12
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Early Childhood Research Quarterly Preschool teachers’ classroom behavioral socialization practices and low-income children’s self-regulation skills Jessica L. Degol , Heather J. Bachman University of Pittsburgh, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 10 December 2011 Received in revised form 22 December 2014 Accepted 5 January 2015 Available online 15 January 2015 Keywords: Self-regulation Low-income Socialization Preschool Teacher practices a b s t r a c t The present study examined associations between teachers’ classroom behavioral socialization practices and the development of preschoolers’ self-regulation skills throughout the year, as well as the moderating roles of child gender and initial self-regulation skills. The predominantly low-income sample consisted of 216 children from 68 preschool classrooms within 29 private child care centers. Findings suggest that teachers devoted very little time to whole-group classroom behavioral socialization practices. Hierarchi- cal linear models revealed that classroom behavioral socialization time negatively predicted both spring self-regulation scores (lagged dependent variable models) and change in children’s self-regulation scores from fall to spring (change score models). These patterns remained even after controlling for a variety of child, family, teacher, and classroom characteristics. Cross-level interactions indicated that the negative association between behavioral socialization time and change in self-regulation was stronger for girls than for boys. Preschoolers’ initial self-regulation in the fall did not moderate the association between behavioral socialization time and self-regulation in either model. Implications for practice are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction Accumulating research has demonstrated that self-regulation, or the ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, is critical to understanding individual differences in children’s school readi- ness skills (Blair, 2002). Difficulties with self-regulation place many children at a disadvantage early in life. Children in preschool and elementary school who have more difficulty regulating their emotions and behaviors are more likely to display lower aca- demic achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007; Dobbs, Doctoroff, Fisher, & Arnold, 2006; McClelland et al., 2007; Miles & Stipek, 2006; Normandeau & Guay, 1998; Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews, & Morrison, 2009) and lower social functioning (Olson, Sameroff, Kerr, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005; Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Valiente et al., 2004). The preschool years are a crucial time period for the development of self-regulation (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Murphy, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, & Guthrie, 1999), and increasingly, researchers have stressed the importance of teachers promoting or socializing the self-regulatory skills that preschoolers Corresponding author at: University of Pittsburgh, School of Education, Depart- ment of Psychology in Education, 5931 Posvar Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States. Tel.: +1 412 648 6308; fax: +1 412 624 7231. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Degol). will need to successfully transition into school (Denham, Bassett, & Wyatt, 2007; McClelland & Morrison, 2003). These socialization practices are particularly relevant in the preschool years, dur- ing which major advances in the development of areas of the brain responsible for self-regulation occur (Blair, 2002). Unfortu- nately, research on teachers’ naturalistic behavioral socialization attempts to improve children’s self-regulation skills, delivered at the classroom-level within formal preschool settings, is currently lacking from the developmental literature. There is little known about how often they employ these large-group socialization practices, and how these practices are related to children’s devel- opment in self-regulation. In addition, there is little information regarding the importance of child characteristics in moderating the association between classroom behavioral socialization time and self-regulation. The current study focuses on teachers’ classroom behavioral socialization practices, which involve discussions, activities, or lessons about behavioral knowledge and regulation that are dis- seminated on a class-wide or universal scale, rather than dyadic interactions between teachers and individual students. Behavioral socialization, therefore, includes attempts to prevent and redi- rect misbehavior, such as going over classroom rules, reading stories about appropriate social behavior, or reminding children of the consequences for misbehaving. In recent years, there has been increased attention on how the types and frequencies of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.002 0885-2006/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Preeschool teachers

Citation preview

Page 1: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

Pl

JU

a

ARR2AA

KSLSPT

I

ouncaed&NMKet2ip

mS

h0

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

reschool teachers’ classroom behavioral socialization practices andow-income children’s self-regulation skills

essica L. Degol ∗, Heather J. Bachmanniversity of Pittsburgh, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 10 December 2011eceived in revised form2 December 2014ccepted 5 January 2015vailable online 15 January 2015

eywords:elf-regulation

a b s t r a c t

The present study examined associations between teachers’ classroom behavioral socialization practicesand the development of preschoolers’ self-regulation skills throughout the year, as well as the moderatingroles of child gender and initial self-regulation skills. The predominantly low-income sample consistedof 216 children from 68 preschool classrooms within 29 private child care centers. Findings suggest thatteachers devoted very little time to whole-group classroom behavioral socialization practices. Hierarchi-cal linear models revealed that classroom behavioral socialization time negatively predicted both springself-regulation scores (lagged dependent variable models) and change in children’s self-regulation scoresfrom fall to spring (change score models). These patterns remained even after controlling for a variety of

ow-incomeocializationreschooleacher practices

child, family, teacher, and classroom characteristics. Cross-level interactions indicated that the negativeassociation between behavioral socialization time and change in self-regulation was stronger for girlsthan for boys. Preschoolers’ initial self-regulation in the fall did not moderate the association betweenbehavioral socialization time and self-regulation in either model. Implications for practice are discussed.

ntroduction

Accumulating research has demonstrated that self-regulation,r the ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, is critical tonderstanding individual differences in children’s school readi-ess skills (Blair, 2002). Difficulties with self-regulation place manyhildren at a disadvantage early in life. Children in preschoolnd elementary school who have more difficulty regulating theirmotions and behaviors are more likely to display lower aca-emic achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007; Dobbs, Doctoroff, Fisher,

Arnold, 2006; McClelland et al., 2007; Miles & Stipek, 2006;ormandeau & Guay, 1998; Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews, &orrison, 2009) and lower social functioning (Olson, Sameroff,

err, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005; Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Valientet al., 2004). The preschool years are a crucial time period forhe development of self-regulation (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan,

000; Murphy, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, & Guthrie, 1999), and

ncreasingly, researchers have stressed the importance of teachersromoting or socializing the self-regulatory skills that preschoolers

∗ Corresponding author at: University of Pittsburgh, School of Education, Depart-ent of Psychology in Education, 5931 Posvar Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United

tates. Tel.: +1 412 648 6308; fax: +1 412 624 7231.E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Degol).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.002885-2006/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

will need to successfully transition into school (Denham, Bassett,& Wyatt, 2007; McClelland & Morrison, 2003). These socializationpractices are particularly relevant in the preschool years, dur-ing which major advances in the development of areas of thebrain responsible for self-regulation occur (Blair, 2002). Unfortu-nately, research on teachers’ naturalistic behavioral socializationattempts to improve children’s self-regulation skills, delivered atthe classroom-level within formal preschool settings, is currentlylacking from the developmental literature. There is little knownabout how often they employ these large-group socializationpractices, and how these practices are related to children’s devel-opment in self-regulation. In addition, there is little informationregarding the importance of child characteristics in moderating theassociation between classroom behavioral socialization time andself-regulation.

The current study focuses on teachers’ classroom behavioralsocialization practices, which involve discussions, activities, orlessons about behavioral knowledge and regulation that are dis-seminated on a class-wide or universal scale, rather than dyadicinteractions between teachers and individual students. Behavioralsocialization, therefore, includes attempts to prevent and redi-

rect misbehavior, such as going over classroom rules, readingstories about appropriate social behavior, or reminding childrenof the consequences for misbehaving. In recent years, there hasbeen increased attention on how the types and frequencies of
Page 2: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

9 ood R

iaDK&Htss1ebtotaiscaa

T

mtaKegtretNhc&ua2pg&ua

i((BmSicamci(bcms

0 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

nstructional exposure are related to children’s literacy and mathchievement in preschool and early elementary school (Bachman,egol, Scharphorn, El Nokali, & Palmer, 2013; Connor, Morrison, &atch, 2004; Connor, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004; Connor, Morrison,

Slominski, 2006; Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, &edges, 2006). Cognitive theory and empirical evidence suggest

hat greater time devoted to activities that explicitly target a givenkill (e.g., emergent literacy) is beneficial, particularly for at-risktudents (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta,998; Morrison, Bachman, & Connor, 2005). The current studyxtended this line of inquiry to behavioral socialization practicesy examining the amount of time preschool teachers devotedo behavioral socialization strategies targeting the improvementr management of children’s self-regulation. More specifically,he present study conducted a naturalistic examination of themount of time teachers allocated to socializing efforts within low-ncome preschool classrooms. We sought to identify how timepent in these behavioral socializing practices were associated withhildren’s development in self-regulation skills, and whether thessociation was moderated by important child characteristics, suchs child gender and initial self-regulation skill level.

he importance of self-regulation skills

In the wake of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), accountabilityandates and high-stakes standardized testing have contributed

o the increasingly academically-oriented focus of kindergartennd preschool classrooms throughout the United States (Kagan &auerz, 2007; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2005). The increasedmphasis on academics in early childhood education (ECE) pro-rams may place greater demands on young children to regulateheir behaviors, emotions, and impulses. Without these self-egulation skills, preschoolers have an increased likelihood ofxperiencing difficulty adapting to the rules and routines of aypical kindergarten classroom (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm,athanson, & Brock, 2009). Moreover, poor emotion regulation andigh impulsivity in early childhood have predicted later antiso-ial and criminal behaviors (Caspi, 2000; Farrington, 2005; Frick

Morris, 2004; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994), as well asnemployment, interpersonal relationship quality, and substancebuse in middle childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood (Caspi,000; Tarter et al., 1999). Although concerns have been raised aboutossible neglect of social or emotional functioning in ECE pro-rams in this climate of growing academic accountability (Neuman

Roskos, 2005; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2003), it remainsnclear how frequently teachers are explicitly targeting these skillst the classroom-level in preschool settings.

The importance of cultivating self-regulation skills earlyn a child’s life is best articulated through bioecologicalBronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) and sociocultural theoriesJohn-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) of development.ioecological theory posits that children are embedded withinultiple contexts that interact to shape development over time.

ome of these systems are more proximal (microsystems), includ-ng the experiences that children have within their homes andlassrooms, while others are more distal (macrosystems), suchs the larger cultural context, social norms and policies. Theost powerful developmental influences are the proximal pro-

esses located within the microsystems, which consist of the dailynteractions that children encounter with important individualse.g., teachers, parents, siblings, and peers). Therefore, classroom

ehavioral socialization practices that target the improvement ofhildren’s behaviors should influence children’s social develop-ent. Similarly, sociocultural theory points to the importance of

ocial interactions embedded within cultural contexts that shape

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

children’s developmental skills and competencies. The kinder-garten classroom is a relatively novel context for many children,and some enter school with fewer behavioral “tools” to rely uponwhen adjusting to this new environment. Children with poor self-regulatory skills will need greater assistance from their teachersbefore they can move into a higher level of mastery and effec-tively regulate on their own. Without the opportunity to experiencea preschool classroom environment in which the teacher spendstime acclimating children to the rules, routines, and behavioralexpectations of the classroom (e.g., waiting your turn, raising yourhand, participating in structured activities, etc.), many children willexperience difficulty regulating their behaviors both throughoutpreschool and at the transition to kindergarten. Group behavioralsocialization within the classroom environment is, therefore, cen-tral to the successful development of self-regulation among youngchildren.

Teachers’ intentional provision of classroom behavioral social-ization activities or discussions is especially relevant for preschool-ers from socioeconomically disadvantaged households. Childrenfrom low-income families tend to score lower on observationalassessments and adult reports of self-regulation (Raver, 2004), havehigher rates of behavioral problems (Qi & Kaiser, 2003), loweroverall socioemotional functioning (McLoyd, 1998), and greater dif-ficulty adjusting to school (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000).Growing neurocognitive and biophysiological research has demon-strated that low-income children’s exposure to chronic ecologicalstressors (e.g., trauma, familial separation, parental depression,harsh or punitive parenting) activates stress hormones which affectneural activity in children’s developing brains, particularly the pre-frontal cortex (Blair & Raver, 2012; Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005;Yoshikawa, Aber, & Beardslee, 2012). The elevated cortisol levels(Blair et al., 2011) and allostatic load (Evans & Schamberg, 2009)associated with chronic stress are detrimental for working mem-ory (Evans & Schamberg, 2009) executive functioning, and emotionregulation (Blair et al., 2011; Blair & Raver, 2012).

In addition, significant numbers of low-income children attendpreschool programs prior to kindergarten entry. According to theU.S. Department of Education & National Center for EducationStatistics (2011), in 2007 approximately 60% of children aged3–6, not yet enrolled in kindergarten, attended some type ofcenter-based child care arrangement (e.g., day care, Head Start,prekindergarten, nursery school), with over 40% of children fromlow-income households attending some center-based care. Thus,early childhood educators are in a prime position to prepare low-income children for the transition to kindergarten and the socialdemands of elementary school. To date, however, little empiricaldata are available to elucidate how often teachers employ thesegroup behavioral socialization strategies, and how the frequencyof these practices are linked to children’s self-regulation skills.

Classroom behavioral socialization

Historically, past socialization research focused heavily onparent–child socialization practices (Maccoby, 1992). However, agrowing body of research has emerged emphasizing the impor-tance of dyadic teacher–student interactive processes, such asemotional support or relationship quality, on children’s socialand behavioral skills (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001;Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Howes, 2000; Pianta, LaParo, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).Much of the research linking teacher socialization practices to

social skills and behavior problems has focused on the effec-tiveness of classroom socioemotional curricula or interventions(Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999; Domitrovich,Cortes, & Greenberg, 2007; Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003;
Page 3: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

ood R

WS(tceiO&vhwtp

stcwMrcgtousbomt

cmrstpmisclLGodFamoc&csrrtbc

E

t

J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

ebster-Stratton & Reid, 2004; Webster-Stratton, Reid, &toolmiller, 2008) and teacher–student relationship qualityHamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Interven-ion research has demonstrated that programs using universallassroom-level approaches to target children’s behaviors gen-rate a wide range of positive outcomes for children, includingmprovements in socio-emotional development (Borman, Hewes,verman, & Brown, 2003; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor,

Schellinger, 2011). Although classroom- or school-level inter-entions and dyadic interactions between teachers and studentsave been strongly linked to behavioral development, much lessork has examined naturalistic classroom-level processes, such as

he quantity or dosage of behavioral socialization in low-incomereschool classrooms.

Although providing children opportunities to learn and practicekills is vital to skill acquisition, it is plausible that opportuni-ies for discussing behavioral regulation skills at a classroom-levelould operate in several ways. The consistency and repetitionith which teachers discuss and reinforce classroom rules (Arnold,cWilliams, & Arnold, 1998), reinforce desired behaviors, and redi-

ect misbehavior (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009), should promotehildren’s internalization of these classroom expectations, andradual improvements in behavioral regulation with less need foreacher intervention over time (Lepper, 1983). In addition, researchn classroom management practices has stressed the importance ofsing preventative or proactive strategies for reducing undesirabletudent behaviors over time (Emmer & Stough, 2001). Successfulehavioral socialization strategies (such as effective managementf classroom activities and effective prevention and redirection ofisbehavior) have been associated with greater behavioral regula-

ion within kindergarten classrooms (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009).However, it is worth noting that despite the intention to improve

hildren’s behaviors, teachers’ behavioral socialization strategiesay not always provide positive experiences for children. Although

elatively under-researched in comparison to positive teacherocialization, greater exposure to negative behavioral socializa-ion strategies may lead to poorer self-regulation skills. Preschoolrograms vary in educational requirements for their teachers, andany may lack the tools or training to effectively address behav-

or problems within their classrooms (Barnett, 2003a). The currenttudy observed classroom processes within privately owned childare centers, which is the most common preschool setting forow-income children (Dowsett, Huston, Imes, & Gennetian, 2008;i-Grining & Coley, 2006; Magnuson & Shager, 2010; Zhai, Brooks-unn, & Waldfogel, 2011). Teachers in these private settings areften confronted with little training, sizable numbers of chil-ren with behavioral problems, and low pay (Barnett, Carolan,itzgerald, & Squires, 2012). These stressful work experiences aressociated with high teacher turnover (Barnett et al., 2012), anday also relate to teacher burnout and less effective methods

f addressing children’s misbehavior (e.g., negative, reactive, oroercive) (Barnett, 2003b; Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Evers, Tomic,

Brouwers, 2004). Therefore, there is a strong possibility thatlassroom behavioral socialization time in these private preschoolettings might be negative and associated with declines in self-egulation (Raver et al., 2008). The current study extends pastesearch by examining the time that teachers devote to explicitlyarget self-regulation skills within their classrooms, and whetherehavioral socialization time is positively or negatively related tohildren’s self-regulation development.

xamining child environment interactions

There is a long history in developmental psychology of inves-igating person x environment interactions (Coie et al., 1993;

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 91

Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Ladd, 2003), and recognizingthat environmental influences on development may not be uni-formly experienced across individuals. Thus, the current studyalso considers important child characteristics that may moder-ate the association between classroom behavioral socializationtime and preschoolers’ self-regulation: initial self-regulation skillsand gender. Studies examining interactions between children’sinitial skill levels and the frequency of teacher practices are com-mon in early math and reading studies (Bachman et al., 2013;Cameron, Connor, & Morrison, 2005; Connor, Morrison, & Katch,2004; Connor, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004), but less explored amongstudies of preschoolers’ self-regulation and teachers’ behavioralsocialization practices. Classroom-level exposure to behavioralsocialization may matter more for children who have greater diffi-culty regulating behaviors and emotions. Young children with poorself-regulation, for example, will have more difficulty adapting tothe classroom (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009) and cultivating positiverelationships with teachers (Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009) andpeers (Eisenberg, Vaughan, & Hofer, 2009). Frequent reminders ofbehavioral expectations, classroom rules, and routines, deliveredin a positive and proactive manner, should aid poorly regulatedchildren in their adjustment to the classroom and promote greaterimprovement in behaviors over time. If these socialization prac-tices are negative and reactive, however, we may observe greaterdeclines in self-regulation over time, which may be more pro-nounced for preschoolers with lower self-regulation at the startof the year.

In past studies on classroom climate or quality, child gender hasoften moderated the associations between classroom processes andchild outcomes. Some research shows that boys’ behavior problemsand achievement were more strongly linked to variations in class-room quality, with boys more often experiencing more adverseoutcomes than girls when quality was low (Crockenberg, 2003;Ponitz, Rimm-Kaufman, Brock, & Nathanson, 2009; Votruba-Drzal,Coley, & Chase-Lansdale, 2004). Bioecological and socioculturaltheories (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; John-Steiner & Mahn,1996; Vygotsky, 1978) would suggest that males are more sus-ceptible to variations in classroom quality given that, beginningin early childhood, boys display markedly higher amounts of prob-lem behaviors than girls (Keenan & Shaw, 1997, 2003). Additionally,teachers often give more attention to boys than to girls, whichis often negative attention in response to behavioral disruptionsin the classroom (Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2006; Swinson &Harrop, 2009).

Research questions

The goals of the study were to examine the associationbetween the quantity of classroom behavioral socialization inchild care centers and preschoolers’ self-regulation. Based onpast literature, greater frequencies in behavioral classroom social-ization could either be positively or negatively associated withchildren’s self-regulation. The association between classroombehavioral socialization time and self-regulation was also expectedto depend upon child characteristics, particularly initial levels ofself-regulation in the fall and child gender. We anticipated thatthe association would be stronger for children with lower initialself-regulation and for boys.

Method

Participants

Child care centers were recruited from low-income neighbor-hoods within a mid-Atlantic U.S. city. Neighborhoods with higher

Page 4: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

9 ood R

pgsosawwbcspsiswaohatg

M

B

ivCERwwiuvcotfdrctcdhio

cobtbaiafstftt

2 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

overty rates, according to Census 2000 data, were oversampled touarantee a larger proportion of low-income children in the studyample. Child care centers were recruited if they contained at leastne preschool classroom with four year-old children. The originalample consisted of 30 private child care centers from which childnd parent participants, preschool teachers, and center directorsere recruited. A total of three cohorts of 4–5 year-old childrenere recruited for the study from fall 2007 to spring 2010. The com-

ined sample consisted of 289 children nested within 74 preschoollassrooms from within the 30 child care centers. The aggregatedample also consisted of 52 preschool teachers, with 35% of teachersarticipating in the study for more than one year. The centers repre-ent the range of private options available to low-income families,ncluding programs provided in church basements, store fronts intrip malls, and floors of high-rise office buildings. Some classroomsere self-contained, but many programs often used bookshelves

nd rugs to create areas for different age groups in the absencef enclosed or walled-off classrooms. These open floor plans pro-ibited our videotaping of these fluid classroom “areas”, wheredults and children from other areas would traverse throughouthe morning, and the combined noise level across these areas couldet high.

easures and procedures

ehavioral socializationClassroom observations were conducted for 2.5 h (150 min) dur-

ng the fall, winter, and spring of the preschool year using a modifiedersion of the frequency checklist in the Observational Record of thearegiving Environment (ORCE) developed for the NICHD Study ofarly Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD Early Child Careesearch Network, 1998, 2000). In the ORCE list of activities, codersere only able to note if the teacher had taught a “social rule,”hich included a broad range of socioemotional content (e.g., shar-

ng, not hitting, using your words, showing sympathy or empathy,sing manners, taking turns, etc.). After conducting pilot obser-ations, the general social rule category was separated into fourategories, interpersonal, behavioral, emotional, and discipline, inrder to capture the variety of classroom socialization practices thateachers were demonstrating during these observations. However,or the purposes of this study, only the behavioral socializationimension was examined because it was more strongly theo-etically linked to self-regulation, and because frequencies wereonsiderably lower on the other three dimensions. In addition, inhe NICHD SECCYD, there was typically only one study child perlassroom, which enabled observers to code both teacher–childyads and child-level behaviors. In contrast, the current studyad significant classroom nesting, resulting in a focus on teacher

nteractions with large groups of children during live classroombservations.

Behavioral socialization was coded when the teacher corrected,ommented on, or discussed children’s behavior during large-r whole-group activities, such as addressing poor attention orehavior during a task, reminding children of classroom rules, orhreatening children with a punishment if they continued to mis-ehave. The behavioral socialization code includes both positivend negative behaviors. Examples of positive or proactive social-zation are providing daily reminders of classroom rules or reading

story during circle time about how to manage behaviors duringrustrating social interactions. An example of a negative or reactiveocialization is threatening to take away recess if the class con-

inues to disobey the rules. Reliably capturing both the type andrequency of activities, including multiple dimensions of socializa-ion (interpersonal, behavioral, emotional, and discipline), duringhe live observations was the main purpose of the coding scheme.

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

Therefore, qualitative ratings of the valence of teacher behaviorsare not available.

Observations were conducted on a different day of the weekto allow for changes in daily routines, and all observations wereconducted in the morning (9–11:30 am) since significant amountsof the afternoon were devoted to naptime and free play. Usinga time-sampling method, trained observers coded classroompractices using 30-second observe, 30-second record cycles.Approximately 17–20% of classroom observations were double-coded each year in order to calculate inter-rater reliability.Inter-rater agreement was over 90% and the median kappa scorefor the four socialization codes across three time points and threeyears was 0.87 (values ranged from 0.60 to 1.0). Behavioral social-ization minutes were totaled and averaged across fall and winterobservations with a higher composite reflecting greater frequencyof classroom behavioral socialization time.

Self-regulation skillsChildren’s self-regulation was assessed in the fall and spring

using an adapted version of a snack delay task (Kochanska, Murray,Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996), which has been used in otherstudies of low-income, preschool-aged children (Li-Grining, 2007).Children were videotaped completing the self-regulation tasks in aquiet area at the child care centers. The snack delay task consistedof six trials (10 s, 10 s, 40 s, 20 s, 90 s, and 30 s) during which chil-dren were required to wait to eat a snack until the examiner ranga bell. Children were asked to keep their hands flat on the tableuntil the examiner rang the bell, after which they could then eatthe snack. Timing began immediately after the snack was placedon the table in front of the children’s hands. Halfway through eachtrial the examiner lifted the bell from the table. The trial ended assoon as the examiner rang the bell, or if the child ate the snackbefore the designated time.

For each trial, children received a behavior score adapted fromprocedures created and used by Li-Grining (2007) with low-incomechildren in the Three-City Study. The behavior codes ranged fromzero to eight, with higher scores reflecting greater self-regulationduring each trial. Children received the lowest scores if they ate thesnack before the trial ended and received the highest score if theywaited to eat the snack until after the tester rang the bell. Childrenwho waited the full length of the trial to eat the snack receivedlower scores if they demonstrated any of the following behaviorsthroughout the trial: touched the snack, bell, or examiner; triedto coax the examiner to ring the bell; and/or moved their hands.Trained coders reviewed the videotapes, with 17–30% of the videosbeing coded by two to four coders in order to calculate inter-raterreliability. Intra-class correlations calculated for the fall and springself-regulation trials were relatively high across the three years,ranging from 0.78 to 0.99. A self-regulation composite was cre-ated for the fall and spring assessments by calculating the averagebehavior score across all six trials.

CovariatesIt is important to note the threats posed by omitted variable

and selection biases in correlational research on preschool prac-tices since parents select these child care environments for theirchildren (Duncan, Magnuson, & Ludwig, 2004; NICHD Early ChildCare Research Network & Duncan, 2003). These concerns wereaddressed by controlling for a range of child, family, teacher, and

classroom characteristics which have been shown to relate toteacher practices or young children’s social development (Moller,Forbes-Jones, & Hightower, 2008; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, &Thornburg, 2009).
Page 5: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

ood R

T

ttoTttnclcpalc

C

oiad1mPi(cnohwohd

ccbo

A

oppwdcopoitrd

famdwmv

J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

eacher and classroom characteristicsIn the fall, teachers were asked to complete questionnaires con-

aining relevant demographic and background information abouthemselves and their classrooms. Teachers reported on their yearsf work experience in child care settings (converted into months).eachers also reported on the distribution of ages (in years) withinheir classrooms. From these data, the proportion of children inhe class four years of age or older was calculated by dividing theumber of four or five year-old children by the total number ofhildren in the classroom. Higher values on this variable indicate aarger proportion of four year-old children in the classroom. Tea-hers also reported on the average number of adults and childrenresent within their classrooms, which was used to calculate theverage child/adult ratio for each classroom. Higher values indicatearger numbers of children relative to the number of adults in thelassroom.

hild and family characteristicsParents completed questionnaires in the fall, and the majority

f interviews (87%) were completed by telephone, with approx-mately 13% of parents completing the questionnaires at homend returning them to the center. Parents reported on child gen-er (0 = female, 1 = male) and child race/ethnicity (0 = White/other,

= African American). Child age (in months) at the fall assess-ent was also calculated from birthdates provided by parents.

arents reported on their partnership status (0 = cohabiting, dat-ng/relationship, or married; 1 = single), and educational attainment0 = no degree, high school diploma/GED, or some post-secondary edu-ation and 1 = bachelor’s degree or higher). Parents also reported theumber of children currently living in their household, the numberf hours/week that they worked outside of the home, the number ofours/week that children attended the center, and children’s birtheight (0 = Normal birth weight, 1 = low birth weight, less than 88

z.). Income-to-needs ratios were calculated from parent reports ofousehold income from a variety of sources, using federal povertyesignations based on household size.

Teachers also filled out inventories in the fall to indicate whetherhildren had been referred to intervention services to address anyognitive delays, health/physical problems, and/or emotional andehavioral problems which may affect their self-regulation devel-pment (0 = no referral, 1 = referred for at least one service).

ttrition and missing data

Missing data analyses indicated that out of the original samplef 289 child participants, 263 participants, or 91%, had completearent questionnaire data, and 96% of the preschool teachers com-leted the teacher questionnaires. In the fall, self-regulation dataere successfully obtained for 92.7% of the sample. For the springata, attrition analyses showed that 80.3% of child participants hadompleted the self-regulation task. In order to address the issuef attrition bias for missing data and avoid using statistically inap-ropriate methods of dealing with missing data, such as pairwiser listwise deletion (Jelicic, Phelps, & Lerner, 2009), multiple datamputation was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Data impu-ation is typically used when data are not missing completely atandom (MCAR), but the assumption that data are missing at ran-om (MAR) is still satisfied (Acock, 2005; Little & Rubin, 2002).

In order to test these assumptions Little’s MCAR test was per-ormed. The analysis showed that data were not missing completelyt random (�2 = 1198.58, df = 931, p < 0.001). Since there is no for-al test of MAR, specifically one that works well with longitudinal

atasets (Potthoff, Tudor, Pieper, & Hasselblad, 2006), correlationsere run on all variables in the imputation dataset to determine ifissingness on any variables was related to the values of additional

ariables in the dataset. Analyses revealed that correlations were

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 93

low to moderate in magnitude, demonstrating consistency withMAR data patterns over MCAR (IDRE Research Technology Group,2013). As a result, multiple data imputation was adopted. Miss-ing values on independent variables were imputed and analyzedfor the present sample, but imputed values on dependent variableswere deleted postimputation based on the recommendation of vonHippel (2007), resulting in a final sample of 216 children nestedwithin 68 preschool classrooms.

Independent samples t-tests and chi-square likelihood ratiotests were conducted on the original unimputed dataset to deter-mine if preschoolers with missing self-regulation data differedon important demographic and family background variables fromthose with full self-regulation data. Groups did not differ on childage, child gender, fall self-regulation score, low birth weight,time spent in child care centers, number of children in thehousehold, and parent education. However, children with miss-ing self-regulation data had mothers who worked fewer hoursper week (t = −2.41, df = 231, p < 0.05) and had lower income-to-needs ratios (t = −2.61, df = 255, p < 0.05). Children with missingself-regulation data were also more likely to be raised in single-parent households (�2 = 8.04, p < 0.01). A total of five imputationswere computed based on Rubin’s (1987) relative efficiency calcu-lation. The five imputed datasets were imported into HLM 7, whichcomputed averaged fixed parameter estimates and variance com-ponents across all five datasets.

Analytic plan

In order to examine the association between teachers’behavioral socialization practices and children’s self-regulation,hierarchical linear models were conducted in HLM 7 to accountfor nesting within classrooms (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Tworegression models were performed to examine relations among theindependent and dependent variables: lagged dependent variablemodels and simple change score models. The lagged dependentvariable models examine level differences in the spring self-regulation assessment controlling for fall self-regulation, while thesimple change score models examine growth in self-regulationfrom fall to spring while also controlling for the earlier fall assess-ment. Lagged dependent variable models and simple change scoremodels each have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Inthe lagged dependent variable models, controlling for initial self-regulation skills provides an important endogeneity control, suchthat the fall assessment serves as a proxy for unmeasured aspectsof children’s environments or individual characteristics that arecorrelated with children’s initial skills (Cain, 1975; Chase-Lansdaleet al., 2003). In addition, if children’s assessments are highly corre-lated over time, than the lagged dependent variable model providesmore statistical power than a simple change score model. How-ever, if unobserved variables are differentially associated with thefall and spring self-regulation assessments, then the initial lag canintroduce bias into the equation (Johnson, 2005; NICHD Early ChildCare Research Network & Duncan, 2003). The simple change scoremodels assume that unobserved variables are similarly related toearly and later assessments of the dependent variable, and thusunobserved time-invariant variables are controlled by differenc-ing them out of the equation (Johnson, 2005; NICHD Early ChildCare Research Network & Duncan, 2003). However, change scoresalso tend to have lower reliability than level scores (Cronbach &Furby, 1970; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan,2003). Thus, considering each model’s strengths and weaknesses,results from both models will be contrasted to bolster support for

the robustness of the findings.

A series of five models was built to test the research ques-tions. In model one, initial self-regulation skills in the fall wasincluded as a predictor at level one, and average minutes spent

Page 6: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

9 ood R

ootatttfractf(fioad

S

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

S

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

sdrpirsrrsa

srfr�paiamfibu

total classroom population consisted of children four years-old andolder. Preschoolers’ average self-regulation scores were 5.11 in thefall and 5.55 in the spring (values ranged from zero to eight). Theaverage amount of time teachers spent in behavioral socialization

Table 1Descriptive statistics on child, family, teacher, and classroom characteristics(N = 216).

Mean/% SD Min Max

Child outcomeFall self-regulation score 5.11 1.60 0.00 8.00Spring self-regulation score 5.55 1.47 0.00 7.83Self-regulation change score 0.44 1.48 −4.08 5.83

Child characteristicsMale 0.55Age in months 53.11 4.26 43.00 64.00African American 0.57Hours of childcare 34.36 12.25 2.00 55.00Low birth weight 0.13Fall health services referral 0.24Year 1 cohort 0.15Year 2 cohort 0.38Year 3 cohort 0.47

Family characteristicsChildren in household 2.25 1.04 1.00 6.00Maternal single parent 0.40Maternal bachelor’s degree or higher 0.24Hours of maternal employment 35.82 11.69 0.00 80.00Income-to-needs ratio 1.88 1.55 0.00 9.06

Teacher and classroom characteristics

4 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

n behavioral socialization were entered at level two as a predictorf the intercept. The second model adds child gender and the addi-ional child and family covariates as predictors of self-regulationt level one. The third model adds additional covariates at levelwo to determine if the association between behavioral socializa-ion time and self-regulation remained robust to the inclusion ofeacher and classroom characteristics (proportion of children agesour years and older, child/adult ratio, and teacher child care expe-ience). These classroom and teacher characteristics were entereds predictors of the level one intercept. The final models includedross-level interactions between behavioral socialization at levelwo and child characteristics at level one. More specifically, modelour examined cross-level interactions between fall self-regulationlevel one) and behavioral socialization time (level two) and modelve examined cross-level interactions between child gender (levelne) and behavioral socialization time (level two). These modelsre listed in equations one through ten below using the laggedependent variable analyses as examples:

pring Self-Regulationij = ˇ0j + ˇ1jFall Self-Regulationij

+ ˇ2jGenderij + ˇ3jChild/Familyij + rij (1)

0j = �00 + �01Socializationj + �02Classroom/Teacherj + u0j (2)

1j = �10 + �11Socializationj (3)

2j = �20 (4)

3j = �30 (5)

pring Self-Regulationij = ˇ0j + ˇ1jFall Self-Regulationij

+ ˇ2jGenderij + ˇ3jChild/Familyij + rij (6)

0j = �00 + �01Socializationj + �02Classroom/Teacherj + u0j (7)

ij = �10 (8)

2j = �20 + �21Socializationj (9)

3j = �30 (10)

Spring Self-Regulationij represents the spring self-regulationcore for the ith preschooler in the jth classroom. At level one, ˇ0jenotes the average spring self-regulation score for the jth class-oom. ˇ1j represents the rate of change in spring self-regulationer one-unit increase in fall self-regulation for the ith preschooler

n the jth classroom. ˇ2j represents the rate of change in self-egulation for child gender, and ˇ3j represents the rates of change inelf-regulation for the remaining child and family covariates (childace/ethnicity, hours in child care, birth weight, health serviceeferral, number of children in the household, maternal maritaltatus, maternal educational level, maternal hours of employment,nd household income-to-needs). rij is the person-specific residual.

At level two, �00 represents the average spring self-regulationcore across all classrooms. �01 is the rate of change in spring self-egulation per one-unit increase in behavioral socialization timeor the jth classroom, while �02 denotes the rates of change in self-egulation for the classroom and teacher covariates. �10, �20, and30 represent the average rates of change in spring self-regulationer one-unit increase in fall self-regulation, child gender, and childnd family characteristics across all classrooms. In order to exam-ne the cross-level interactions, behavioral socialization was addeds a predictor of the slope terms for fall self-regulation (ˇ1j) in

odel four (denoted in Eq. (3)), and child gender (ˇ2j) in model

ve (denoted in Eq. (9)) to determine if the associations betweenehavioral socialization time and spring self-regulation dependedpon fall self-regulation and child gender. For these final equations,

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

�11 and �21 denote the interaction terms for behavioral social-ization × fall self-regulation and behavioral socialization × childgender, respectively. u0j is a classroom-specific residual which wasincluded in the models as a random effect.

Simple change score models were also performed using mod-els one through five in order to maintain consistency. The onlyalteration was in the dependent variable. The simple change scoremodels examined the difference in self-regulation from fall tospring (�Self-Regulation), whereas the lagged dependent variablemodels examined spring self-regulation. Across all models, cen-tering recommendations from Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) wereimplemented. Namely, continuous variables entered as predictorsat level one were centered around the means for their respec-tive classrooms (group-mean centered), and continuous variablesentered as predictors at level two were centered around the grandmean across all classrooms. Categorical variables were entered intheir raw form.

Results

Descriptive statistics for child, family, teacher, and classroomcharacteristics

Descriptive statistics for the final imputed samples are pre-sented in Table 1. Approximately 45% of the preschoolers werefemale and 57% were African American. Only 24% of parents hadeducation levels of a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 40% ofthe preschoolers resided in single-parent households. The aver-age income-to-needs ratio across families was approximately 1.88,indicating a predominantly low-income sample (Boushey, Brocht,Gundersen, & Bernstein, 2001), and mothers reported working anaverage of 36 h per week. In addition, descriptive statistics forclassroom characteristics revealed that, on average, teachers hadapproximately 9.5 years of child care experience, and 72% of the

Behavioral socialization 1.60 2.16 0.00 13.00Teacher child care experience 113.55 64.59 12.00 288.00Child/adult ratio 6.25 3.03 1.17 24.00Proportion of children ≥ four years old 0.72 0.26 0.09 1.00

Page 7: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 95

Table 2HLM models examining classroom behavioral socialization time and self-regulation.

Lagged dependent variable models Simple change score models

Model 1B (SE)

Model 2B (SE)

Model 3B (SE)

Model 4B (SE)

Model 5B (SE)

Model 1B (SE)

Model 2B (SE)

Model 3B (SE)

Model 4B (SE)

Model 5B (SE)

Self-regulation score (intercept) 5.57***

(0.11)5.79***

(0.22)5.78***

(0.21)5.78***

(0.22)5.81***

(0.21)0.51***

(0.10)0.50*

(0.21)0.53*

(0.21)0.53*

(0.21)0.56**

(0.21)Child characteristicsFall self-regulation score 0.49***

(0.07)0.49***

(0.07)0.49***

(0.07)0.47***

(0.07)0.49***

(0.07)−0.51***

(0.07)−0.48***

(0.07)−0.48***

(0.07)−0.51***

(0.07)−0.49***

(0.07)Child male −0.18

(0.19)−0.18(0.19)

−0.19(0.19)

−0.21(0.18)

0.06(0.19)

0.08(0.18)

0.07(0.18)

0.04(0.17)

Classroom socializationBehavioral socialization −0.09**

(0.03)−0.07*

(0.03)−0.07†

(0.04)−0.07†

(0.04)−0.11*

(0.05)−0.10**

(0.03)−0.08*

(0.04)−0.08*

(0.04)−0.08*

(0.04)−0.12**

(0.04)InteractionFall self-regulation ×

Behavioral socialization0.02(0.01)

0.02(0.01)

Child gender ×Behavioral socialization

0.07(0.05)

0.07*

(0.03)

Note. Unstandardized coefficients are presented with standard errors in parentheses. Child male, child age, child African American, hours in childcare, low birth weight, fallh , maternal bachelor’s degree or higher, hours of maternal employment, and income-to-n t ratio, teacher child care experience, and proportion of four-year-olds in classroom werei

w1

As

cfibsmlsEiteisrsrata

lbrucwi(si

As

t

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Low Behaviora l High Behavioral

Self-

regu

la�o

n Ch

ange

Sco

re

FemaleMale

ealth services referral, cohort year, children in household, maternal single parenteeds ratio were included as covariates at level 1 for Models 2 through 5. Child/adul

ncluded as covariates at level 2 for Models 3 through 5.† p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

as approximately two minutes, with dosage ranging from zero to3 min across classrooms.

ssociation between classroom behavioral socialization time andelf-regulation for lagged dependent variable models

Table 2 shows estimates for the unstandardized regressionoefficients, using robust standard error adjustments, for theve sets of hierarchical linear models examining the associationetween behavioral socialization and preschoolers’ self-regulationcores for both the lagged dependent variable and change scoreodels. Lagged dependent variable models are presented on the

eft-hand side of Table 2. Model one includes only behavioralocialization time at level two and fall self-regulation at level one.xamination of variance components revealed significant variabil-ty between classrooms. Intra-class correlations (ICCs) indicatedhat 18% of the variance in spring self-regulation scores wasxplained by between-classroom differences. Behavioral social-zation time was significantly and negatively associated withpring self-regulation scores while controlling for initial fall self-egulation scores. More specifically, a 1 SD increase in behavioralocialization was associated with a 0.13 SD decrease in spring self-egulation scores. In model two, child and family covariates weredded to the model at level one. Behavioral socialization continuedo be significantly negatively associated with self-regulation, with

slight reduction in the effect size (−0.10 SD).In model three, classroom and teacher covariates were added to

evel two as predictors of the level one intercept. The associationetween behavioral socialization time and self-regulation waseduced to trend level significance, but the effect size remainednchanged (−0.10 SD). In the final series of models involvingross-level interaction analyses, behavioral socialization timeas added at level two as a predictor of the slope terms for

nitial fall self-regulation score (model four) and child gendermodel five). The final interaction models continued to revealignificant between-class variability (ICCs = 0.13), although neithernteraction term was significant.

ssociation between classroom behavioral socialization time and

elf-regulation for simple change score models

Analyses for the simple change score models are presented onhe right-hand side of Table 2. Similar to the lagged dependent

Fig. 1. Cross-level interaction plots for behavioral socialization × child gender onchange in self-regulation.

variable model findings, examination of variance componentsrevealed significant variability between classrooms. Intra-class cor-relations (ICCs) indicated that 14% of the variance in self-regulationchange scores was explained by between-classroom differences.For model one, behavioral socialization time was significantly, neg-atively associated with change in self-regulation from fall to spring,while controlling for initial fall self-regulation scores. For thismodel, a 1 SD increase in behavioral socialization was associatedwith a 0.15 SD decrease in change in self-regulation. After control-ling for child and family characteristics in model two, behavioralsocialization continued to be negatively associated with changesin self-regulation, with a slight reduction in effect size (−0.12 SD).Likewise, behavioral socialization time continued to be signifi-cantly and negatively associated with changes in self-regulationafter controlling for teacher and classroom characteristics in modelthree, with no reduction in effect size (−0.12 SD).

Once again, models four and five designate the cross-levelinteractions for fall self-regulation and child gender by behavioralsocialization time, respectively. For model four, fall self-regulationdid not moderate the association between behavioral socialization

time and change in self-regulation. However, in model five, theinteraction between behavioral socialization time and child genderwas statistically significant. The interaction is plotted in Fig. 1courtesy of a statistical online calculator (Preacher, Curran, &
Page 8: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

9 ood R

B(

tg(gio(bsr((wfttn(tadav

D

bvhmtbic2smriti

Na

bwTldtsdiereItc

6 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

auer, 2010–2013) using procedures outlined by Bauer and Curran2005).

Girls who experienced high amounts of behavioral socializa-ion time had significantly less growth in self-regulation thanirls who experienced low frequencies of behavioral socializationslope = −0.12, z = −2.94, p < 0.01). In contrast, boys’ self-regulationrowth from fall to spring was unrelated to behavioral social-zation exposure (slope = −0.05, z = −1.10, p = 0.27). Although girlsutscored boys on average in self-regulation skills for both the fallgirls: M = 5.3; boys: M = 4.8) and spring assessments (girls: M = 5.7;oys: M = 5.4), boys, on average, saw greater improvement in theirkills (40% of a SD increase versus 27% for girls). Girls’ higher self-egulation performance relative to boys was significant in the fallt = 2.79, df = 266, p ≤ 0.01) but was reduced to trend levels by springt = 1.89, df = 230, p ≤ 0.10). Therefore, post hoc attrition analysesere conducted to determine if the interaction findings resulted

rom a disproportionate number of poorly regulated boys relativeo girls vacating the study. However, findings revealed that amonghe children who left the study by spring, boys did not differ sig-ificantly from girls in their initial self-regulation skills in the fallM = 4.8 for both girls and boys; t = 0.18, df = 50, p = 0.86). Therefore,he significant gender interaction was not a result of disproportion-te attrition among poorly regulated boys. Similar to the laggedependent variable findings, the final simple change score inter-ction models also continued to reveal significant between-classariability (ICCs = 0.09).

iscussion

The present study examined the naturally occurring classroomehavioral socialization practices of preschool teachers within pri-ate child care centers serving low-income children, and examinedow these practices are associated with preschoolers’ develop-ent in self-regulation. The results demonstrated that, on average,

eachers devoted few minutes of time to socializing children’sehaviors on a classroom-wide basis. Research has compared low-

ncome children’s daily activities and routines in public and privateenter-based care (Fuligni, Howes, Huang, Hong, & Lara-Cinisomo,012), revealing that private centers disproportionately devotedubstantial time to child-directed, free choice activities (e.g., grossotor and fantasy play). Thus, converging evidence from the cur-

ent study and other large regional samples (Fuligni et al., 2012)ndicates that low-income children in private center-based careend to receive little exposure to teacher-directed group activitiesn their daily routines.

egative associations between classroom behavioral socializationnd self-regulation

In the present study, negative associations between classroomehavioral socialization time and preschoolers’ self-regulationere repeatedly detected across multiple model specifications.

his finding was robust across both the simple change score andagged dependent variable models despite the inclusion of chil-ren’s initial self-regulation skills and numerous child, family, andeacher selection characteristics. In addition, although the effectizes we reported are modest in magnitude, the present findingso not differ markedly from effect sizes that are typically reported

n observational studies conducted within child care settings. Forxample, the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2006)eported child care quality and quantity effect sizes that were mod-

st to moderate in magnitude for behavioral and social outcomes.n past teacher training studies, positive associations betweeneachers’ classroom practices and children’s self-regulation areommonly detected. Intervention research strongly suggests that

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

there are considerable social and emotional benefits for chil-dren when teachers intentionally allocate time to positively andproactively socializing self-regulatory behaviors (Domitrovichet al., 2007; Webster-Stratton et al., 2008). In addition, theseteacher-directed socialization activities can be readily embeddedwithin developmentally appropriate methods (e.g., games, activ-ities, or lessons) to help young children develop and enhancetheir social and self-regulation skills (Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group, 1999; Pears, Fisher, & Bronz, 2007; Tominey &McClelland, 2011; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004). Past interven-tion research has also demonstrated that children benefit whenadults structure, scaffold, and guide them during play (Weisberg,Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013). Indeed, intervention programshave successfully trained teachers to guide and facilitate children’spretend play in an effort to strengthen children’s self-regulationskills (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Leong, 2005).

However, in the absence of any intervention supports in thepresent study, higher amounts of classroom behavioral socializa-tion time were negatively associated with changes in low-incomechildren’s self-regulation skills. Detecting a negative associationthat is robust to different model specifications and a host of covari-ates strongly suggests that the majority of the observed behaviorswere negative or reactive, emphasizing children’s misbehavior.There are several possible explanations for this robust finding. Asdescribed by Raver and colleagues (2008), children’s disruptive andnegative classroom behaviors may increase teachers’ frustrationand negativity, resulting in a cycle of increasingly “coercive” orreactive teacher practices (Arnold et al., 1998; Brouwers & Tomic,2000; Ritchie & Howes, 2003). Indeed, preschoolers show lesscompliance in classrooms when caregivers use more commandsand threats of punishment (Wachs, Gurkas, & Kontos, 2004). Cor-roborating evidence from socioemotional interventions in similarpreschool contexts (e.g., Head Start) demonstrates that improve-ments in children’s behaviors were attributable to enhancementsin teachers’ emotionally supportive classroom practices, especiallythrough observed reductions in negative classroom climate andincreases in positive classroom climate (Raver et al., 2008, 2009,2011). In other words, before implementing these programs, thenaturally occurring behavioral socialization processes observedby researchers were less positive, proactive, or supportive. Evenin public pre-K classrooms, past national studies have identifiedclassrooms rated very low in both emotional and instructional sup-port, and these classrooms disproportionately served children inpoverty (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). Thus, accumulating find-ings from the current study and extant literature indicate that inpreschool classrooms serving low-income children, the classroom-level behavioral socialization practices may be negative or reactive,and generally unsupportive of positive social development.

Rather than concluding that time devoted to classroom behav-ioral socialization practices within these child care settings aredetrimental for low-income children, however, we argue that thecurrent findings add to a growing body of evidence that preschoolteachers are in need of better support systems and training todevelop successful preventative strategies for reducing problembehaviors. Many low-income preschoolers are likely to be enrolledin private community-based centers as an alternative to pub-licly funded programs such as Head Start and pre-K (Dowsettet al., 2008; Li-Grining & Coley, 2006; Magnuson & Shager, 2010).Unlike publicly funded programs, teachers in privately run cen-ters may be less equipped to support the self-regulation skills ofeconomically disadvantaged children due to the increased stressassociated with limited training and experience, greater instabil-

ity in teaching staff, lower pay, and fewer benefits (Barnett et al.,2012). In fact, increasing teachers’ access to coaches or behavioralspecialists is a common feature of many successful Head Start andpre-K socio-emotional interventions (Morris et al., 2014). Given
Page 9: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

ood R

tntwt

M

srCibdrsewmbiistbssr

tidasfcmtsesitam(tWoohinsmtdarga

L

b

J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

hat valence of behavioral socialization and teacher training wereot assessed in the current study, additional research is neededo discern how teacher training, support, and stress are associatedith the quantity of reactive versus proactive behavioral socializa-

ion practices.

oderating child characteristics

The present study also examined whether initial self-regulationkills and child gender moderated the associations between class-oom behavioral socialization time and changes in self-regulation.ontrary to our initial hypotheses, initial levels of self-regulation

n the fall did not significantly moderate the association betweenehavioral socialization and self-regulation in either the laggedependent variable or simple change score models. In other words,elations between behavioral socialization time on growth orpring levels of self-regulation were comparable for all preschool-rs regardless of their initial regulatory abilities. Therefore, childrenith lower self-regulation at the beginning of the year were notore susceptible or vulnerable to these classroom practices than

etter regulated children. It is possible that large-group behav-oral socialization practices, which are delivered to all childrenn the classroom, may have fewer differential effects than dyadictudent-teacher interactions, which can differ for each child and areypically influenced by child characteristics. Future research wouldenefit from distinguishing the effects of whole-class behavioralocialization and dyadic student-teacher interactions on children’socioemotional development, as well as the potential moderatingole of children’s initial self-regulation skills.

Although initial self-regulation skills did not moderate the nega-ive association between behavioral socialization time and changesn self-regulation, a significant interaction did emerge for child gen-er. Specifically, child gender significantly moderated the negativessociation between behavioral socialization time and changes inelf-regulation from fall to spring. Although this finding emergedor the simple change score model only, the size of the interactionoefficients was identical across both models, indicating a com-on pattern. However, contrary to expectations, girls appeared

o be driving the negative association, with boys’ changes inelf-regulation unrelated to variations in behavioral socializationxposure. Since the present study examines classroom behavioralocialization time, as opposed to teachers’ dyadic interactions withndividual students, girls may be more susceptible to higher quan-ities of group socialization time, especially if these experiencesre negative or coercive (Raver et al., 2008). Girls are less com-only targeted with negative attention from teachers than boys

Beaman et al., 2006; Swinson & Harrop, 2009) and are socializedo be more compliant and less assertive (Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-

axler, 2005; Leaper & Smith, 2004). Therefore, greater amountsf behavioral classroom socialization time, particularly if punitiver reactive, may be more disconcerting for girls. Boys, on the otherand, may be less affected if they have grown accustomed to dyadic

nteractions with teachers that are frequently more negative. Alter-atively, threshold effects may also be operating. Since girls hadignificantly higher self-regulation scores than boys in the fall, thereay have been less room for improvement during the course of

he year. However, since the boys and girls who left the studyid not differ in initial skill levels, the current findings are not anrtifact of disproportionate attrition among boys with poor self-egulation skills. Future research on the associations among childender, proactive vs. reactive classroom behavioral socialization,nd child self-regulation is warranted.

imitations and conclusions

Studying low-income children’s experiences in private center-ased care presents unique methodological challenges. Unlike past

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 97

public pre-K or Head Start studies that could videotape teacherand child interactions in self-contained classrooms, the privatepreschool programs in this study often created classroom “areas”within open floor-plans that impeded our ability to videotapeclassroom processes. Thus, the focus of our investigation was todocument the duration of group behavioral socialization prac-tices with our live time-sampling protocol. Unfortunately, ourfindings are limited by the inability to separate out positive andnegative valence (e.g., proactive versus reactive behaviors) fromthe type and frequency codes. Future work in these settingsis needed to reliably conduct simultaneous live-coding of type,duration, and quality, in order to disentangle the quantity of behav-ioral socialization exposure from the emotional valence of theinteractions.

Additionally, as is the case in nonexperimental research, bidi-rectional associations cannot be definitively ruled out. In thepresent study, the negative associations detected between behav-ioral socialization time and self-regulation may also be attributedto the influence of children’s misbehaviors on teacher practices.We adopted a number of methods to address directionality,such as controlling for initial self-regulation skills across mod-els, and testing whether initial self-regulation skills operated asa moderator of these pathways. However, testing bidirectional-ity more typically occurs with repeated measures on adult-childdyads rather than teachers and classrooms of children. In ourproject data, study children in the classroom may be exposedto teacher’s negative socialization behaviors, which stemmedfrom misbehaviors of classroom peers rather than the studychildren’s behaviors. Therefore, testing bidirectional relationswith our nested model may not be as productive as withadult-child dyads. Regardless, without experimental manipula-tion of classroom-level processes, issues of directionality remain aconcern.

The generalizability of the results presents an additional caveatto the interpretation of the findings. Although the snack delay taskhas been widely administered to assess self-regulation (Kochanskaet al., 2000; Murray & Kochanska, 2002; Spinrad, Eisenberg, &Gaertner, 2007) and has demonstrated reliability and predictivevalidity with low-income preschoolers (Li-Grining, 2007; Raveret al., 2011), additional behavioral regulation tasks or data sourceswould have been useful to strengthen the generalizability of thisfinding. Furthermore, it is also important to note that while thedemographic composition of the study children is comparable toother Head Start and public pre-K studies, it remains unclear howwell the current pattern of findings generalizes to other ECE sett-ings.

In conclusion, the extant research clearly indicates that timedevoted to group behavioral socialization practices is related toyoung children’s development. However, much of the past work onthese classroom processes involved intervention projects, in whichteachers received ongoing training from specialists or coaches ona regular basis (Morris et al., 2014; Raver et al., 2008; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004). Therefore, the present finding of negativeassociations between classroom behavioral socialization time andpreschoolers’ changes in self-regulation could reflect a lack ofteacher training or support for managing disruptive behaviors.It is well documented that low-income children tend to be lesssocially and behaviorally prepared for kindergarten than theirhigher income peers (Raver, 2004; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000),and that low-income children are more likely to experience pri-vate center-based care than publicly funded preschool programs(Dowsett et al., 2008; Li-Grining & Coley, 2006; Magnuson & Shager,

2010). Thus, increased representation of private child care sett-ings in the ECE literature is needed, as well as an increased focuson how teacher practices may either promote or stifle growth inlow-income preschoolers’ self-regulation.
Page 10: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

9 ood R

A

SaceFhtP

R

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

8 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

cknowledgements

This research was supported by grants to Dr. Bachman from Thepencer Foundation (#200800190), as well as the Office of Researchnd the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Theontent is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not nec-ssarily reflect the views of the funders. We thank Kevin Kim andeifei Ye for their statistical consultation, the project team for theirard work and diligence, and a special thank you is also extendedo the children, families, and center staff who participated in theitt School Readiness Study.

eferences

cock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,1012–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x

rnold, D. H., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. H. (1998). Teacher discipline and childmisbehavior in day care: Untangling causality with correlational data. Develop-mental Psychology, 34, 276–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.276

achman, H. J., Degol, J., Scharphorn, L., El Nokali, N., & Palmer, K. (2013). Preschoolmath and science exposure and low-SES children’s math development. Seattle, WA:Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment.

arnett, W. S. (2003a). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linkedto teacher qualifications. Preschool policy matters, (Issue 2) New Brunswick, NJ:National Institute for Early Education Research.

arnett, W. S. (2003b). Low wages = low quality: Solving the real preschool teachercrisis. Preschool policy matters, (Issue 3) New Brunswick, NJ: National Institutefor Early Education Research.

arnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2012). The state of preschool2012: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for EarlyEducation Research.

auer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regres-sion: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40,373–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003 5

eaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2006). Differential teacher attentionto boys and girls in the classroom. Educational Review, 58, 339–366.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910600748406

irch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and chil-dren’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5

lair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobi-ological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. AmericanPsychologist, 57, 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.111

lair, C., Granger, D., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M. T.,& the FLP Investigators. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of povertyand parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development, 82,1970–1984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x

lair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity: Expe-riential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67, 309–318.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027493

lair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive func-tion, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy abilityin kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x

odrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to earlychildhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

orman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensiveschool reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,73, 125–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125

oushey, H., Brocht, C., Gundersen, B., & Bernstein, J. (2001). Hardships in America:The real story of working families. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

ronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human devel-opment. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol.1) (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

rouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout andperceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 16, 239–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8

ain, G. G. (1975). Regression and selection models to improve nonexperimentalcomparisons. In C. A. Bennett, & A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experi-ment: Some critical issues in assessing social programs (pp. 297–317). New York:Academic Press.

ameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Effects of variation in teacherorganization on classroom functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 61–85.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.12.002

aspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from child-

hood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158–172.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.158

haplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotionexpression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5,80–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.80

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Moffitt, R. A., Lohman, B. J., Cherlin, A. J., Coley, R. L.,Pittman, L. D., et al. (2003). Mothers’ transitions from welfare to work andthe well-being of preschoolers and adolescents. Science, 299, 1548–1552.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1076921

Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., et al.(1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some direc-tions for a national research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013–1022.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact ofthe Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroomeffects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.648

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploringthe effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. ScientificStudies of Reading, 8, 305–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr 0804 1

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004). Effective reading comprehensioninstruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 96, 682–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.682

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and chil-dren’s emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 665–689.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.665

Crockenberg, S. C. (2003). Rescuing the baby from the bathwater: How gender andtemperament (may) influence how child care affects child development. ChildDevelopment, 74, 1034–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00585

Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change”: Or should we?Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029382

Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. (2007). The socialization of emotional com-petence. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theoryand research (pp. 614–637). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Dobbs, J., Doctoroff, G. L., Fisher, P. H., & Arnold, D. H. (2006). Theassociation between preschool children’s socio-emotional functioning andtheir mathematical skills. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 97–108.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.12.008

Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving youngchildren’s social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of thepreschool PATHS curriculum. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 67–91.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-007-0081-0

Dowsett, C. J., Huston, A. C., Imes, A. E., & Gennetian, L. (2008). Structuraland process features in three types of child care for children from highand low income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 69–93.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.06.003

Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K. A., & Ludwig, J. (2004). The endogeneity prob-lem in developmental studies. Research in Human Development, 1, 59–80.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2004.9683330

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B.(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: Ameta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82,405–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Eisenberg, N., Vaughan, J., & Hofer, C. (2009). Temperament, self-regulation, and peersocial competence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbookof peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 473–489). New York, NY: TheGuilford Press.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part ofeducational psychology, with implications for teacher education. EducationalPsychologist, 36, 103–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602 5

Evans, G. W., & Schamberg, M. A. (2009). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adultworking memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, 106, 6545–6549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811910106

Evers, W. J. G., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004). Burnout among teachers: Stu-dents’ and teachers’ perceptions compared. School Psychology International, 25,131–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034304043670

Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology& Psychotherapy, 12, 177–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.448

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta,P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing read-ing failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37

Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways toconduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54–68.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301 6

Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Huang, Y., Hong, S. S., & Lara-Cinisomo, S. (2012). Activitysettings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: Diverse experiences in earlylearning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27,198–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.001

Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and com-petence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology.Child Development, 55, 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00276.x

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajec-tory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,625–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301

Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacherrelationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9,191–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00119

Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Children’s relation-ships with peers: Differential associations with aspects of the teacher–child

Page 11: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

ood R

I

J

J

J

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

relationship. Child Development, 65, 253–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00748.x

DRE Research Technology Group. (2013). Statistical computing seminars: Mul-tiple imputation in Stata, part 1. Available from. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/seminars/missing data/mi in stata pt1.htm

elicic, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Use of missing data methods in longi-tudinal studies: The persistence of bad practices in developmental psychology.Developmental Psychology, 45, 1195–1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015665

ohn-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning anddevelopment: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266

ohnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: Comparing statistical methods forstudying the effects of transitions. Journal of Family and Marriage, 67, 1061–1075.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00194.x

agan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2007). Reaching for the whole: Integration and alignmentin early education policy. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), Schoolreadiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 11–30).Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

am, C., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementa-tion quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. PreventionScience, 4, 55–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1021786811186

eenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences onyoung girls’ early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95–113.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.95

eenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (2003). Exploring the etiology of antisocial behavior inthe first years of life. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes ofconduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 153–181). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

libanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V.(2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher“math talk”. Developmental Psychology, 42, 59–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.59

ochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early child-hood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social devel-opment. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220

ochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K.A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerginginternalization. Child Development, 67, 490–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01747.x

add, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of children’s behavior andrelationships in the school context: A child by environment perspective. In R. V.Kail, & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 31)(pp. 43–104). New York, NY: Academic Press.

eaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variationsin children’s language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertivespeech. Developmental Psychology, 40, 993–1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.993

eong, D. J. (2005). Tools of the mind preschool curriculum research manual (3rd ed.).Denver, CO: Center for Improving Early Learning, Metropolitan State College ofDenver.

epper, M. R. (1983). Social-control processes and the internalization of social val-ues: An attributional perspective. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 294–330). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

i-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in threecities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology,43, 208–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208

i-Grining, C. P., & Coley, R. L. (2006). Child care experiences in low-income communities: Developmental quality and maternal views. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 21, 125–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.001

ittle, J. R., & Rubin, D. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). NewYork, NY: Wiley.

oCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant,D., et al. (2007). Observed classroom quality profiles in state-fundedpre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, andclassroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 3–17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.05.001

accoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of chil-dren: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1006

agnuson, K., & Shager, H. (2010). Early education: Progress and promise forchildren from low-income families. Children and Youth Services Review, 32,1186–1198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.006

cClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., &Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947

cClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2003). The emergence of learning-related socialskills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 206–224.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00026-7

cLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. AmericanPsychologist, 53, 185–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185

iles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associ-ations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100 99

low-income elementary school children. Child Development, 77, 103–117.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00859.x

Moller, A. C., Forbes-Jones, E., & Hightower, A. D. (2008). Classroom age composi-tion and developmental change in 70 urban preschool classrooms. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 100, 741–753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013099

Morris, P., Mattera, S. K., Castells, N., Bangser, M., Bierman, K., & Raver, C. (2014).Impact Findings from the Head Start CARES Demonstration: National Evaluationof Three Approaches to Improving Preschoolers’ Social and Emotional Competence(OPRE Report 2014-44). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evalu-ation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services.

Morrison, F. J., Bachman, H. J., & Connor, C. M. (2005). Improving literacy in America:Guidelines from research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Murphy, B. C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Con-sistency and change in children’s emotionality and regulation: A longitudinalstudy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 413–444.

Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relationto externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-ogy, 30, 503–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1019821031523

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of state pre-kindergarten standards.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 125–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.010

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Child-care effect sizes for theNICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. American Psychologist,61, 99–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.99

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1998). Early child care andself-control, compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69, 1145–1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06165.x

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The relation of child careto cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71, 960–980.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00202

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling theimpact of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. ChildDevelopment, 74, 1454–1475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00617

Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates ofsocioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8, 74–87.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x

Normandeau, S., & Guay, F. (1998). Preschool behavior and first-grade schoolachievement: The mediational role of cognitive self-control. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 90, 111–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.111

Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J., Kerr, D. C. R., Lopez, N. L., & Wellman, H. M.(2005). Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young chil-dren: The role of effortful control. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 25–45.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050029

Pears, K. C., Fisher, P. A., & Bronz, K. D. (2007). An intervention to promote socialemotional school readiness in foster children: Preliminary outcomes from a pilotstudy. School Psychology Review, 36, 665–673.

Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects ofpreschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned withthe evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the PublicInterest, 10, 49–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100610381908

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The rela-tion of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and schoolcharacteristics and child outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499701

Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher–child relationships and children’ssuccess in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444–458.

Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009).A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribu-tion to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605–619.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015365

Ponitz, C. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Brock, L. L., & Nathanson, L. (2009). Early adjust-ment, gender differences, and classroom organizational climate in first grade.Elementary School Journal, 110, 142–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/605470

Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation.Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427–441.

Potthoff, R. F., Tudor, G. E., Pieper, K. S., & Hasselblad, V. (2006). Can oneassess whether missing data are missing at random in medical studies? Sta-tistical Methods in Medical Research, 15, 213–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0962280206sm448oa

Preacher, P. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2013). Simple intercepts, simpleslopes, and regions of significance in HLM 2-way interactions. Available from.http://quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2.htm

Qi, C., & Kaiser, A. P. (2003). Behavior problems of preschool children from low-income families: Review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 23, 188–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02711214030230040201

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application anddata analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocul-tural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75, 346–353.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00676.x

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Sardin, L.(2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from arandomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 23, 10–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.001

Page 12: QuarterlyPreschool Teachers’ Classroom Behavioral Socialization Practices

1 ood R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

T

T

cations for prevention. American Psychologist, 67, 272–284. http://dx.doi.org/

00 J.L. Degol, H.J. Bachman / Early Childh

aver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E.(2011). CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82, 362–378.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x

aver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Metzger, M. W., & Solomon, B.(2009). Targeting children’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: Acluster-randomized control trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,77, 302–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015302

imm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009).The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’sadaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology, 45,958–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015861

imm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of prob-lems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15,147–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00049-1

itchie, S., & Howes, C. (2003). Program practices, caregiver stability, andchild–caregiver relationships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24,497–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00028-5

ubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY:Wiley.

udasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher–child relationship quality:The roles of child temperament and teacher–child interactions. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 24, 107–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.003

cott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2003). Creating the conditions for suc-cess with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-levelstandards for children’s learning prior to kindergarten. Early Childhood Researchand Practice, 5, 1–30.

cott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. F. (2005). Inside the content: The breadth anddepth of early learning standards. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

pinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., & Gaertner, B. M. (2007). Measures of effortfulregulation for young children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 606–626.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20156

winson, J., & Harrop, A. (2009). Teacher talk directed to boys and girlsand its relationship to their behavior. Educational Studies, 35, 515–524.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690902883913

arter, R., Vanyukov, M., Giancola, P., Dawes, M., Blackson, T., Mezzich, A.,et al. (1999). Etiology of early age onset substance use disorder: Amaturational perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 657–683.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579499002266

ominey, S. L., & McClelland, M. M. (2011). Red light, purple light: Findingsfrom a randomized trial using circle time games to improve behavioralself-regulation in preschool. Early Education and Development, 22, 489–519.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.574258

esearch Quarterly 31 (2015) 89–100

Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset ofmale antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives in General Psychiatry,51, 732–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950090064009

U.S. Department of Education, & National Center for Education Statistics.(2011). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2011 – Fam-ily and social environment figures. Available from. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/fam fig.asp#fam3b

Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Losoya, S. H.(2004). Prediction of children’s empathy-related responding from their effort-ful control and parents’ expressivity. Developmental Psychology, 40, 911–926.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.911

von Hippel, P. T. (2007). Regression with missing Ys: An improved strategyfor analyzing multiple imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37, 83–117.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00180.x

Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2004). Child care andlow-income children’s development: Direct and moderated effects. Child Devel-opment, 75, 296–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00670.x

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro-cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wachs, T. D., Gurkas, P., & Kontos, S. (2004). Predictors of preschoolchildren’s compliance behavior in early childhood classroom settings. Jour-nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 439–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.06.003

Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2004). Strengthening social and emotional com-petence in young children – The foundation for early school readiness andsuccess: Incredible years classroom social skills and problem-solving curricu-lum. Infants and Young Children, 17, 96–113.

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conductproblems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible yearsteacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 49, 471–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where cur-ricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7, 104–112.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., & Beardslee, W. R. (2012). The effects of poverty onthe mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: Impli-

10.1037/a0028015Zhai, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Head Start and urban children’s

school readiness: A birth cohort study in 18 cities. Developmental Psychology, 47,134–152.