum the subject were viewed at the microsystem level in the day care setting, they were not viewed in their 'pattem of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations in a given face-to-face setting...‘ (Bronfenbrenner, 1969, p. 227). Future research comparing the language skills of children and their best friend would benefit from an assessment of both receptive and expressive language ability along with observation of interaction to determine the relationship of play behavior and verbal communication. W In procedure 4, home visit were made on the high scoring and low scoring subject of procedure 3. Sixteen families were available for home visit. During the home visit, the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Revised (HOME) was administered. Tables 15 and 17 present the values for the subscales and total score for the HOME for homogeneous and heterogeneous subject, respectively. It should be noted that the term 'Warmth and Affection' was used by the authors in the summary of the HOME, but the term 'Warmth and Acceptance' was used in the actual inventory. The researcher assumed that the authors used the terms interchangeably. Statistical analyses determined that there was a significant difference between the homogeneous and 6 0 heterogeneous subject on the subscale of Warmth and Affection and the subscale of Modeling (see Table 20). Warmth and Affection involved the incorporation of verbal interaction, physical contact, and aspect of self-esteem, while Modeling involved the incorporation of values and appropriate behaviors (see APPENDIX A). All subject in homogeneous centers received the total possible score for these subscales. Fifty percent of the heterogeneous subject received less than the total possible score for both of these subscales. Although the sample size is small, these result would indicate that in this study the homes of some of the heterogeneous subject may have provided lower quantities and/or quality of verbal interaction, physical contact and affection, development of self esteem, incorporation of values, and modeling of appropriate behaviors. However, these factors apparently do not affect vocabulary development, since the children's vocabulary scores did not differ significantly by center type. Statistical analyses determined that there was a significant difference in Learning Stimulation between high scoring and low scoring subject (see Table 21). Learning stimulation involved the incorporation of toys, puzzles, records, games, books, papers and magazines as items to promote Ieaming in the home (see APPENDIX A). The scores for the low scoring subject were significantly lower than the scores for the high scoring subject. Although the sample size is small, these results can be interpreted to indicate that the subject in the low scoring group received less exposure to a stimulating Ieaming environment in their homes. Since a significant difference was found in the vocabulary scores of high scoring and low scoring subject, Ieaming stimulation in the home may play a major role in vocabulary development. In reviewing the demographic data presented in Tables 16 and 18, it can be seen that some subject in the low scoring group had lower family income levels than most 8 1 subject in the high scoring group. While these subject' families had definite income levels of $45,000 to $49,000, subject with income levels listed as $50,000 and more, could actually have incomes substantially higher than $50,000. Therefore, more money was available in the homes of high scoring subject to purchase items that stimulate Ieaming and possibly promote vocabulary development. Tables 16 and 16 also indicate that five of the high scoring children were the only child in the family most, if not all, of the time. Five of the low scoring children, however, had another sibling in the home. Studies of birth order and language development (Clausen, 1966; Dunn, 1963) indicate that a first-born child and an only child tend to speak earlier and more precisely. They tend to receive more verbal interaction from their parent than any later born child, who must compete for the shared attention of the parent. In addition, parent continue to pitch their conversation at the level of the first-bom. In this study, the subject with the highest vocabulary score was an only child with highly educated parent. The subject interacted much of the time with her parent and with her parent' friends. Certainly parent' education can be interpreted as a major factor in the discrepancy in learning stimulation and vocabulary development between high scoring and low scoring subject. Ninety-four percent of the parent of the high scoring subject had college degrees consisting of a bachelor's degree or higher, while only 56 percent of the parent of low scoring subject had college degrees at the bachelor's level or higher. Thirty-one percent of the parent of the low scoring subject had only a high school diploma, while only six percent of the parent of the high scoring subject had only a high school diploma. Note that father's education differed significantly between high scoring and low scoring subject (see Table 21). Eighty-eight percent of the fathers of high 8 2 scoring subject had college degrees, while only 50 percent of the fathers of low scoring subject had college degrees. Lynn (1974) suggested that well-educated men, as opposed. to less-educated men, are able to promote educational achievement in their children. Lynn stated: When the father‘s occupational level is high and when the parents are well educated they are more apt to have both the interest and the means to provide for the child's intellectual needs by reading to him, taking him to interesting places, providing him with a separate play area and a library for his books, setting high educational standards, and making financial preparations to send him to college. (p. 76) In a meta-analysis of home environment, Gottfried (1964) concluded that children from relatively higher socioeconomic status families receive an intellectually more advantageous home environment. Consistent with the relationship between SES and home environment was the finding that mothers of higher intelligence, as determined by a test of vocabulary, were able to provide their children with an environment that was more enriched. Caldwell and Bradley (1964), the authors of the HOME, found moderate correlations between maternal and paternal education and several HOME subscales. They found that toys, games and materials, including reading materials, that were incorporated into Ieaming stimulation showed the highest overall correlation with SES measures. The correlation between parental education and Ieaming stimulation was highly significant. Though the number of subject was small, this study support the findings of Gottfried (1964) and Caldwell and Bradley (1964). Father's education and learning stimulation, based on the HOME assessment, were significant factors associated with language development. Mother‘s education was not found to be significant in this study, 8 3 possibly due to the small number of subject. During the home visit with the families of the high scoring and low scoring subject, the researcher found that the HOME did not look at family dynamics of the home in terms of interpersonal relations between the parents. The researcher observed that in some of the homes that were visited, the relationship behveen the parent seemed to be strained for various reasons. Such a disruption in the relationship of the parent could have detrimental effect on their ability to interact with their child. The HOME was not sensitive to this aspect of family dynamics. In conducting future research, an instrument that is capable of assessing family dynamics that impact upon the HOME should be utilized along with the HOME. In this study, the researcher incidentally learned of a recent, serious family crisis in one of the homes of a lower scoring subject. Even though the child scored well on the HOME, she was a low scoring subject on the PPVT-R. The interview, rather than the HOME, was able to determine that the change in the stats of the home environment might be affecting the vocabulary score. The use of the HOME determines the presence or absence of the factors stated in the inventory. It does not, in itelf, ascertain the depth of these factors or how they impact upon one another. In viewing the home environment at the microsystem level, it is equally important, if not more so, to determine how items such as books are used, rather than that they are visible. An instrument that can measure the depth of experiences at the microsystem level can provide much needed additional informafion in a study of the home environment. It should be reiterated that this study investigated vocabulary development which is only one aspect of receptive language development. The judgment of a child's language ability should not be based solely on one aspect, nor should it be based solely on one assessment instrument. To view a child's language development completely, both s4 receptive and expressive abilities should be determined through a variety of measures. We: The findings of the study are presented in this section. Result should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of subject. 1. Three-year-old children in heterogeneous day care displayed similar vocabulary scores to three-year-old children in homogeneous day care. 2. Three-year-old girls in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care displayed similar vocabulary scores to three-year-old boys in homogeneous and heterogeneous day care. 3. The PPVT-R was sensitive enough to distinguish a significant difference in the vocabulary scores of high scoring three-year—olds and low scoring three-year-olds. 4. High scoring three-year-olds identified best friends of similar language ability based on a test of vocabulary development. 5. Low scoring three-year-olds identified best friends of higher language ability based on a test of vocabulary development. 6. Learning stimulation and father's education were significant factors in the home environment that were associated with vocabulary development. W The purpose of this study was to look at microsystem contextual factors that contribute to the vocabulary development of three-year-old children in day care. All of the day care centers in this study were of equal quality (as assessed on the ECERS) and of high quality as defined by Hilliard (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1965). In this study, receptive vocabulary was assessed by the PPVT-R. Vocabulary 8 5 ability of three-year-olds was viewed in the context of day care type, interaction with a best friend, and the home environment. The vocabulary scores of the initial 44 subject did not differ significantly by center type or by gender. In this study, the children received similar language experiences in both homogeneous and heterogeneous centre. They undoubtedly benefitted from the numerous other environment they were exposed to outide the center, but environment other than the homes of the high scoring and low scoring subject were not explored as part of this study. Much additional information was gained by studying the 21 children who achieved the highest and lowest scores on the PPVT-R. Children with the highest vocabulary scores identified best friends with similar vocabulary ability who were significantly older. The children with the lowest scores, however, identified a best friend with higher vocabulary ability of similar age. It could not be determined from this study whether choice of best friend was based on vocabulary ability or other factors. The use of the HOME on assessment of the home environment of 16 subject provided information relative to factors in the home environment that may affect vocabulary development. Learning stimulation and father's education were significant factors associated with vocabulary development. W This study was able to answer questions relative to effect of the day care environment and the home environment on vocabulary development. It did not, however, explore the number and types of other environment t which the subject of the study were exposed. Future research would benefit from a more in-depth look at other contextual factors that affect vocabulary development as well. An ecomap would 8 6 provide a method of determining other environmental settings within the microsystem that may enhance vocabulary development. The only aspect of language development that was assessed was receptive vocabulary. This present only a partial picture of a child's language ability. Both receptive and expressive language skills need to be assessed to develop a oornplete picture of a child‘s level of language ability. The best friend questionnaire was able to determine whom a subject identified as best friend. It was unable to determine why the best friend was identified. Observation of interaction between a subject and best friend may be able to provide insight into the reasons behind the friendship. Such friendships may be based on language mility or numerous other factors. This study suggest a possible relationship between children's vocabulary development and parental intelligence and education, income, and available resources such as toys, books, and other stimulating materials. It appears that parent of higher intelligence and education level are able to secure ample income to provide material resources that stimulate vocabulary development and, subsequently, language development. However, this study did not determine which of these factors is most important in the development of receptive vocabulary. Future research should attempt to delineate the importance of each factor. The HOME was not sensitive to aspect of the interpersonal relationships of the parent or the family dynamics during the home visit. Nor was the HOME able to determine the depth of materials and experiences; rather, it simply determined the presence or absence of materials and experiences. These would appear to be important variables that impact on vocabulary development but were not explored in this study. Future research may need to include instrument in addition to, or as an altematlve to, 6 7 the HOME that would delve into these types of factors more thoroughly. Finally, only the subject were administered the PPVT-R. However, Gottfried (1964) noted that mothers of relatively higher intelligence, as measured by vocabulary, were able to provide a more enriched environment for their children. In ' this study, fater’s education was a significant factor in achieving a high score on te PPVT-R. Although this study assumed intelligence based on level of education, future research may want to corroborate these findings by administration of a test of general intelligence along wit te PPVT-R to te mater and father in addition to the subject. I l' |° l E l' I l! The results of tie study indicate that homogeneous and heterogeneous day care centers of equally high quality provide similar experiences tat enhance receptive vocabulary development in tree-yearold children. High quality centers are toss in which children are well nourished, healty, and safe with adequate space, materials and equipment to provide stimulation for Ieaming. Centers tat have a small adult-child ratio provide more opportunites for children to interact with adult and model their language. Children develop proficient vocabulary skills in a home environment tat provides high levels of Ieaming stimulation through toys that teach color, size, shape, and number; trough access to children's music; and trough access to information available in books, magazines, and newspapers. However, parental educaflon has a positive relationship to Ieaming stimulation as well. Parent who are able to interact wit their children while providing opportunities and materials that stimulate Ieaming will enhance te development of teir children's language. Materials and opportunites cannot enhance language development in and of temeselves; tey are simply to resources around which human communication and language Ieaming take place. APPENDICES APPENDD( A TEST INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX A EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE (ECERS) THELMA HARMS & RICHARD M. CUFFORD SMARYOFITEMSFOREACHSLBSCAIE EerscnaLQaLe Greeting/departing Meals/snacks Nap/rest Diapering/toileting Personal grooming E 'I' [III Furnishings (routine) Furnishings (learning) Furnishings (relaxation) Room arrangement Child related display .WIDQ Understanding language Using language Reasoning Informal language Einslfimlidsmr Fine motor Supervision (Fine motor) Gross motor space Gross motor equipment Gross motor time Supervision (Gross motor) : I' EIi'l' Art Music/movement Blocks Sand/water Dramatic play Schedule (creative) Supervision (creative) SmiaLDmlenmant Space (alone) Free play Group time Cultural awareness Tone Exceptional Provisions AdIIILNaada Adult personal area Adult opportunities Adult meeting area Parent provisions OONO’UIéiQN-A 90 APPEINDIX A PEABODY PICTURE VOCABULARY TEST-REVISED (FORM-L) bus hand bed tractor closet snake boat tire cow lamp drum knee helicopter elbow bandag feather empty fence accident net tearing sail measuring peefing 03? tool square stretching arrow tying nest envelope hook pasfing patting penguin dewing defivefing diving LLOYD M. DUNN & LEOTA M. DUNIN SUVMARY OF TEST ITEMS 4 0 parachute 4 1 fu r ry 4 2 vegetable 4 3 shoulder 4 4 dripping 4 5 claw 4 6 decorated 4 7 frame 4 6 forest 4 9 faucet 5 0 group 5 1 stem 5 2 vase 5 3 pedal 5 4 capsule 5 5 surprised 5 6 bark 5 7 mechanic 5 6 tambourine 5 9 disappointment 6 0 awarding 61 pncher 6 2 reel 6 3 signal 6 4 tru n k 6 5 human 6 6 nostril 6 7 disagreement 6 8 exhausted 6 9 vine 7 0 ceremony 7 1 casserole 7 2 vehicle 7 3 globe 7 4 filing 7 5 clamp 7 6 reptile 7 7 island 7 8 spatula 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 cooperation scalp twig weasel demolishing balcony locket anmd tubular tusk bolt communication carpenter isolation inflated coast adjustable fragile assaulting appliance pyramid blazing hoisting arch lecturing dilapidated contemplating canister dissecting l i n k solemn archery transparent husk utensil citrus pedestrian parallelogram slumbering 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 peninsula upholstery barricade quartet tranquil abrasive fatigued sphefical syringe feline arid exterior constellation cornea mercantile ascending filtration consuming made 137 133 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 91 perpendicular replenishing emission talon wrath incandescent arrogant confiding rhombus naufical tangent inclement trajectory lettered waif jubilant pilfering repose carrion 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 indigent convex emaciated divergence dromedary embellishing entomologist constrain i n fi r m antropoid specter incertitude vitreous obelisk embossed ambulation calyx osculation cupola 175 homunculus 92 APPENDIXA BEST FRIEND QUESTIONNAIRE Name Center Date Respondent: ( )Child ( )Teacher 'I am going to ask you about some of the tings you do here at the center”: 1) WW" YOU play inside. who do you like to play with te best?‘ 2) “When You play outide, who is the best person to play wit?“ 3) 'Who do you think likes to play with you te most?’ 4) 'Who do you like to sit by when you eat?‘ 5) 'Here at te center, who is your best friend?‘ (Note: If the child gives more tan one name, the examiner will ask te child to name just one person and repeat the question.) Teachers: Please complete this form on the above named chlld, based on your observations of his/her behavior over the past year. 9 3 APPENDIX A l-DME INVENTORY FOR FAMIUES OF PRESCHOOLERS (THREE TO SIX) BETTYE M. CALDWELL 81 FDBERT H. BRADLEY Family Name Date Visitor Child's Name Birthdate Age—Sex Caregiver for visit Relationship to child Family composition (Persons living in household, including sex and age of children) Family Language Maternal Paternal Ethnicity Spoken Education Education__ Is Meter Type of work Is Fater Type of Work employed?_____when employed employed?__when employed_ Address Phone Current child care arrangements Summarize past year's arrangements Other persons Caregiver for visit present Summary Percentile Range Subscale Score Lowest Middle Upper Fourt Half Fourth I. LEARNING STIMULATION 0-2 3-9 10-11 II. LANGUAGE STIMULATION 0-4 5-6 7 III. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 0-3 4-6 7 IV. WARMTHANDAFFECTION 0-3 4-5 6-7 V. ACADEMIC STIMULATION 0-2 3—4 5 VI. mm 0-1 2-3 4 - 5 VII. VARIETY IN EXPERIENCE 0-4 5-7 6-9 VI l l. ACCEPTANCE 0 - 2 3 4 TOTALSCORE 0-29 30-45 46-55 94 HOME Inventory (Preschool) Place a plus (1) or minus H In the box alongside each item if the behavior is observed during the visit or if the parent report that the conditions or event are characteristic of te home environment. Enter the subtotals and to total on the front side of the Record Sheet. I. LEARNING STIMULATION III. PHYSICAL ENVImNMENT 1. Child has toys which teach color, size, 19. Building appears safe. slim 2. Child has three or more puzzles. 3. Child has record player and at least WW 4. Child has toys permitting free WI?“- 5. Child has toys or games requiring W 6. Child has toys or games which help W- 7. Child has at least 10 children's Misa- 6. At least 10 books are visible in te mummi- 9. Family buys and reads a daily We 10. Family subscribes to at least one mamma- 11. Child is encouraged to Ieam shapes. Subtotal ll. LANGUAGE STIMULATION 12. Child has toys that help teach te nameuLsnImsIs 13. Child is encouraged to Ieam the ML 14. Parent teaches child simple WWW). 15. Mother uses correct grammar and autoimmu- 16. Parent encourages child to talk and Wists). 20. Outside play environment appears at 21. Interior of apartment not dark or W 22. Neighborhood is estetically alanine 23. House has 100 square feet of W 24. Rooms are not overcrowded with W 25. House is reasonably clean and mlnlmallulunsm. Subtotal IV. WARMTHANDAFFECTION 26. Parent holds child close 10-15 Wm 27. Parent converses with child at .l | l . I . . 'l 28. Parent answers child's questions mummv. 29. Parent usually responds 30. Parent praises child's quali- III | . l . . 'l 31. Parent caresses, kisses, or III II I I . . 'l 32. Parent helps child demonstrate www.m— Subtotal V. ACADEMIC STIMULATION 17. Parent‘s voice conveys positive teelinatsuzhild. 16. Child is permitted choice in W Subtotal 3. Child is encouraged to Ieam 92m 34. Child is encouraged to Ieam W 95 35. Child is encouraged to Ieam sastiaLLelatiensmaL 36. Child is encouraged to Ieam m 37. Child Is encouraged to Ieam to W Stbtotal VI. MODELING 38. Some delay of food gratification W 39. TV is used judiciously. 40. Parent introduces visitor to child- 41. Child can express negative feel- Want 42. Child can hit parent witout hemmed Subtotal VII. VARIETY IN EXPERIENCE 43. Child has real or toy musical lnstmmsnL 44. Child is taken on outing bylamily .mambauflaastmmemmk 45. Child has been on trip more tan 46. Child has been taken to a museum 911W!- 47. Parent encourages child to put MW; 46. Parent uses complex sentence W 49. Child‘s art work Is displayed some mm 50. Child eat at least one meal per W 51. Parent let child choose some Waters.— Subtotal VIII. ACCEPTANCE 52. Parent does not scold or W 53. Parent does not use physical W 54. Parent neither slaps nor W 55. No more tan one instance of Subtotal APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS 9 6 APPENDIX B LETTER TO DAY CARE PROVIDERS March 26, 1991 Dear Day Care Providers, I am a Certified Speech and Language Pathologist and a doctoral student at Michigan State University proposing to do a study of treecyear-olds in day care. I wish to determine how language development is affected by exposure to same-age children versus exposure to older and younger child language models. Participant in te study need to be from homes containing two parents who appear to be of average or higher family income ($30,000 to $35,000 or above). In addition, to children need to be between tree years zero monts and tree years eleven monts of age and have been in your day care for five days per week for a minimum of six monts. The study will be conducted trough June, July and August, 1991. Your participation as a day care provider will involve an initial contact to determine if your center will be able to provide subject who meet the criteria of te study. If subject can be provided and you are willing to participate, your furter involvement will include a brief interview as well as provision of a quiet area to test toss children whose families are interested in participating. Ten families from the same-age group and ten families from te mixed-age group who become a part of the interaction study will be interviewed briefly in their homes at teir convenience. Your interview, to be conducted in your center, will be done at your convenience. It will take no more than one hour. Brief language testing of the children will be conducted in the morning to insure optimal performance. In conducting this study, I will take all necessary precautions to insure your privacy and the privacy of the participating families. For example, all records will be kept in strictest confidence, and no information identifying your center and staff, or te children and their families, will appear wit te result. I will be contacting you witin te next few days to determine if you will be able to participate in my study, or you may contact me if you are interested in participating. I may be reached at 338 E. Garfield Rd., Coldwater, Michigan 49036. My phone number is 517- 279- 7410. Sincerely, Louise M. Snyder, M.A., C.C.C. 9 7 APPENDIX B PARENT LETTER I Louise M. Snyder, C.C.C. Speech Pathologist 336 E. Garfield Rd. Coldwater, Michigan 49036 517-279-7410 June 5, 1991 Dear Parent, I am a doctoral student in te Department of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. You have been referred to me by te day care provider who cares for your child as a possible participant in a research study which I am currently conducting. In tis study, I wish to compare language development of children who are grouped in day care. The findings from tis study may have implications for parent when choosing te appropriate day care to meet te needs of teir child. Your child‘s participation in tie study would involve a brief test of vocabulary development. The vocabulary test simply requires your child to point to te one picture out of four possible on each page tat represent the word given by te examiner. The test would be conducted during the morning at your child's day care center and would be administered during to weeks of July 14 and 21,1991. Your participation in tis study is voluntary and you may discontinue your involvement at any time. In conducting tis study, I will take all necessary precautions to insure your privacy and tat of your child. For example, all records will be kept in strictest confidence, and no names will ever appear wit result. Attached to tie letter, you will find a Parent's Consent Form. If you would be willing to have your child participate in to study, please complete tis form and retum it wit your child to his day care as soon as possible. Sincerely, Louise M. Snyder, M.A. 9 6 APPENDIX B PARENT CONSENT FORMI Parent's Consent Form We hereby freely agree to have our child participate in te study described to us by Louise Snyder. We understand tat te study will take place in June and July, 1991, and involve te administration of a brief vocabulary test to our child while at te day care center. We realize tat we may witdraw from te study witout penalty at any time, and that neiter our names nor that of our child will appear wit te results of te study. Parent's Signature Data We would be interested in receiving a summary of to result of tie study. Yes Please return tis form with your child to to day care center as soon as possible. 9 9 APPENDIX B PARENT LETTER II Louise M. Snyder, C.C.C. Speech Patologist 336 E. Garfield Rd. Coldwater, Michigan 49036 517-279-7410 July 15, 1991 Dear Parent, Thank you for allowing me to test your child's vocabulary development for the purposes of my language study. I enjoyed working wit your child very much, and I appreciate your cooperation with my research. Additional infennation concerning your child‘s language development will enhance the value of my study and may be gained trough a brief home interview arranged at your convenience. The home interview should take no more tan one hour and can be arranged to best meet your needs, including late afternoons, evenings, or weekends. Your involvement in this last part of te study would be greatly appreciated. Your participation is voluntary and you may discontinue your involvement at any time. In conducting tis study, I will take all necessary precautions to insure your privacy and tat of your child. All records will be kept in strictest confidence, and no names will ever appear with results. Attached to tie letter, you will find a Parent’s Consent Form. If you would be willing to participate in tis second part of te study, please complete tis form and retum it with your child to his day care center as soon as posslble. If you will include your phone number, I will call you to schedule a convenient time for to home interview. Sincerely, Louise M. Snyder, M.A. 100 APPENDIX B PARENTCONSENTFORMII Parent's Consent Form We hereby freely agree to become a part of te home interview phase of te study being conducted by Louise Snyder. We understand tat te interview should require no more tan one hour of our time. We understand tat te interview will be arranged at a time tat is convenient wit our schedule. We understand tat to interview will be conducted in August or September, 1991. We realize tat we may witdraw from to study witout penalty at any time, and tat neiter our names nor tat of our child will appear with te result of te study. Child's Name Parent‘s Signature Phone Number Date Yes, We would like to participate. No, We would not like to participate. Please retum tis form marked 'Yes' or 'No' as soon as possible. That way I will know if you and your child will be participating, or if you choose not to participate. I have enclosed a stamped envelope for your convenience. APPENDD( C DAY CARE CENTER NFORMATICXN 101 APPENDIX C DAYCARECENTER OMAR-"CS Class Attend- Teacher- % of Accred- Age Infant Toddler Drop-in Size ance Student tlme itation' Range/ Program Program Program FIV Ratio Mixed YIN Class- YIN YIN YIN Ages (months) Homo- 20 V 1I10 10% N 36-46 Y Y N geneous 12 F 1/6 10% Y 36-48 Y Y N Centers 12 F 1 I4 20% N 28-36 Y Y N 39-50 Hetero- 15 V 1 I7 100% Y 30-60 Y Y N geneous 22 V 1 I7 100% Y 30-60 N Y N Centers 22 V 1 I7 100% N 30-60 N Y N 20 V 1 I6 100% Y 30-66 Y Y IN 30 V 1/10 100% N 30-72 N N Y Homogeneous Centers n s 3 Heterogeneous Centers n a 5 Attendance: v a varying schedules allowed F a full time attendance/5 days per week 'Accreditation is wit the National Association for te Education of Young Children (NAEYC) 102 APPENDIXC TYPICAL DAILY SCHEDULE FOR DAY CARE CENTERS' 7:00 - 9:00 Arrival and Free Play 9:00 - 9:30 Breakfast 9:30 - 11:00 Group Time (large, small, art, motor) 11:00 - 12:00 Outdoor Play 12:00 - 12:30 Lunch 12:30 - 2:30 Rest/Quiet Activities 2:30 - 3:00 Group Time 3:00 - 3:30 Snack 3:30 - 5:00 Outdoor Play/Free Play 5:00 -5:30 Story/Group 5:30-6:00 Departure and Free Play ' This schedule represent a composite of to daily schedules for all centers involved in tis study. The times may vary slightly by center, but to sequence of activities is basically the same. BIBIJOGRAPHY BlBUOGRAPI-IY Ames. L. a 119. F. (1976). W New Yorlc Dell. Ashburn, S, Schuster, C., Grimm, W. & Goff, S. (1966). Language development during childhood. In C. Schuster& S. Ashburn (Eds.), W W (2nd ed) :Litfle. Brown and Germany Bates, E. (1975). Peer relations and to acquisition of language. In M. Lewis 6 L. Rosenblum, (Eds.), WWW (pp. 259—292). New York: Wiley. Belsky, J, Steinberg, L. & Walker, A. (1962). The ecology of day care. In Lamb, M. (Ed.) I m I : 2, - - a , . : Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Block, J. (1976). Debatble conclusions about sex differences. W mil (8). 517-522. Brent, E. (1966). W. Columbia, MO: The Idea Works, Inc. Bricker, D. 6 Carlson, L. (1961). Issues in early language intervention. In R. Schiefelbusch & D Bricker (Eds.) WWII: (pp. 479-515). Baltimore. University Park Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). - - : — magma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1966). Recent advances in research on to ecology of human development. In R. Silbereisen, K. Eyfert, 6 G. Rud'nger (Eds). W W (pp. 287-309). Berlin: Springer-Veflag. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems teory. AW 1, 187-249. Caldwell B & Bradley. 6 (1984) W W (rev. ed.). Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas. Caldwell, B. 6 Hilliard, A. (1985). MW? Washington DC: National Association for to Education of Young Children. 103 104 Cazden, C. (1961). Language development and te preschool environment. In C. Cazden (Ed-.i Weston (pp 3-15) Washington DC: National Association for to Education of Young Children. Clarke-Stewart, K. (1973). Interactions between moters and teir young children. characteristics and consequences. . . . - - flaualgnmanl, 36, (6-7, Serial No. 153). ' Clarke-Stewart, K. (1967). Predicting child development from child care forms and features: The Chicago study. In D. Phillips (Ed. ), Wm maaaanalLua (pp. 21-41). Washington DC: National Association for te Education of Young Children. Clausen, J. (1966). Family structure, socialization, and personality. In L. Hoffman 6 M Hellman (Ede) W (on 1-54) New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Craig, H. (1991). WWW. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Wis. 787-81 1 . Dunn. L. a Dunn. L (1981). Weed. Circle Pine. MN: American Guidance Service. Ervin-Tripp. S. (1966). Language development. In L. Hoffman 6 M. Hoffman (Eds.), W1 (pp 55-106) New York- Russell Sage Foundation. Fitzgerald, H. Strommen, E., 6 McKinney, J. (1962). W W (rev ed) Homewood ll: Dorsey Freeberg, N. 6 Payne, D. (1967). Dimensions of parental practice concerned wit cognitive development in te preschool child. Wm 245-261. Freedman, P. (1962). A comparison of multi-age and homogeneous age grouping in early childhood centers. In I- Kalz (Ed-.l WWW Mun. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Friedlander, 8., Jacobs, A., Davis, B. 6 Wettone, H. (1972). Time-sampling analysis of infant‘ natural language environment in te home. W13, 730- 740. Gallagher, T. (1991). Language and social skills: Implications for assessment and intervention wit school-age children. In T. Gallagher (Ed.), ELagjnaM WW (pp. 11-41). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc. 105 Garai, J. 6 Scheinfeld, A. (1966). Sex differences in mental and behavioral traits. W71. 169-299. Gard. A.. Gilman. L 6 Gormen.J. (1980). Walnuts. Salt Lake City, Utah: Word Making Productions. Gelman, R. 6 Shat, M. (1977). Appropriate speech adjustment: The operation of conversational constraint on talk to two-year-olds. In M. Lewis 6 L. Rosenblum (Eds.), 1 z z - c — - z - z : (pp. 27-62). New York: Wiley. Gottfried, A. (1964). Home environment and early cognitive development: Integration, meta-analysis, and conclusions. In A. Gottfried (Ed.), Hgmunximnmanumny W (on 329-342) San Dieoot Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Harms. T. 6 Clifford. B. (1980). WWW. New York: Teachers College Press. Horowit, F. (1962). The first two years of life: factors related to triving. In S. Moore & C Cooper (Ede) WW (pp 15- 34). Washington, DC: National Association for to Education of Young Children. Howes, C. 6 Rubenstein, J. (1965). Determinant of toddlers' experience In day care: - Age of entry and quality of setting. W14, 140-151. Kat, L., Evangelou, D. 6 Hartman, J. (1990). W. Washington, DC: National Association for te Education of Young Children. Kostelnik, M., Stein, L., Whiren, A., 6 Soderman, A. (1966). W daualgnmanl. Cincinnati, OH: Sout-westem Publishing Co. Lewis, M. 6 Cherry, L. (1977). Social behavior and language acquisition. In M. Lewis 6L.Rosenblum(Eds.),1:: . . .. . . = -- (pp. 227-246). New York: Wlley. Lynn. D. (1974)- WWW Monterev. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Maccoby, E. 6 Jacklin, C. (1974). Willem. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. McCarty, D. (1953). Some possible explanations of sex differences in language de- velopment and disorders. WW3; 155-160. McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children's language development W29. 244-260. 106 Morris, D. (1966). WWW. London: Taylor 6 Francis. Oden, S. (1962). Peer relationship development in childhood. In L. Kat (Ed.,) WWW (pp 87-117) New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp. Olsen-Fulero, L. (1962). Style and stability in moter conversational behavior: A study of individual differences. WW 9. 543-564. Pepler, D., Corter, C., 6 Abramovitch, R. (1962). Social relations among children: Comparison of sibling and peer interaction. In K. Rubin and H. Ross (Eds. ), Egg: relationshieLanmeLekllmhildhmd (pp 209-227) New York: Springer-Verlag. Phillips. 0. (1987)- WM (preface)- Washington, DC: National Association for to Education of Young Children. Phillips D. 6 Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality child care: Review of research. ln 0 Phillipe (Ed) MW (pp 1- 20). Washington DC: National Association for to Education of Young Children. Reppucci, N. (1971). Parental education, sex differences, and performance on cognitive tasks among two-year-old children. WA. 246- 253. Ruopp, R. ,Travers, J. Giant, F. 6Coelen, C. (1979). Wm; We Cambridge. MA: Abt Associates. Inc Schachter, F., Shore, E., Hodapp, R., Chalfin, S. 6 Bundy, C. (1978). Do girls talk earlier?: Mean length of utterance in toddlers. DaualggmantaLEaughglggy, 1:1. 366-392. Snow, C. (1989). lnlantjayglgnmanl. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Tennant, J. McNaughton, S. 6 Glynn, T. (1966). Increasing children's language in day care through caregiver conversations WW3; 39- 51. Wells, G. (1982). Influences of te home on language development. In A. Davies (Ed.,) WW (pp ISO-163) London: Heinemann Educational Books. figler. E. 8- Finn-Stevenson. M. (1987). WWW Lexington, MA: 0. C. Heat and Company. "Illlllllllllllllllllllls