Focus on the data presented in Table 3 of the article. Is there evidence to suggest that language/reasoning was a significant predictor of literacy quality?

What statistical information did you use to come to this conclusion? What amount of variability in literacy quality was explained by the language/reasoning factor?

QUALITY OF THE LITERACY ENVIRONMENT IN DAY CARE AND CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT Loraine Dunn University of Oklahoma Sara Ann Beach University of Oklahoma Susan Kontos Purdue University Although traditional assessments of day care theoretical notions and the research supporting 5. Scholars studying the environment stress environments have been linked to children's de- them suggests that for many preschool-age chil- that in order to understand how environments velopment, understanding of the specific char- dren, the quality of the environment in day care influence children's development the environ- acteristics of the environment that enhance settings should play as important a role in their ment must be measured directly rather than language, literacy, and cognitive development development as the quality of the home envir through proxy or social address variables (e.g., is sketchy. The purpose of this study was to ex- onment. Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Wachs, 1983). Direct or plore the environment for literacy in day care 2. While work is available describing day specific measures of environments allow schol- centers, its relationship with traditional meas- care environments and their influence on chil- ars to pinpoint those characteristics of the envi- ures of day care quality and its influence on dren's development, missing from our knowl- ronment most salient to specific domains of children's cognitive and language development. edge base is information on the environment for development. For example, the availability of Observation of the environments in the 30 literacy typically available to young children in stimulating toys and materials in homes and in community-based day care classrooms sampled community-based day care programs. It seems day care centers has been positively related to revealed relatively impoverished environments. logical that a high quality day care environment children's cognitive development (Bradley & Correlation and multiple regression analyses would be rich in reading and writing artifacts Caldwell, 1984; Clarke-Stewart & Gruber, indicated that settings of higher day care qual- and experiences and that this environment 1984; Wachs & Gruen, 1982). Similarly, the ity also had higher quality environments. In would influence children's development quality of children's interactions with teachers separate hierarchical regression analyses, con- 3. In fact, the quality of the home environ- in day care centers has been positively related trolling for variance due to family factors, both ment for literacy has been documented as hav- to their language development (Mccartney, day care quality and the environment predicted ing a significant effect on children's language 1984). Research on other specific features of a significant portion of the variance in chil- development (Beach, 1991; Chomsky, 1972; the environment may also provide valuable in- tren's language development but not in chil- - Heath, 1983). Children from homes where par- formation on children's developmental poten- dren's cognitive development. ents provide materials and activities that pro- tial. One likely candidate for investigation is the mote literacy are often those children who quality of the environment to promote literacy 1. Theory and research clearly point to the become successful readers and writers at an in day care programs. For the remainder of the importance of the environment in facilitating early age, in many cases before formal school article, references to the environment imply an young children's development of language, lit- instruction has begun. Characteristics of these environment to promote literacy, unless other- cracy and cognition. Bronfenbrenner's (1979) homes have included an availability of both wise stated. social-ecological theory argues that the specific reading and writing materials for children's use, 6. As with other specific measures of the day contexts or environments that children experi- adult models of language use within a wide care environment, examination of the environ ence influence their concurrent behaviors as range of social spheres, and interaction between ment to promote literacy is most likely to be well as their subsequent development. Simi- children and adults around meaningful reading larly, Vygotsky's (1978) socio-cultural theory and writing activities (Durkin, 1966; Leichter, Dunn, L., Beach, S. A., & Kontos, S. (1994). Qual- contends that the specific society and culture in 1984; Taylor, 1983). ity of the literacy environment in day care and chil- which children are raised plays an important 4. Having materials available to children dren's development. Journal of Research in role in their development. Research linking (Cochran-Smith, 1984; Ferreiro & Teberosky, Childhood Education, 9, 24-34. Reprinted by per- children's developmental outcomes and the en- 1982; Morrow, 1990), displaying functional mission of the author and the Association for vironments they experience supports these and environmental print (McGee, Lomax, & Childhood Education International, 11501 Georgia theoretical notions. Stimulating home environ- Head, 1988; Schickendanz & Sullivan, 1984), Avenue, Suite 315, Wheaton, MD. Copyright ments have been shown to positively predict engaging in interactive storybook reading 1994 by the Association. children's performance on measures of lan- (Beach, Kincade, & Asundi, 1992; Mason, Thanks to Linda Hestenes, Lora Andrada and Terri Underwood for assistance with data collection guage and cognitive development (Bradley & 1990; Morrow & Weinstein, 1986), and include and coding. This study was partially funded by a Caldwell, 1984; Elardo, Bradley, & Caldwell, ing materials that promote literacy in play set- David Ross grant from the Purdue University Re- 1977). High quality day care environments also tings (Neuman & Roskos, 1990, 1993; search Foundation to the first and third authors. have a positive influence on children's lan- Pellegrini, 1985; Schrader, 1990) have also This paper was presented at the 1993 American guage and cognitive development (Howes, been shown to enhance the development of Educational Research Association Annual Confer- 1988; Mccartney, 1984). Taken together, these literacy and language. ence, Atlanta.useful when examined in the context of other measures of day care quality (i.e., structural and global quality assessments). In terms of strucr tural quality, variables such as teacher-child ratio, group size and teacher training are often addressed. Global quality is typically assessed with the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS, Harms & Clifford, 1980), an observational instrument which rates both static and process features of day care programs through items on a variety of subscales related to the physical and educational environment. 7. Ample evidence is available linking these traditional assessments of the day care environ- ment to children's development. Low teacher child ratios (few children per adult) have been associated with children's language develop ment (McCartney, 1984; Phillips, Scarr, & McCartney, 1987). Lower group sizes have been associated with children's achievement and language development (Ruopp ct al., 1979). Teachers' child-related training has been asso ciated with children's achievement (Ruopp et al., 1979) and children's cognitive functioning (Clarke-Stewart & Gruber, 1984). Children in higher global quality centers (ECERS total score) have been found to have more advanced language development (Phillips et al., 1987). 8. Within a given structural or global quality level, what specic characteristics of the envi- ronment contribute to children's development? Current understanding of this issue is relatively sketchy. Children in programs with low adult- child ratios are more likely to experience higher levels of global quality in the form of develop- mentally appropriate care giving. And children in programs with lower group sizes are more likely to experience higher global quality in the form of developmentally appropriate activities (Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992). Chil- dren are more likely to experience a variety of play materials and caregiver stimulation of cog- nitive development in programs with higher global quality ratings (BCERS total score) and larger group sizes (Dunn, 1993). 9. Are environments that stimulate literacy more likely to occur in day care settings scoring high on measures of structural and global qual- ity? Do these environments have an impact on children's development? This study was de- signed to provide preliminary answers to these questions by (a) describing the environment available in typical day care classrooms, (la) de- termining the relationship between day care quality and the quality of the environment and (c) exploring the inuence of the day care envi- ronment on children's cognitive and language deveIOpment. Because of the theoretical link- ages between literacy and children's cognitive and language development (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986') the focus was on these two forms of chil- dren's development. It was hypothesized that programs scoring high on traditional measures of day care quality would also score high on as sessments of the environment and that children in day care programs with rich environments would display more advanced cognitive and language development. Method Sample 10. Centers. The sample, taken from a larger study of day care quality and children's development, consisted of 30 classrooms in 2.4 licensed community day care centers in an 8county region of a midwestern state. in order to obtain classrooms representing the widest range of day care quality possible all licensed centers in the geographic area were invited to participate. Fifty-two percent of the eligible centers agreed to participate in the study. Re- fusals to participate typically related to undesir- able timing, policies against observation by outsiders or reluctance to be observed. No more than two classrooms from any one center were included. Eight of the participating centers were nonprot, 16 were for prot, Both private for~ 'prot and for-prot franchises were repre- sented. Information obtained from directors during recruitment were compared using X2 and t tests. There were no differences between par ticipating and nonparticipating centers in terms of auspice, center size, number of teachers em- ployed, training of staff or staff turnover. Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the sample Centers participating in the study employed fewer aides, : (40) = 2.29, p