This article was downloaded by: [Management and Science University] On: 06 August 2013, At: 22:47 Publisher:

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and Care

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

The effects of socioeconomic diversity on the language, cognitive and socialemotional development of children from lowincome backgrounds
Janet H. Bagby , Loretta C. Rudd & Majka Woods
a

Baylor University, Texas, USA Published online: 25 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Janet H. Bagby , Loretta C. Rudd & Majka Woods (2005) The effects of socioeconomic diversity on the language, cognitive and socialemotional development of children from lowincome backgrounds, Early Child Development and Care, 175:5, 395-405 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443042000270768

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Early Child Development and Care Vol. 175, No. 5, July 2005, pp. 395405

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

The effects of socioeconomic diversity on the language, cognitive and social emotional development of children from low-income backgrounds
Janet H. Bagby*, Loretta C. Rudd and Majka Woods
Baylor University, Texas, USA
Taylor and Francis Ltd GECD41064.sgm

(Received 4 July 2004)

Early 10.1080/0300443042000270768 0000-0000 Original Taylor 2005 0 P.O. JanetH.Bagby 000002005 Box Childhood &Article Francis 97301WacoTX (print)/0000-0000 Development Group Ltd 76798-7301Janet_Bagby@baylor.ed (online) and Care

Previous studies on the influence of mixed groupings within preschool classrooms have indicated positive effects on childrens development. This study extended earlier findings to determine the effects of socioeconomic diversity within the classroom on the language, cognitive and social emotional development of preschool children of low-income backgrounds. Twenty-seven preschool children were enrolled in two classrooms in a private universitys child development center. Twenty of the 27 enrolled were from low-income backgrounds. The children were tested to determine a baseline measure of their language, cognitive and socialemotional skills. Classroom observations of the childrens language behavior were coded. Post-testing was done at the conclusion of the school year to determine growth in language, cognitive and socialemotional skills. Differences in language usage and socialemotional development were observed. These results suggest that mixed income grouping as well as teacher interactions influence language and socialemotional development of children from low-income backgrounds.

Keywords: Development; Diversity; Interaction; Preschool; Socioeconomic Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of socioeconomic diversity within a preschool classroom on the language, cognitive and socialemotional development of children from low-income backgrounds. The USA has a greater incidence of children living in poverty than do other Western nations. According to
* Corresponding author. Department of Educational Psychology, Baylor University, P.O. Box 97301, Waco, TX 767987301, USA. Email: Janet_Bagby@baylor.edu ISSN 0300-4430 (print)/ISSN 1476-8275 (online)/05/05039511 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/0300443042000270768

396 J. H. Bagby et al. the latest census, there were 13.4 million children in the United States (19.2% of all children) living in poverty (US Bureau of the Census, 1999). Since the 1960s, a number of programs have been implemented to ameliorate the effects of childhood poverty. The goal has been to give economically disadvantaged children the academic tools and social skills necessary to be successful in school and in life in an attempt to break the cycle of poverty. Research findings from these interventions consistently showed that intensive, high-quality programs that began in infancy have a positive effect on language and cognitive development for economically disadvantaged children (Barnett, 1995; Feagans et al., 1995; Burchinal et al., 1996). One well-known program is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart et al., 1993), a comprehensive, longitudinal study that has continued for 30 years to evaluate the effects of intervention on low-income three-year-old and four-year-old children. The results have shown that high-quality, active learning preschool programs can help young children in poverty achieve at high academic levels and significantly reduce the negative effects of childhood poverty. Reports of other early intervention programs such as the Carolina Abecedarian Project (Campbell & Ramey, 1994) also have shown positive, long-term effects in achievement by children from low-income families. However, Lee et al. (1998) recognized that most previous studies of preschool programs for children of low-income families have tended to compare the cognitive and social development of children attending the programs with children who had not attended preschool programs. Participation in the program served as the treatment with little consideration for the different experiences within the classroom environment. Studies have examined the environmental and social context of learning (for example, Tudge, 1986; Baker, 1994; Bronson et al., 1995; Kermani & Brenner, 2002). Katz et al. (1990) summarized research findings on mixed-age grouping in early childhood education and concluded that Several studies of childrens behavior in mixed-age groups suggest that such groupings may provide therapeutic or remedial benefits to children in certain kinds of at risk categories (p. 19). McClellan and Kinsey (1999) reported more positive social behaviors of children who participated in mixed-age classrooms than those in same-age classrooms. Research on leadership behavior (Stright & French, 1988), social participation (Goldman, 1981) and peer collaboration (Azmitia, 1988) also has indicated positive outcomes from age and ability diversity within a learning environment. Lee et al. (1998) focused on demographic, academic and social composition within preschool classrooms and how these contextual factors influenced cognitive development over a school year. They concluded, it is social context of the classroom (i.e. racial composition, average family income, high proportions of special needs and immigrant children) that affects learning (Lee et al., 1998, p. 488). These researchers stated that children at risk should be integrated into classrooms with children unlike themselves. They recommended further study to examine the effects of the social context of the classroom on childrens social and emotional

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

Effects of socioeconomic diversity in low-income backgrounds 397 development. Therefore, this study focused on the following research question: How does socioeconomic diversity within the classroom influence the language, cognitive and socialemotional development of children from low-income backgrounds? Method Participants
Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

Twenty-seven children enrolled in two classrooms at a child development center at a major private university in the southwestern United States were selected to participate in the study. The two classrooms represented collaboration between the university and the local independent school district. There were 11 males and 16 females, ranging in age from 42 months to 60 months at the outset of the study. Seven were African-American, 12 were Hispanic, and eight were Caucasian (Table 1). One of the classrooms was homogeneous from a family income perspective (low income), with all families qualifying for the free or reduced lunch program. The second class was heterogeneous from an income perspective. One-half of the children in the class qualified under the family income guidelines (low income), and one-half of the families (high income) paid the full tuition. Each classroom had a full-time teacher and teachers aide. Both teachers had an earned bachelors degree in elementary education with teacher certification from an accredited university. The teacher in the heterogeneous classroom had completed the High Scope training while the teacher in the homogeneous classroom had not. However, both teachers had completed in-service training on the child-centered pre-kindergarten curriculum developed by the school district to be implemented in the classrooms.
Table 1. Demographics Heterogeneous class Total

Homogeneous class Gender Male Female Childs age (months) Mean Standard Deviation Childs ethnicity African-American Hispanic Caucasian Income status Low income High income

6 8 48.53 6.71 4 10 0 14 0

5 8 50.38 4.05 3 2 8 6 7

11 16 49.67 5.53 7 12 8 20 7

398 J. H. Bagby et al. Both classrooms had learning centers with home living, blocks and manipulatives, science explorations, computers, reading, writing, mathematics concepts and art areas. The majority of learning experiences were facilitated through child-selected centers. Both teachers employed whole-group lessons at least twice daily. Measures In order to evaluate growth in language abilities, the Test of Early Language Development (TELD) (Hresko et al., 1999) was administered at the beginning and end of the school year. Both the receptive and expressive language sections were given. The TELD reported that all but one of the 18 reliability coefficients round to or exceed 0.90. Content-description validity and construct-identification validity studies are well documented. In relation to eight other language measures, the criterion-prediction validity correlation coefficients ranged from 0.40 to 0.92. The Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC) (Voress & Maddox, 1998) was administered at the beginning and end of the school year to measure the change in cognitive and social and emotional development of the participants. The DAYCcomprised of the three subtests: language, cognitive and socialemotional employs a checklist format. Only the cognitive and socialemotional subtests were administered. The checklist consists of 78 items for the cognitive subtest and 58 items for the socialemotional subtest. The overall reliability of the DAYC is very high with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 across three sources of test error: content, time and scorer. The DAYC also boasts a high level of validity when referring to content-description validity, criterion-prediction validity and construct validity. The DAYC reported results of criterion-prediction validity correlation coefficients ranging from 0.48 for the DAYC and the Revised Gesell to 0.57 for the DAYC and the Batelle Development Inventory. In order to control for intelligence, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983) was administered to all participants at the beginning of the school year. The following subtests were given: Magic Window, Face Recognition, Hand Movements, Gestalt Closure, Number Recall, Triangles, Word Order, Expressive Vocabulary, Faces and Places, Arithmetic, and Riddles. One child was five at the time of testing; therefore he also was given the Matrix Analogies and Reading/Decoding subtests. The testre-test reliability coefficients for the K-ABC subtests ranged from 0.59 to 0.98 with most in the 0.70s and 0.80s. The internal consistency reliabilities for the subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.92 with the majority in the 0.90s. Validity coefficients were reported between the K-ABC and the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet IQ tests and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test as well as the K-ABC and group-administered achievement tests. These coefficients ranged from 0.24 to 0.84 with the majority of the correlations being in the 0.40s and 0.50s. In addition to the quantitative instruments used in this study, weekly observations were conducted in each classroom to determine the nature of interactions among the children and between the children and teachers. These observations assessed social interactions within the classrooms. The observation form, designed specifically for

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

Effects of socioeconomic diversity in low-income backgrounds 399 this study, was divided into five sections. Within each section there was space to record the area of the classroom, the individuals in the area during the coding time period and the nature of the interaction (verbal-positive, verbal-negative, physicalpositive or physical-negative). Prior to collecting the observation data, researchers achieved an inter-observer reliability coefficient of 0.80. Procedures At the back-to-school parent information meeting, researchers described the study and distributed the consent forms. Most parents completed both forms while at the meeting. Classroom teachers aided in the collection of all other consent forms as well as the questionnaires. After a six-week adjustment period, each child was taken by one of the researchers to a small but comfortable room at the development center for the K-ABC. The complete test was administered in one setting, usually taking 3045 minutes. On a separate occasion, the TELD was administered. Both the receptive and expressive portions of the test were administered in a small quiet room at the child development center in a single session lasting from 15 to 30 minutes. Children were given small reinforcers (i.e. stickers or small candies) for their participation. Following the testing session the researcher walked each child back to class. Translators were not available, and all testing was conducted in English. Students were tested in random order. All testing was done in accordance with the directions provided in the manual for administration for the K-ABC and the TELD. The classroom teachers completed the checklist for both the cognitive and social emotional subtests of the DAYC at the beginning and end of the school year. Both teachers completed these during a one-week period in the fall and again in the spring. The researchers collected the forms the following week. Classroom observations were conducted over a period of five months in both the heterogeneous and homogeneous classrooms. The researchers were able to observe the workings of the class from an observation booth with a one-way mirror. In addition to clear classroom visibility, microphones were placed in the classrooms so conversations could be tracked and coded. Researchers participated in over 15 practice runs to ensure inter-observer reliability. The two researchers divided each classroom into five viewing areas. The researcher would choose an area and do a two-minute observation of the children and adults within that space. The childrens actions were coded by child and adult as verbal-positive, verbal-negative, physical-positive or physical-negative. The terms negative and positive were used as indicators of discontinued (negative) or continued (positive) actions. Children in the room who were not in the study were included in the observations; however, they were simply coded as other boy/girl. The lead teacher, classroom aide, student-teacher and university students were coded only if they entered the observation area and interacted with the children. Both the heterogeneous and homogeneous rooms were observed on different days of the week and at random times during the day. In addition to recording the actions

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

400 J. H. Bagby et al. for two minutes, the researcher also wrote a brief anecdotal reference of what was taking place at that time. Data analysis Quantitative measures TELD and DAYC. The relations between the low-income childrens performance from the homogeneous class (n = 14) and the low-income childrens performance from the heterogeneous class (n = 6) on the pre and post measures of the TELD, the DAYC Achievement and the DAYC SE (SocialEmotional) assessments were analyzed. One-way analyses of variance revealed no significant differences between the groups except on the post evaluation of the DAYC SE assessment (F(1,18) = 5.58, p < .0297). Specifically, on the post assessment of the DAYC SE, the children in the homogeneous class (Mean = 107.57, Standard deviation [SD] = 12.21) received higher scores from their teacher than the low-income children in the heterogeneous class (mean = 94.17, SD = 9.99). Even when controlling for intelligence, a difference in the means between the children in the homogeneous class and the low-income children in the heterogeneous class (F(1,17) = 4.31, p < .0533) on the post DAYC SE was revealed when an analysis of covariance was run controlling for intelligence. Given these findings, a second set of analyses was conducted on the heterogeneous class. Examining within the class, there were no significant differences (t (11), p < .7548), between the pre DAYC SE scores of the low-income children (n = 6) and the high-income children (n = 7). However, as Table 2 reveals, the teacher evaluated the low-income children as having fewer socialemotional skills at the end of the year than at the beginning. Observational data. Frequency counts of interactions among children and among teachers/aides and children in both the heterogeneous and homogeneous classrooms were summarized from observational data. The data were analyzed to determine the number of interactions among different socioeconomic levels and the types of interactions. As reported in Table 3, the children in the heterogeneous class had five times more total interactions than the children in the homogeneous classroom. In the heterogeneous classroom, 72% of all the interactions were recorded as Verbal+
Table 2. Mean and SD for the DAYC SE measure for the heterogeneous classroom Low income (n = 6) Dependent variable DAYC pre DAYC post Mean 101.00 94.167 SD 12.8996 9.9883 High income (n = 7) Mean 98.857 104.857 SD 11.2462 10.1723

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

Effects of socioeconomic diversity in low-income backgrounds 401

Table 3. Heterogeneous (Het) versus homogeneous (Hom) classroom interactions Classroom children Hom (n = 14) Low Het 48 (55%) 28 (32%) 11 (13%) 0 (0%) 87 Hom 10 (28%) 20 (56%) 5 (14%) 1 (3%) 36 Het Hom Teacher Aide

Het (n = 13) Interaction Low (n = 6) High (n = 7) Verbal+ Verbal Physical+ Physical Total 108 (45%) 53 (22%) 51 (21%) 26 (11%) 238

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

174 (61%) 29 (29%) 45 (16%) 32 (32%) 42 (15%) 22 (22%) 24 (8%) 18 (18%) 285 101

63 (76%) 42 (56%) 16 (19%) 20 (27%) 4 (5%) 8 (11%) 0 (0%) 5 (7%) 83 75

(continuing) and Physical+ (continuing). In contrast, only 50% of the total interactions in the homogeneous classroom were Verbal+ and Physical+ actions. The data show that the homogeneous group used Physical (discontinuing) interactions twice as often as the heterogeneous group. The opposite held true for Verbal+ (continuing). The heterogeneous group appeared to be twice as verbal as the homogeneous group. Of note, the high-income children were considerably more Verbal+ and less physically continuing and discontinuing with their actions than the low-income children in either classroom. As shown in Table 3, the teacher of the heterogeneous class had 2.4 times more total interactions than the teacher in the homogeneous class. Sixty-eight percent of the heterogeneous classroom teachers interactions consisted of Verbal+ and Physical+ actions. By comparison, 56% of the homogeneous teachers interactions were recorded as Verbal (discontinuing) actions. The two aides actions were similar to the teachers actions across the types of interactions. Table 4 reports, by income group, the frequency of child-initiated interactions within the heterogeneous class. The high-income children initiated 63% of the total interactions within the classroom. Over two-thirds (69%) of all Verbal+ interactions were initiated by the high-income children. However, the high-income children tended to be less verbal when interacting with the low-income children. The lowest frequencies were interactions initiated by low-income students and directed toward high-income students. Interactions initiated by the teacher and directed to the students are analyzed in Table 5. The teacher of the heterogeneous group had 70% more interactions than the teacher in the homogeneous setting. When examining types of interactions, the heterogeneous teacher had many more Verbal+ and Physical+ interactions than the homogeneous teacher. Specifically, the rate of Verbal+ interactions ranged from a high of 4.0 for the heterogeneous teachers interactions with the low-income students to a low of 0.7 for the homogeneous teachers interactions with her children. The rates of Verbal+ interactions initiated by the aides were also higher within the heterogeneous

402 J. H. Bagby et al.

Table 4. Heterogeneous classroom: high versus low initiated interactions Classroom children (n = 13) High (n = 7) Interaction Verbal+ Verbal Physical+ Physical Total Low 54 (49%) 19 (17%) 30 (27%) 8 (7%) 111 High 140 (64%) 31 (14%) 30 (14%) 19 (9%) 220 Low 54 (43%) 33 (26%) 22 (17%) 18 (14%) 127 Low (n = 6) High 34 (52%) 15 (23%) 11 (17%) 5 (8%) 65

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

class than within the homogeneous classroom. The remaining rates of interaction were approximately the same across the types of interactions and classrooms. Discussion This study explored the effects of socioeconomic diversity within the classroom on the language, cognitive and socialemotional development of children from lowincome backgrounds. Because previous research indicated that context affects learning, the researchers hypothesized that low-income children would benefit from being with high-income children in a heterogeneous classroom. The only significant difference in quantitative scores between the groups was on the post DAYC SE measure. Contrary to the researchers expectations, the children (all low income) in the homogeneous class received higher scores from their teacher than the low-income children in the heterogeneous classroom. And, the fact that the
Table 5. Teacher and aide initiated interactions with children Teacher Hom (n = 14) Low 10 (0.7) 20 (1.4) 5 (0.4) 1 (0.1) 36 Aide Hom (n = 14) Low 42 (3.0) 20 (1.4) 8 (0.6) 5 (0.4) 75

Het (n = 13) Interaction Verbal+ Verbal Physical+ Physical Total Low (n = 6) High (n = 7) 24 (4.0) 16 (2.7) 4 (0.7) 0 44 24 (3.4) 12 (1.7) 7 (1.0) 0 43

Het (n = 13) Low (n = 6) 24 (4.0) 12 (2.0) 2 (0.3) 0 38 High (n = 7) 39 (5.6) 4 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 0 45

Het = heterogeneous, Hom = homogeneous. Data in parentheses: Rate of interaction = (number of teacher interactions within income group) / (number of children within income group).

Effects of socioeconomic diversity in low-income backgrounds 403 low-income children in the heterogeneous classroom did poorer on the post DAYC SE than on the pre-assessment provides an interesting outcome. Why did the teacher in the heterogeneous classroom rate the low-income children as having fewer social emotional skills at the end of the year than at the beginning? Perhaps this occurred because the comparison group in the heterogeneous class provided more diversity and a wider range of observed skills among the children. Consequently, the teacher, without realizing her actions, may have compared the low-income childrens social emotional skills with the high-income childrens skills. The teachers expectations for the low-income children could have differed from those for the high-income children. Future research should be directed toward these possible effects. The observational data show considerable variance in the frequency and types of interactions across the two classrooms. The heterogeneous class has more interactions in general and more positive (continuing) interactions specifically. It would appear from this finding that there is a greater amount of language present in this mixed group (523 total interactions) than in the group where the children are all from low-income backgrounds (101 total interactions). The advantage of the mixed group is to provide the low-income children with the opportunity to interact with children who seem to have more verbal interactions. Our data support this finding when one considers that the high-income children not only initiated interactions more often (64% to other high income and 49% to low income) than did the low-income children (52% to high income and 43% to low income), but the high-income children also used more total verbal interactions (244) than the low-income children (136). Not only were there more interactions in the heterogeneous class, but there was a difference in types of interactions. In the heterogeneous class the low-income children had 67% verbal interactions with only 22% of those being negative (discontinuing), while the low-income children in the homogeneous class had only 61% verbal interactions of which 32% were negative (discontinuing). In addition, the lowincome children in the heterogeneous class used only 32% physical interactions while their counterparts in the homogeneous class used 40% physical interactions. These findings suggest the influence of teacher modeling on childrens behavior. Although the two classrooms were similar in regard to the curriculum and room arrangement, they differed on the construct of teacher style. Since the researchers did not anticipate this difference prior to the study, no formal measure (McWilliam et al., 1998, 2003) was used to gather data regarding teacher style. However, after many hours of classroom observations, a difference in teacher style was apparent. The teacher in the homogeneous class tended to be less sensitive, more harsh, more detached and more permissive than the teacher in the heterogeneous class. The teacher in the hetergeneous class appeared to be more involved, more responsive and more child-directed than the teacher in the homogeneous class. These anecdotal accounts of differences in teacher style may have affected the interactions in the classrooms. Previous research has indicated that teacher interaction style does influence student development. For example, children exhibited poorer language skills when they received less verbal communication and less responsiveness from their teachers (Melhuish et al., 1990a,b).

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

404 J. H. Bagby et al. Conversely, children who experienced more responsive teacher involvement exhibited higher levels of language development (Whitebrook et al., 1989; Rudd, 2003) and more secure attachment relationships (Howes et al., 1992; Galinsky et al., 1994). Phillips et al. (1987) reported that childrens social development was positively affected by a verbally stimulating environment in which adult caregivers and children are frequently engaged in conversation (p. 542). Although analysis of the TELD did not show a significant difference between the two groups, there were differences in the number and types of interactions. Perhaps the differences in these data are attributed to the differences in teacher style. Further research is necessary to definitively determine the effects. A serious limitation of this study was the small number of children and teachers participating in the research. However, these findings provide a basis for future study of the influence of social context as well as teacher interactions on childrens development and achievement. Additional research on the influence of teacher expectations and the effects of teacher interactions on childrens development is needed. It would be helpful to evaluate, over time, the types of interactions to determine how teacher modeling and mixed grouping influence childrens behavior. These findings would provide additional insight into the effect of mixed income grouping on preschool childrens language, cognitive and socialemotional development.

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013

References
Azmitia, M. (1988) Peer interaction and problem solving: when are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 8796. Baker, L. (1994) Fostering metacognitive development, in: H. W. Reese (Ed.) Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 25) (San Diego, CA, Academic Press), 201239. Barnett, W. (1995) Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes, The Future of Children: Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, 5(3). Bronson, M., Tivnan, T. & Seppanen, P. (1995) Relations between teacher and classroom activity variables and the classroom behaviors of pre-kindergarten children in Chapter 1 funded programs, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 253282. Burchinal, M. R., Ramey, S. L., Reid, M. K. & Bryant, D. (1996) Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language development, Child Development, 67, 606620. Campbell, F. A. & Ramey, C. T. (1994) Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: a follow-up study of children from low-income families, Child Development, 65, 684698. Feagans, L. V., Fendt, K. & Farran, D. C. (1995) The effect of day care intervention on teachers ratings of the elementary school discourse skills in disadvantaged children, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18(2), 243261. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S. & Shinn, M. (1994) The study of children in family child care and relative care (New York, Families and Work Institute). Goldman, J. (1981) Social participation of preschool children in same-versus mixed-age groups, Child Development, 52, 644650. Howes, C., Phillips, D. & Whitebrook, M. (1992) Thresholds of quality: implications for the social development of children in center-based child care, Child Development, 63, 449460. Hresko, W. P., Reid, D. K. & Hammill, D. D. (1999) Test of early language development (3rd edn) (Austin, TX, PRO-ED).

Effects of socioeconomic diversity in low-income backgrounds 405

Katz, L., Evangelou, D. & Hartman, A. (1990) Case for mixed-age grouping in early education (Washington, DC, National Association for the Education of Young Children). Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1983) Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Circle Pines, MN, American Guidance Service). Kermani, H. & Brenner, M. (2002) Maternal scaffolding in the childs zone of proximal development across tasks: cross-cultural perspectives, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 3052. Lee, V. E., Loeb, S. & Lubeck, S. (1998) Contextual effects of prekindergarten classrooms for disadvantaged children on cognitive development: the case of Chapter 1, Child Development, 69, 479494. McClellan, D. E. & Kinsey, S. J. (1999) Childrens social behavior in relation to participation in mixed-age or same-age classrooms, Early Childhood Research & Practice, 1(1). Available online at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n1/mcclellan.html (accessed 4 January 2004). McWilliam, R. A., Scarborough, A. A., Bagby, J. & Sweeney, A. (1998) Teaching Styles Rating Scale (TSRS) (Chapel Hill, NC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina). McWilliam, R. A., Scarborough, A. A. & Kim, H. (2003) Adult interactions and child engagement, Early Education and Development, 14(1), 727. Melhuish, E., Lloyd, E., Martin, S. & Mooney, A. (1990a) Type of child care at 18 monthsI. Differences in interactional experience, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(6), 849859. Melhuish, E., Lloyd, E., Martin, S. & Mooney, A. (1990b) Type of child care at 18 monthsII. Relations with cognitive and language development, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(6), 861870. Phillips, D., McCartney, K. & Scarr, S. (1987) Child-care quality and childrens social development, Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 537543. Rudd, L. C. (2003) The effect of joint attention training for child care providers on the acquisition of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Baylor University. Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V. & Weikart, D. P. (1993) Significant benefits: the High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 27 (Ypsilanti, MI, High/Scope Press). Stright, A. & French, D. (1988) Leadership in mixed-age childrens group, The International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, 11(4), 507515. Tudge, Jn. (1986) Beyond conflict: the role of reasoning in collaborative problem solving, paper presented at the Meeting of the Piaget Society Conference, Philadelphia, PA. US Bureau of the Census (1999) Historical poverty tables (Washington, DC, US Census). Voress, J. K. & Maddox, T. (1998) Developmental assessment of young children (Austin, TX, PRO-ED). Whitebrook, M., Howes, C. & Phillips, D. (1989) The national child care staffing study: Who cares? Childcare teachers and the quality of care in America. Final report (Oakland, CA, Child Care Employee Project).

Downloaded by [Management and Science University] at 22:47 06 August 2013