teacher-child relationship quality for young children with ... · teacher-child relationship...
TRANSCRIPT
Teacher-Child Relationship Quality for Young Children With
Parent Reported Language Concerns
Kirstine Alicia Hand
BEd (Secondary)
MLI (Early Childhood)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Education (Research)
Centre for Learning Innovation
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Queensland
Australia
2008
i
Statement of Originality
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signed: ......................................................... Date: ..........................................
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisors, Associate Professor
Donna Berthelsen and Dr Sue Walker, for their supervision throughout the
completion of this research. Their support and guidance has been invaluable and
without their help this thesis would not have been possible. Also, I would like to
thank Associate Professor Jan Nicholson, for offering her expertise and time as an
external supervisor.
I was awarded a one year scholarship from the Faculty of Education throughout my
candidature. I extend my thanks also to the Faculty of Education for this financial
assistance. It was greatly appreciated.
iii
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated the importance of the qualities of the teacher-
child relationship on children’s development. Close teacher-child relationships are
especially important for children at risk. Positive relationships have been shown to
have beneficial effects on children’s social and academic development (Birch &
Ladd, 1997; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Children with language difficulties are likely
to face increased risks with regard to long term social and academic outcomes. The
purpose of the current research was to gain greater understanding of the qualities of
teacher-child relationships for young children with parent reported language
concerns.
The research analyses completed for this thesis involved the use of data from the
public-access database of Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children (LSAC). LSAC is a longitudinal study involving a nationally
representative sample of 10,000 Australian children. Data are being collected
biennially from 2004 (Wave 1 data collection) until 2010 (Wave 4 data collection).
LSAC has a cross-sequential research design involving two cohorts, an infant cohort
(0-1 year at age of recruitment) and a kindergarten cohort (4-5 years at age of
recruitment). Two studies are reported in this thesis using data for the LSAC
Kindergarten Cohort which had 4983 child participants at recruitment.
Study 1 used Wave 1 data to identify the differences between teacher-child
relationship qualities for children with parent reported language concerns and their
peers. Children identified by parents for whom concerns were held about their
receptive and expressive language, as measured by items from the Parents’
Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) (Glascoe, 2000) were the target (at risk)
group in the study (n = 210). A matched case control group of peers (n = 210),
matched on the child characteristics of sex, age, cultural and linguistic differences
(CALD), and socio-economic positioning (SEP), were the comparison group for this
analysis. Teacher-child relationship quality was measured by teacher reports on the
Closeness and Conflict scales from the short version of the Student-Teacher
Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta, 2001). There were statistically significant
differences in the levels of closeness and conflict between the two groups. The target
iv
group had relationships with their teachers that had lower levels of closeness and
higher levels of conflict than the control group.
Study 2 reports analyses that examined the stability of the qualities of the teacher-
child relationships at Wave 1 (4-5 years) and the qualities of the teacher-child
relationships at Wave 2 (6-7 years). This time frame crosses the period of the
children’s transition to school. The study examined whether early patterns in the
qualities of the teacher-child relationship for children with parent reported language
concerns at Wave 1 predicted the qualities of the teacher-child relationship outcomes
in the early years of formal school. The sample for this study consisted of the group
of children identified with PEDS language concerns at Wave 1 who also had teacher
report data at Wave 2 (n = 145). Teacher-child relationship quality at Wave 1 and
Wave 2 was again measured by the STRS scales of Closeness and Conflict.
Results from multiple regression models indicated that teacher-child relationship
quality at Wave 1 significantly contributed to the prediction of the quality of the
teacher-child relationship at Wave 2, beyond other predictor variables included in the
regression models. Specifically, Wave 1 STRS Closeness scores were the most
significant predictor for STRS Closeness scores at Wave 2, while Wave 1 STRS
Conflict scores were the only significant predictor for Wave 2 STRS Conflict
outcomes. These results indicate that the qualities of the teacher-child relationship
experienced prior to school by children with parent reported language concerns
remained stable across transitions into formal schooling at which time the child had a
different teacher.
The results of these studies provide valuable insight into the nature of teacher-child
relationship quality for young children with parent reported language concerns.
These children experienced teacher-child relationships of a lower quality when
compared with peers and, additionally, the qualities of these relationships prior to
formal schooling were predictive of the qualities of the relationships in the early
years of formal schooling. This raises concerns, given the increased risks of poorer
social and academic outcomes already faced by children with language difficulties,
that these early teacher-child relationships have an impact on future teacher-child
relationships. Results of these studies are discussed with these considerations in mind
and also discussed in terms of the implications for educational theory, policy and
practice.
v
List of Key Abbreviations and Terms
Abbreviation Definition
AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies
ATSI Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
CALD Cultural and/or linguistic differences
FaCS Department of Family and Community Services (the former
name for FaHCSIA)
FaHCSIA Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Kindergarten Cohort The cohort of children in the LSAC study who were 4 years
of age for the first Wave of data collection (2004).
LOTE Language other than English
LSAC Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children
MANOVA Multivariate analysis of variance
OME Otitis media with effusion
PEDS Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (Glascoe,
2000)
SDQ The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman,
1999)
SLI Specific Language impairment
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
STRS Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001)
Wave 1 The first wave of LSAC data collection (2004)
Wave 2 The second wave of LSAC data collection (2006)
vi
Table of Contents
Statement of Originality ............................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. ii
Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii
List of Key Abbreviations and Terms ....................................................................... v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Research..................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background to the Research Problem ............................................................. 1
1.3 Research Problem and Objectives ................................................................... 3
1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Justification for Research ............................................................................... 5
1.6 Definitions ..................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Outline of the Thesis Structure ....................................................................... 8
1.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................10
Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................11
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................11
2.2 The Transition to School ...............................................................................11
2.3 The Importance of Teacher-Child Relationships ............................................16
2.4 Language Abilities, Difficulties and Differences ...........................................23
2.5 The Academic and Social Implications of Language Difficulties ...................28
2.6 Teacher Perceptions of Children with Language Difficulties .........................33
2.7 Research Objectives and Directions for the Current Research ........................37
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methods ................................................................40
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................40
3.2 Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
(LSAC) ...............................................................................................................40
3.3 LSAC Research Design, Sampling, Instrumentation and Data Collection
Procedures ..........................................................................................................41
vii
3.3.1 Representative Nature of the Kindergarten Cohort Sample .....................42
3.3.2 LSAC Instruments and Procedures .........................................................43
3.4 The Current Research ....................................................................................44
3.4.1 Study 1 ...................................................................................................44
3.4.2 Study 2 ...................................................................................................47
3.5 Measurement Instruments..............................................................................48
3.5.1 Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) .............................49
3.5.2 Student-Teacher Relationship Scale ........................................................50
3.5.3 The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ..........................................50
3.6 Data Preparation and Screening .....................................................................51
3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................52
3.8 Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................54
3.9 Conclusion ....................................................................................................55
Chapter 4 Results ....................................................................................................56
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................56
4.2 Study 1 – Matched Case Control Study .........................................................56
4.2.1 Descriptive Analyses ..............................................................................57
4.2.2 Comparative Analysis by Group Status on the STRS ..............................66
4.3 Study 2 – Stability in the Quality of Teacher-Child Relationships..................68
4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................69
4.3.2 Predictive Models of Wave 2 STRS Closeness and Conflict ...................75
4.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................80
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................82
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................82
5.2 Study 1 - Review of Research Findings .........................................................82
5.3 Study 2 - Review of Research Findings .........................................................86
5.4 Implications of the Findings for Theoretical Understandings .........................91
5.5 Implications for Policy and Practice ..............................................................92
5.6 Limitations of this Research ..........................................................................95
5.7 Directions for Further Research .....................................................................96
5.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................98
viii
References ..............................................................................................................99
Appendix A LSAC Wave 1 Kindergarten Cohort Sample Characteristics.............. 120
Appendix B Data Analysis Plan - Variables used and Derived for Analyses .......... 121
Appendix C Socio-Economic Positioning Variable Construction .......................... 138
Appendix D Matching Procedure for the Target and the Control Group ................ 139
ix
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Summary of Target Group Selection for Study 1 .....................................45
Table 3.2 Summary of Target Group Selection for Study 2. ....................................48
Table 3.3 Variables used in Multiple Regressions for Study 2. ................................53
Table 4.1 Demographics by Group Status ...............................................................59
Table 4.2 MANOVA Results for Wave 1 STRS Closeness and Conflict by Group
Status ......................................................................................................................67
Table 4.3 Demographics for Study 2 Sample at Wave 1 and Wave 2 .......................70
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of STRS scores at Wave 2 and Predictor Variables 76
Table 4.5 Correlations between Continuous Variables used in Regression Analyses
for Predicting STRS Closeness and Conflict at Wave 2 ...........................................77
Table 4.6 Regression Models 1 and 2 for the Prediction of STRS Closeness Wave 2
...............................................................................................................................78
Table 4.7 Regression Models 1 and 2 for the Prediction of STRS Conflict Wave 2 .80
x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Influencing Factors on the Quality of Teacher-child Relationships.. 21
Figure 3.1 Matching Procedure for Target and Control Group .................................47
Figure 4.1 Classroom Child Composition at Wave 1 ...............................................60
Figure 4.2 Specific Parental Concerns Relating to Child Language Production and
Comprehension by Group Status .............................................................................62
Figure 4.3 Percentage of Children Receiving Additional Services in Early Childhood
Classroom Settings .................................................................................................63
Figure 4.4 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Reading by Group Status .64
Figure 4.5 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Writing by Group Status ..65
Figure 4.6 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Numeracy by Group Status
...............................................................................................................................66
Figure 4.7 Classroom Child Composition from Wave 1 to Wave 2 ..........................71
Figure 4.8 Percentage of Children Receiving Additional Services at Wave 2...........72
Figure 4.9 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Reading Skills ...................................73
Figure 4.10 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Writing and Computer Literacy Skills
...............................................................................................................................74
Figure 4.11 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Mathematical Thinking Skills ..........75
1
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Research
1.1 Introduction
This thesis investigates relationships between parent reported language concerns of
young children and the quality of their relationships with teachers, through the
transition period into formal schooling. Aspects examined included identifying
differences in teacher-child relationship quality experienced by children with parent
reported language concerns and their peers and whether relationships formed in early
childhood settings contributed to the prediction of teacher-child relationship quality
after the transition to formal school. Developing further understanding of the nature
of teacher-child relationships for children with risk status, such as those ‘at risk’ due
to language difficulties, is essential in order to inform education policy and practice.
This chapter provides a background to the research problem. It touches briefly on
the importance of early school transitions and how child language ability relates to
social and academic outcomes. As a consequence, children with low language
competence may have difficulties in making a successful transition to school. The
importance of the quality of teacher-child relationships to social and academic
outcomes is emphasised and thus deserving of greater attention in educational policy
and practice. The research problem and objectives are presented as well as an
overview of the research methodology. A justification for the research is developed.
An overview of the thesis structure is then given and key terms are defined.
1.2 Background to the Research Problem
A critical time in any young child’s life is the transition into formal school. Major
adjustments are required regardless of whether a child has prior experience in early
childhood learning settings, such as day care, or not. This is due to changing teacher
and classroom expectations and resources (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta & Cox, 2000).
Teachers may at this time in particular hold expectations that children should present
to school with a degree of school readiness, meaning that children can display
appropriate skills relating to cognitive, emotional and physical functioning
(Espinosa, Thornburg & Matthews, 1997). Research seeking to determine teacher
views on school readiness has found differing results. Similar themes that have
emerged however indicate that in general teachers tend to value child competency in
2
social and emotional areas of development highly (Lin, Lawrence & Gorrell, 2003;
McBryde, Ziviani & Cuskelly, 2004). Another skill which has been found to be
rated favourably is a child’s ability to communicate clearly (Blair, 2002).
It is not surprising that teachers regard child communication abilities as an indicator
of school readiness. Competence in a range of language skills is very important
when children begin school (Hartas, 2005). Such competence supports social
adjustment and academic achievement in the early school years (Nungesser &
Watkins, 2005). Children with poor language skills may have difficulties
understanding instructions, expressing ideas and engaging in productive interactions
with teachers and peers. The development of early literacy skills, such as writing,
reading and comprehension, is also compromised if children’s language and
communication skills are poorly developed (Catts, Fey, Tomblin & Zhang, 2002). A
successful transition to school is more likely if children enter formal schooling with
skills that support positive engagement with their teachers and peers, and with the
curriculum.
Children who have poorly developed language skills face particular challenges that
can have long lasting consequences on developmental outcomes. A significant
proportion of children with language difficulties develop social and behavioural
problems that increase in severity over time (Redmond & Rice, 2002; McCabe,
2005). For example, older children with language impairments are more withdrawn
than their peers (Paul & Kellogg, 1997) and have lower levels of self-esteem
(Jerome, Fujiki, Brinton & James, 2002).
Children with communication difficulties are at greater risk than their peers of
developing emotional, behavioural and mental health problems (Hill & Coufal,
2005). Children with speech, language and communication problems are also at
higher risk for engagement in antisocial behaviours (Bryan, 2004; Tomblin, Zhang,
Buckwalter & Catts, 2000). Given the potential for long lasting difficulties, early
intervention and high levels of classroom support in the early years of school for
these children are essential if the potential of these children is to be realised
(Dockrell & Messer, 1999).
Because current national educational polices mandate inclusion for children with a
range of disabilities, teachers increasingly encounter children with language
3
difficulties in their classrooms (Martin & Miller, 1996; Sadler, 2005). Sensitive and
responsive teachers can have an important role in supporting these children’s
engagement and acceptance in the classroom. The quality of the teacher-child
relationship, in particular, has a strong effect on children’s academic and social
outcomes (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). The quality of this relationship is a critical
issue for all children at risk because it provides support to engage successfully in the
school program (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006). Numerous
factors are recognised as underlying the quality of the teacher-child relationship,
including the internal and external resources available to the teacher and child
(Pianta, 2006).
Despite this realisation, there is limited research that has focused on the nature of the
attributes that children bring to the teacher-child relationship that may affect its
quality. While the professionalism of teachers requires their support for children to
engage productively in the classroom, nevertheless children’s language difficulties
may jeopardise the development of a close relationship. Given the importance of
language development, it would be beneficial for educational practitioners to have a
greater understanding of how children’s language ability affects the quality of their
relationships with teachers. Such research can inform classroom practice and shed
light on the challenges and needs that children with language difficulties face in the
early years of school.
1.3 Research Problem and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to investigate the quality of teacher-child relationships
for young children with parent reported language concerns and to determine if the
quality of relationship differs from the quality that their peers have with their
teachers. It will also consider if there is stability in the quality of the relationship for
children with parent reported language concerns, by comparing the quality of the
teacher-child relationship prior to school with the quality of the relationship that
these children have with their teachers in the early school years.
The specific objectives of this study are:
• To identify differences between the quality of the teacher-child relationships
between young children with parent reported language concerns and their
4
peers, taking account of child sex, age, cultural and linguistic differences and
socio-economic positioning.
• To determine if the quality of the teacher-child relationships for young
children with parent reported language concerns varies over time, through the
period of the transition to school, as children move from early education
settings (e.g., preschools and long day care) to formal schooling.
It is expected that, after controlling for key child characteristics, children with parent
reported language concerns will have poorer quality teacher-child relationships
characterised by less closeness and more conflict than their peers. It is also expected
that the relationship quality at age 4-5 years for children at risk will predict the
quality of the teacher-child relationship at 6-7 years of age, in the early years of
schools.
1.4 Methodology
This research is quantitative in nature. The research involves secondary analyses of
data. Data used in the thesis is drawn from Growing Up in Australia: The
Longitudinal Study of Australian children (LSAC). LSAC is a cross-sequential
cohort study funded by the Australian Government with biennial data collection,
through 2004 (Wave 1) to 2010 (Wave 4). The analyses will use data from Wave 1
(2004) and Wave 2 (2006) for children in the Kindergarten Cohort, aged 4-5 years at
the time of recruitment in 2004. By 2006 at Wave 2 data collection, being 6-7 years
of age, the majority of Kindergarten Cohort children have transitioned into formal
schooling. Detailed information about LSAC will be provided in Chapter 3.
Using secondary data can have limitations such as being restricted to a set list of
predetermined variables (Gorard, 2003), for example, for cost-efficiency in large
survey studies short versions of measurement instruments are often used as opposed
to the full item set which may reduce the depth and quality of measurement for any
construct of interest. Despite this the opportunity to identify a sub-sample of children
with language difficulties who could be identified from this large data set
outweighed these limitations. As noted by McMillan and Schumacher (2006), this
opportunity to access data from a large data set can provide flexibility in identifying
and examining smaller subgroups, in this case, children with parent reported
language concerns.
5
1.5 Justification for Research
This research is significant as it provides further understanding of the nature of
teacher-child relationships for children with parent reported language concerns in
early childhood settings and across the transition into school environments. As will
be demonstrated in Section 2.5 of Chapter 2, children with language difficulties face
increased risks of social and academic difficulties. It is therefore imperative that any
further risk factors, such as poor teacher-child relationship quality, are identified.
Determining whether early teacher-child relationships contribute to the prediction of
future relationship quality also allows for the identification of optimal intervention
points.
These issues have required further investigation in part due to the lack of previous
research which focuses specifically on examining the characteristics of teacher-child
relationships for children with language difficulties. Research focusing on education
outcomes involving children with language difficulties tends to focus primarily on
whether child language ability predicts reading (Catts et al., 2002; Share & Leikin,
2004; Simkin & Conti-Ramsden, 2006). In comparison, research focusing on the
teacher-child relationships of children with language difficulties is very limited.
An exception to this is a study completed by Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice and
Pence (2006). This study did have limitations however as despite having a sample
size of 99 children only 13 teachers were involved. The child sample was also not
representative of a typical population as all children were attending a program
offered only to low-income households (see Section 2.6). This study provided an
opportunity to address these types of sampling issues through the use of LSAC’s
nationally representative data set.
Another benefit of this study is that the research is framed within an Australian
context. Generalisation of study results is often difficult due to small samples or
particular sample characteristics. Previous research would suggest that
generalisations based on international research of teacher-child relationship quality
outcomes should also be done cautiously. Beyazkurk and Kesner (2005) found
unexpected differences between teachers reporting teacher-child relationship quality
from Turkey and the United States. Using the STRS, Turkish teachers were inclined
6
to report less conflict and more closeness than their United States counterparts. This
highlights that differences across continents can occur hence the need for an
Australian based study.
Placing this research within an Australian context also increases its significance due
to its potential to inform policy and practice that support children at risk of language
difficulties in order that these children can make a successful transition to school.
While the importance of successful school transitions to children’s school adjustment
and achievement is recognised, there has been less attention across Australia to state
policies and practices that support successful transitions. Few states provide specific
policies or guidelines to ensure transitions are seamless for children, especially those
at risk. An exception is the New South Wales government, which does provide
guidelines to support successful school transitions for children in general education
and for children with special needs (NSW Department of Education and Training,
2000). Currently, establishing high quality teacher-child relationships seems to be
under utilised as a risk averting resource.
This study could therefore inform Australian educational policy and practice by
providing insight into the extent that child language ability does affect the quality of
teacher-child relationships. Quality relationships have been shown to be extremely
important for at risk children in order to ensure positive social and academic
outcomes (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Pianta & Stuhlman,
2004). As noted by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2004),
the influence of the relationships that children share with their teachers needs to be
considered in many areas of early childhood policy and practice. Determining if
early teacher-child relationship quality contributes to the prediction of future
relationship quality enables potential entry points for intervention for at risk students
to be identified.
It is also important that teaching practitioners be provided with information on how
their interactions with students may be influenced by child attributes and the
consequences of these interactions on child development. This is especially
important for children with language difficulties. As will be discussed in Section 2.6
of Chapter 2, many teachers are not necessarily aware of the link between language
difficulties and behavioural or emotional difficulties, nor are they aware of
7
appropriate behaviour management strategies for these children (Nungesser &
Watkins, 2005).
This highlights that specific training and guidelines in this area would potentially be
beneficial in increasing teacher understanding. The results of this study can also
provide valuable information to other professionals, such as school counsellors and
speech-language therapists who work within school contexts. This study is therefore
highly significant because it provides insight into an area in which there has been
limited research, and the results provide information which is relevant for Australian
policy makers and early childhood practitioners.
1.6 Definitions
In this section, definitions of key constructs related to the research are presented.
These definitions are the basis for understanding the nature of children’s language
abilities and difficulties. A table of abbreviations used throughout the thesis has also
been provided at the start of this document.
Receptive Language
Receptive language skills refer to the ability to understand and process language
(Thompson, 2003). If receptive language is impaired, there may be difficulty in
understanding written, spoken or signed words, sentences or concepts. Children with
impaired receptive language skills may exhibit difficulty in areas such as responding
to their names, understanding instructions and interpreting information presented in a
range of interactions (Hartas, 2005). This leads to confusion for the child if their
understanding of what is taking place around them is limited. It has consequences for
how others also interpret their understandings and actions.
Expressive Language
Expressive language refers to the ability to use language and language structures in
appropriate ways (Thompson, 2003). Children with impaired expressive language
skills may have difficulty expressing themselves verbally due to trouble with using
appropriate grammar, vocabulary and sentence structures (Hartas, 2005). It is
possible for children with expressive language disorders to understand speech that
they cannot use themselves. This occurs when their receptive language skills are
higher than their expressive abilities.
8
Language Impairment
Language impairments involve disorders of receptive and expressive language that
may, or may not, be a result of other conditions. Speech, language and
communication problems can result from physical conditions, such as dyspraxia, or
from cognitive abilities, including mental impairment or conditions such as autism
spectrum disorder (McCauley, 2001). Communication requires the use of many skills
and the understanding of language components, such as phonology, semantics,
pragmatics, syntax and morphology (Dockrell & Messer, 1999). Children may
display problems in one or more of these areas leading to a range of diagnostic labels
that purport to describe particular types of language impairment (Luinge, Post, Wit &
Goorhuis-Brouwer, 2006).
Language Difficulties
For the purpose of this study, children with language difficulties are considered to be
children with atypical language development compared to typically developing peers
(Martin, 2000). These difficulties could have primary or secondary etiology.
At Risk
A child may be considered to be at risk for a large variety of reasons. These may
include child attributes, such as low reading ability, or family attributes, such as
socio-economic status. As noted by Moore (2006) when a child is defined as being
at risk this refers to an increased chance of poor outcomes, not a certainty.
Throughout this thesis, the term is used interchangeably between referring to child
risk factors as a result of child, family or teacher and classroom attributes. The child
outcomes of interest however consistently relate to social and academic outcomes
within school contexts.
1.7 Outline of the Thesis Structure
This thesis consists of five chapters. The current chapter has aimed at providing a
clear overview of the contents of this thesis. The background to the research
problem was presented as were the specific research objectives followed by a brief
description of the research methodology. The significance of this research was
outlined showing justification for its completion. Definitions of key terms were
provided prior to the outline of the thesis structure.
9
Chapter 2 positions the research questions into context through the review and
analysis of literature pertaining to early childhood transitions, teacher-child
relationships, language difficulties and associated risks relating to academic and
social outcomes. The previous research relating to teacher perceptions of children
and how these are affected by language ability is also presented. Throughout this
chapter, the importance of teacher-child relationships for children with language
difficulties becomes clear as does the multitude of compounded risks these children
face. Within this context, the objectives for the current study are presented.
Throughout Chapter 2, the strengths and limitations of the previous research also
emerge providing a framework from which the methodology for the current study
was based.
Chapter 3 explains this methodology in detail. Initially, background information
about the LSAC study is provided along with details of its research design, sampling
and instrumentation. It has been recognised as important to provide this information
about primary data sources when secondary data analyses have been utilised
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Attention is then turned to the current study
design. The sampling procedures followed for each research objective are provided
followed by a description of the instruments used. The statistical methods used for
analysis of data are also detailed.
Chapter 4 displays the results of the data analyses. Results for the first research
objective are presented, followed by results for the second. For each objective,
descriptive results are provided first. Child characteristics are identified along with
information about parents, households, teachers and classrooms. The inferential
statistic results are then presented, being the results of a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) for the first research question and the results of Multiple
Regression models for the second. Only a brief note of their significance is made as
in-depth discussion of results is provided in the following chapter.
As noted above, Chapter 5 provides discussion of the research findings. The results
of the thesis are positioned within the previous literature through comparisons to
previous results. It becomes evident that the current results lend support to a number
of previous studies. Final conclusions are drawn and the implications for theory,
policy and practice are presented, followed by the limitations of the current study and
the implications for further research.
10
1.8 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an introduction and overview of this thesis. A background
to the research problem was presented as were the specific research objectives. A
brief description of the methodology used was also provided along with key research
findings. The significance of this research was highlighted. An outline of the thesis
structure was given, as were the definition of terms used throughout it. Chapter 2
continues with a detailed review of current theory and previous research relating to
the research topic.
11
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an understanding of the issues facing young children ‘at risk’
of language difficulties within classroom contexts. Throughout the chapter a case is
developed for the importance of the current research through the exploration of key
theoretical issues and review of previous research in the area. Issues related to
making a successful transition into formal schooling for young children are discussed
and the importance of teacher-child relationships to that transition are considered.
Throughout this study, teacher-child relationship refers to the relationship that exists
between a child and their teacher within a classroom context (Pianta, 1999).
Within this chapter, the broad contextual factors and attributes that can potentially
influence the quality of teacher-child relationships are discussed and attention is
drawn to children with language difficulties as an at risk group in making a
successful school transition. Skills required for competent language acquisition are
identified before noting some of the developmental variations that may arise from
either physical or cognitive factors. Academic and social challenges confronting
children with language difficulties are presented. Consideration of these challenges
further highlights the need for supportive teacher-child relationships. Previous
findings on teacher perceptions of students with language difficulties are discussed
and the possible consequences of these perceptions on teacher-child relationship
quality are outlined. Finally, the objectives for the current research are presented as
well as identifying limitations of previous research addressed in the current studies.
2.2 The Transition to School
The transition into formal schooling is recognised as being a potentially stressful
time in a young child’s life. It requires major adjustments due to factors such as
changing classroom routines, more formalised teacher instructions, less teacher time
due to larger class sizes, and increased academic and behavioural expectations
(Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Early school success has been shown to predict later
school achievement making the transition into school a critical time for young
children (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). As a result children are thought to be
advantaged if they are able to experience a smooth school transition. This has led in
12
the past to a high importance being placed on children developing skills which will
enable them to be ‘ready’ for school.
School readiness can be defined broadly as children displaying ‘cognitive, emotional,
and physical “readiness” at time of school entry’ (Espinosa et al., 1997, p. 119).
While school readiness skills are considered important, it can be difficult to find a
consensus on which particular skills are the most relevant to school success.
Emerging numeracy and literacy skills such as knowledge of basic counting and the
alphabet are often viewed as an important sign of school readiness (Biggar &
Pizzolongo, 2004). Children demonstrating a readiness to learn and to perform in a
classroom setting is also highly regarded (Carlton & Winsler, 1999).
These notions of school readiness have been largely influenced by maturation
philosophies. The focus is on children being able to demonstrate certain skills at
developmentally appropriate times (McBryde et al., 2004). This approach can be
seen currently in Australia. Children are predominately transitioned into school once
they reach the legally required chronological age. Despite this, an Australian study
which examined the beliefs held by preschool teachers, school teachers and parents,
found that more than 60% of participants felt that the age of a child is not a good
indicator of future school success (Dockett & Perry, 2002).
Teachers are often required to make recommendations based on their perceptions on
whether a child has adequate skill proficiency for school transition (McBryde et al.,
2004). Decisions based on these recommendations can result in child retention
which does not necessarily lead to better child outcomes (Carlton & Winsler, 1999).
It is therefore important to consider what skills teachers perceive to be essential for
children starting school.
A number of studies have attempted to achieve this by determining teacher
perceptions of school readiness, the skills they identify as being important for young
students transitioning into school and their ability to rate them. Teacher views on
which school readiness skills children need do vary across studies although there are
some consistencies. Skills that relate to children’s social abilities, such as getting
along with others, and self-regulation, were commonly held in high regard by
teachers (Lin et al., 2003). In one study 60% of the teacher participants felt that
children should be able to ‘follow directions, not be disruptive of the class, and be
13
sensitive to other children’s feelings’ while 84% considered that a child’s ability to
communicate their ‘wants, needs, and thoughts’ verbally was very important (Blair,
2002). Another study found that older children with higher levels of social skills,
task persistence and adaptability tend to be viewed as being more ready for school by
teachers (McBryde et al., 2004).
Similar findings were discovered by Lin, Lawrence and Gorrel (2003). They found
that the majority of kindergarten teachers placed a higher importance on children
developing social skills. Few felt that academic skills, such as being able to count or
recite the alphabet, were important skills to develop for school readiness. Some
commonly held teacher perceptions on school readiness have been validated by a
study which examined the long term implications of child work-related social skills,
such as self-regulation, cooperation and independence. It was found that the level of
these skills at school entry predicted child outcomes at the completion of second
grade (McClelland, Morrison & Holmes, 2000). This would suggest that social skills
and self-regulation do play an important role in a child’s ability to transition
smoothly and to achieve favourable outcomes.
It should be noted that the views held by teachers on school readiness may be
influenced by other factors. Variables such as teacher age, gender and the
geographic location of their school have been shown to influence teacher responses
(Lin et al., 2003). The level of teacher education has also been shown to influence
the ability to rate children’s readiness skills, with higher educated teachers’ ratings
demonstrating more accuracy in line with direct child assessments (Mashburn &
Henry, 2004). Child factors such as age, sex and ethnicity have also been shown to
influence teachers’ perceptions, with girls commonly being perceived as being more
‘school ready’ than boys (McBryde et al., 2004).
Studies independent of teacher perceptions have found a large number of factors
contribute to a child’s school readiness. These include child attributes such as
temperament, cognitive and physical development, age, sex and behaviour, and
ecological factors such as home and school environments, and family dynamics
(McBryde et al., 2004). Ecological models of school readiness have been
developed in order to represent the transactional processes between the multiple
factors that contribute to child development (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). These
acknowledge that factors such as family backgrounds, prior-to-school education or
14
care settings, community resources, school links to other settings and school
resources can contribute to child development and their resulting readiness for school
(Pianta, 2002). Due to the wide variations in early child experiences, some children
will be better equipped to handle the demands of formal schooling (Rimm-Kaufman
et al., 2000).
Young children with access to lower quality learning resources and experiences tend
to enter school with fewer skills than their peers (Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm &
Waldfogel, 2004). An example of this can be seen in a study completed by Hart and
Risley (1995). They found a vast difference in the degree of language exposure for
children of professional families and their less affluent counterparts. There was an
estimated 30-million word difference by the time children reached 3 years of age
resulting in a dramatically reduced vocabulary for the less advantaged group.
Another study found that differences in vocabulary growth during the first 3 years of
child development were determined by the vocabulary quality and quantity of
mothers (Hoff, 2003). This highlights how early child experiences can result in
significant differences in child development.
These differences are not limited to home experiences. A study which examined the
relation of child-care quality to child developmental trajectories determined that it
can have long lasting implications (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). Children who
attended high quality child-care centres tended to show more advanced language,
cognitive and social skills, than children attending lower quality centres. While the
significance of effects decreased over time, they were still evident by second grade.
Children from at risk backgrounds had stronger positive effects. This is similar to
results found by Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm and Waldfogel (2004). They found that
children attending child-care centres or preschool programs had higher achievement
levels in reading and math skill assessments when they started formal schooling.
Grade retention was also less likely for these children. Once again, the greatest
effects were for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Children with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds may also have extra
obstacles to overcome when transitioning to school. Preschool attendance can
improve outcomes for children with ethnic or linguistic differences (Sammons et al.,
2004). A study completed in America by Magnuson, Lahie and Waldfogel (2006)
found that the children of immigrants tended to be less likely to attend preschool
15
settings than American children. This was of concern as attending preschool was
also found to improve their English proficiency. Children transitioning into school
from another cultural background will require major adjustments other than the
possible need to learn a second language. As noted by Dockett, Mason and Perry
(2006), Australian Aboriginal children share similar transition experiences to non-
Aboriginal children. They are more challenged however as they also need to
navigate their way through different cultural contexts and expectations.
Another group of children with an increased risk of experiencing difficult school
transitions are those with disabilities. These children may be transitioning from
multiple settings, such as early intervention groups, intensive home therapy and
inclusive preschool settings (Rosenkoetter, Hains & Dogaru, 2007). These
transitions may be more complex requiring children to adjust to standard changes of
classroom, peers and teacher along with any other special education services or
therapists attached to their new school environment (Rosenkoetter et al., 2007).
Further difficulties may also arise when skills traditionally associated with school
readiness are diminished, for example, autistic children are vulnerable during
transitions due to their reduced social and communication abilities (Forest, Horner,
Lewis-Palmer & Todd, 2004).
Through consideration of the different developmental experiences of children, it
becomes evident that ecological views of school readiness are necessary. This view
has also resulted in the development of school transition practises which aim at better
equipping children for school success (Pianta, Cox, Taylor & Early, 1999).
Meaningful connections and alignments being made between schools, families,
teachers, peers and transitioning children can lead to successful school transitions
(LoCasale-Crouch, Mashburn, Downer & Pianta, 2008; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta,
2000). The importance of this has been recognised in Australia by some state
education policies. The NSW government, for example, provides specific
guidelines and booklets which outline strategies aimed at providing smooth school
transitions for children with and without disabilities (NSW Department of Education
and Training, 2000).
It is now common for schools to implement transition programmes aimed at
increasing the likelihood of child adjustment. Some common transition practices
include letters sent home, class visits to new school settings and orientation programs
16
for children with their parents (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2008). The best transition
practices are those that are individualised for children, their families and the specific
school and preschool settings (Early, Pianta, Taylor & Cox, 2001). Sadly, it has been
found that schools with fewer resources are less likely to engage in highly supportive
practises which increase the probability of successful school transitions (Pianta et al.,
1999). One resource that has perhaps been under-utilised in attempts to provide
children with school readiness skills and child ready school environments is that of
the teacher-child relationship.
2.3 The Importance of Teacher-Child Relationships
When considering what attributes a child needs to possess before transitioning into
school, a quality teacher-child relationship may not automatically come to mind.
Despite this, it has been shown to be a critical factor in children’s successful
adjustment to school encompassing social and academic outcomes (Pianta &
Stuhlman, 2004). Early teacher interactions in early learning settings can potentially
develop skills, such as following directions, communicating needs and engaging in
activities that will be valued by teachers in school settings (Pianta, 2002). This may
ease school transitions and enable children to form positive relationships with new
teachers.
Teacher-child relationships have been shown to correlate with kindergarteners’
academic readiness, with close teacher-child relationships predicting increased
readiness levels (Palmero, Hanish, Martin, Fabes & Reiser, 2007). A previous study
had similar results, finding that children with positive teacher-child relationships
were more likely to adjust well to school and to reflect this through academic
achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997). Children who were highly dependent or who
conflicted with teachers experienced more adjustment difficulties.
Conflict, closeness and dependency are commonly used to describe and classify
different types of teacher-child relationship quality (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006). One
widely used method of measuring teacher-child relationships is through the Student-
Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) developed by Pianta (1999). This questionnaire
completed by teachers measures their perceptions of the quality of their relationship
with students based on the three components of closeness, dependency and conflict.
Conflict indicates interactions and feelings that are negative. Closeness refers to
17
positive interactions and dependence relates to how much a child relies on their
teacher (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006). As would be expected, outcomes for children
with negative teacher relationships are not favourable.
Conflict with kindergarten teachers has been identified as being a predictor of future
increased aggression with peers (Birch & Ladd, 1998). Conflict has also been seen
as leading teachers to ‘exclude children’ from classroom interactions (Hamre &
Pianta, 2001) which is perhaps not surprising when considering that teachers have
been found to behave more negatively towards children that they hold negative views
about (Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002). Teacher ratings of conflict in teacher-child
relationships have been found to be closely associated with teacher ratings of child
problem behaviour (Hamre, Pianta, Downer & Mashburn, 2007).
A study on children identified as having behaviour problems found that as teacher-
child relationships improved child behaviour and engagement improved also
(Decker, Dona & Christenson, 2007). Another study found that teacher rated levels
of conflict were related to child problem behaviours and the teachers’ perceptions of
work related stress (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). It would seem that teachers are unlikely
to form close relationships with children who exhibit behaviour problems.
Highly dependent children do not necessarily fare better. As previously mentioned
they are more likely to experience trouble with school adjustment and also
demonstrate higher levels of social problems, such as being withdrawn from or
aggressive towards peers (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). They have also been found to
achieve poorer academic outcomes (Birch & Ladd, 1997). In contrast, children with
close teacher-child relationships appear to be better placed for social and academic
success than their peers. They are more likely to achieve better social and academic
outcomes and to demonstrate higher levels of engagement (Birch & Ladd, 1997;
Decker et al., 2007). Perhaps children whose teachers view their relationship as
positive achieve better outcomes as teachers are more likely to invest time and effort
in providing adequate support (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, 1999).
Being provided with adequate teacher support through quality teacher-child
relationships has been recognised by a number of researchers as a contributing factor
to long-term child achievement (O’Conner & McCartney, 2007; Pianta, 1999). A
study conducted by O’Conner and McCartney (2007) discovered that positive
18
teacher-child relationships had such a direct impact on student achievement that by
third grade they predicted student success over other factors such as insecure
maternal attachment or peer friendships. Baker (2006) found that high quality
teacher-child relationships continued to be associated with positive school adaptation
and outcomes across all elementary school grades. The children in this study that
were at risk from behavioural or learning difficulties were found to have more
positive outcomes when compared to similar peers if they had close teacher-child
relationships.
Other studies have shown that family characteristics remain the strongest predictor of
future child outcomes. However, a quality teacher-child relationship is still
recognised as an important element in the pathways to school success (Burchinal,
Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta & Howes, 2002). Quality teacher-child relationships have
been described as essential to at risk children, providing resources and support that
enable children to overcome a number of risk factors, including family and home
characteristics (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Mashburn & Pianta, 2006). While perhaps
not the only predicting factor, teacher-child relationships certainly play an important
part in determining a child’s ability to gain necessary school skills.
Longitudinal studies examining teacher-child relationships have tended to focus on
resulting child social or academic outcomes. Few have examined the consistency of
teacher-child relationship quality itself. A study completed by Howes, Phillipsen and
Peisner-Feinberg (2000) did examine whether these relationships remained
consistent over a three year timeframe. During this time children transitioned from
child-care type settings into more formal arrangements. Initially a large sample of
793 children were selected however only 357 ended up with teacher data from all
three years. The STRS was used as the measure of teacher-child relationship quality
with three subscales of Closeness, Conflict and Dependency. Path analyses revealed
that kindergarten relationship quality (Time 3) could be predicted from scores from
the previous two years. The amount of variance which could be explained by prior
STRS scores differed depending on the subscale. While 28% of the variance could be
explained for conflicted kindergarten teacher-child relationships less than 10% of the
variance could be explained for both the closeness and dependency dimensions.
Another study found similar results. A study completed by Pianta and Stuhlman
(2004) included analyses which examined the stability of teacher-child relationship
19
quality across a three year period. A subsample of 490 children were selected from
participants in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s
Study of Early Child Care. Selection was based on having complete sets of data
relevant to the analyses of interest. A short version of the STRS was used with two
sub-scales of Closeness and Conflict.
Teacher-child relationship quality was examined from early childhood settings across
to the first grade period. Pianta and Stuhlman (2004) found moderate stability in
conflict and slightly less in closeness concluding that conflict with children tends to
be more stable and consistent whereas closeness may depend more on goodness-of-
fit between a child and their teacher. It was also noted that the mean levels of
conflict and closeness from preschool to first grade showed a slight decrease for
both. It was suggested that this could indicate less intense teacher-child relationships
due to the entry to formal schooling.
The consistency of teacher-child relationships over time may be a result of
attachment models formed from previous relationships. When attempting to describe
teacher-child relationships and the importance they hold in students’ lives,
attachment theories are often drawn upon (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Burchinal et al.,
2002). Attachment theories suggest that the quality of early parent-child
relationships has a long lasting effect on a child’s development, shaping and
influencing the development of their internal models of attachment relationships
(Colwell & Lindsey, 2003). This then influences a child’s ability to form positive
relationships with other adults, such as teachers.
For example, if a child experiences an early secure relationship with their parent,
they are more likely to develop secure relationships with teachers. It is believed that
if children feel secure and are able to express themselves effectively to teachers, then
they will be more able to explore and learn within the classroom (Burchinal et al.,
2002; Kesner, 1994), and will find it easier to develop positive peer relationships
(Howes, 2000). These types of behaviour would also be likely to result in close
teacher-child relationships with low levels of conflict. Examining teacher-child
relationship consistency is therefore important as early teacher-child relationships
may contribute to shaping future teacher-child relationship interactions resulting in
long term implications.
20
It is also important to remember that teachers’ own attachment histories play a part in
the quality of the relationships they will be able to form with their students. Kesner
(1994) found that teachers developed less dependent relationships with students if
their own childhood indicated a secure attachment history. A more recent study by
Kesner (2000) also found that teachers who recalled less harsh parental discipline
tended to rate their teacher-child relationships with higher levels of closeness. Once
again, the relationships teachers experienced with their own parents influenced their
perceptions of the relationships they experienced with their students. These findings
suggest that the internal models of attachment held by teachers potentially influence
their ability to recognise their role in fulfilling student needs.
It is, however, overly simplistic to draw only on attachment theory when considering
teacher-child relationships. As noted by Stuhlman and Pianta (2002), they are
‘multidimensional, reflecting an assortment of interactive domains and emotions’ (p.
149). They are affected by individual attributes, characteristics and beliefs held by
both the child and the teacher, which interplay in complex, transactional ways. The
social-emotional contexts of classrooms is something that also needs to be
considered (Howes, 2000), along with other ecological factors such as school
structures (Pianta, 1999). All of these factors play an influencing role on teacher
and child strengths and stresses and the consequent relationships that develop
between them (see Figure 2.1).
Even child factors such as age, sex and ethnicity have been shown to influence
teacher perceptions of their relationship because of how they interplayed with the
teacher’s own personal attributes and beliefs. An example of this can be seen in a
study completed by Saft and Pianta (2001). This study looked at the effects of child
age, gender and ethnicity along with teacher ethnicity on teacher-child relationships.
The sample consisted of a 197 preschool and kindergarten teachers and 840 children.
Being an American study the most common ethnic backgrounds were Caucasian,
African American and Hispanic.
21
Figure 2.1 The Influencing Factors on the Quality of Teacher-child
Relationships (adapted from Pianta, 2006).
Four separate regression analyses were run. Each used the same independent
variables. Child age, ethnicity and sex along with teacher ethnicity were entered as
the first block. The second block added teacher-child ethnic match and the
interaction terms of child age by child ethnicity, child age by child gender and child
ethnicity by child gender. The total STRS score and the closeness, conflict and
dependency subscale scores were used in turn as the dependent variable for each
regression. Results found that child and teacher attributes accounted for between
4.5% and 27% of explained variance in teachers’ perceptions – more so for conflict
and dependency. Teachers did tend to rate relationships as being of a higher quality
if the child shared the teacher’s ethnicity.
Specific sex differences have also been discovered with girls appearing to have
closer and more dependent teacher-child relationships than boys who are more likely
to have conflict with teachers, leading to more negative teacher attention (Colwell &
Lindsey, 2003). Kesner (2000) found similar findings from preservice teachers who
also viewed their relationships with boys as being more conflictual and less close.
Other External Influences
Classroom Context
Quality of Teacher-Child Relationship
TEACHER Influencing Factors - Developmental history - Biological factors - Perceptions and beliefs
Interactive and
Transactional
Processes
CHILD
Influencing Factors - Developmental history - Biological factors - Perceptions and
beliefs
22
Birch and Ladd (1998) also found that teachers tended to rate girls with higher levels
of closeness and boys with higher levels of conflict. In contrast to this,
Mantzicopoulos (2005) did not find child sex differences to be significantly related
to teacher-child conflict, however, the STRS was not used as the relationship quality
measurement tool for this study. Overall, these studies further highlight that the
nature of teacher-child relationships can be influenced by child and teacher factors.
Gaining an understanding of the factors that influence teacher-child relationship
quality is essential especially for at risk students. Children with learning difficulties,
impairments or disabilities are certainly part of this at risk group. Depending on the
child’s need, effects on teacher-child relationships and the resulting outcomes may
vary. A study by Baker (2006) examined the relationship between teacher-student
relationships and school adjustment. The sample consisted of 68 teachers and 1310
students ranging in grade from kindergarten through to fifth grade. Teacher-child
relationship Closeness and Conflict were included in regression analyses along with
child academic and social report card outcomes, externalising and internalising
behaviours, school problems and social skills. Results found that a close teacher
relationship had a protective effect on social and academic outcomes for children
with behaviour problems. This did not apply to children experiencing significant
learning problems. For these children, the protective effect of a close teacher
relationship only remained for social outcomes.
A study completed by Eisenhower, Baker and Blacher (2007) examined the teacher-
child relationships of children with and without intellectual disability at 6 years of
age. The aim of their study was to determine if there were differences between
teacher-child relationship quality, and if so, to determine if these differences were a
result of cognitive ability or other child characteristics. A number of statistical
analyses were used including t-tests, correlations and hierarchical regression
analyses. Results indicated that the children with intellectual disabilities experienced
relationships with teachers that were significantly poorer than their peers, marked by
less closeness but more conflict and dependency.
It should be noted that Eisenhower, Baker and Blacher (2007) also found that
differences in intelligence ratings did not account for all of the differences between
the children with intellectual disabilities and their peers with 53.5% of the variance
in age 6 teacher-child relationship quality resulting from child characteristics, such as
23
behaviour and emotional self-regulation, and parent-child interactional variables.
This would suggest that children with intellectual disabilities may have poorer
relationships with teachers due to increased difficulties in self-regulating their
behaviour and emotions.
This is also suggested by results found by McIntyre, Blacher and Baker (2006). This
study aimed at identifying child characteristics that predicted positive adaptation to
school and compared children with intellectual impairments to a group of typically
developing peers. A range of child characteristics and outcomes were examined
along with teacher-child relationship quality. Typically developing groups were
found to have higher scores on self-regulation, social skills and school adaptation,
fewer behaviour problems and had higher quality relationships with teachers. Higher
intellect and adaptive behaviours, along with self-regulation and social skills were all
found to be predictive of higher levels of adjustment to school.
The results of this study, along with the studies mentioned above, clearly suggest that
child attributes do contribute to teacher ratings of relationship quality. Most of the
research involving teacher-child relationship quality focuses on children who are
typically developing. More research is needed which focuses on children who are at
risk due to a range of learning difficulties or impairments or disabilities, in order to
determine if teacher-child relationship quality is affected.
2.4 Language Abilities, Difficulties and Differences
It is obvious from existing research that developing quality teacher-child
relationships is essential for children who are at risk of school failure as it will
provide them with much needed extra support. Children with language difficulties
are certainly part of this at risk group. The development of language is critical to
child development. As noted by Williams (2006, p. 135) ‘oral language is crucial to
communicative, academic and social and emotional development and underpins the
development of literate language, reading, writing and spelling skills’. Oral language
skills are often categorised as being either receptive or expressive. Receptive
language skills refer to the ability to comprehend the speech or gestures of others
while expressive language skills refer to the ability to use oral language to create a
message that others can understand (Hamaguchi, 1995; Otto, 2006). The majority of
children develop oral language skills with little to no difficulty (McLean & Snyder-
24
McLean, 1999). This is remarkable when considering the complex processes
involved in being able to use and understand oral means of communication.
Oral means of communication rely on the use of speech and language. Producing
speech requires neuromuscular coordination and the ability to use specific motor
sequences to execute the correct sound combinations for the spoken language
(Owens, 2008). In order for speech to be intelligible, factors such as voice quality,
intonation and rate of speech also need to be present (Piper, 2007). Meaning is
provided to spoken sounds through the use and understanding of language which is
‘a socially shared code or conventional system for representing concepts through the
use of arbitrary symbols and rule-governed combinations of those symbols’ (Owens,
2008, p. 4). The effective use of language for communication also requires an
understanding of other elements of human interaction such as nonverbal cues and
motivations and socio-cultural roles (McLean & Snyder-McLean, 1999). Using
language in appropriate social contexts is a fundamental part of communication. As
such it forms one of the five parameters which govern effective language usage.
There are five parameters which form the basic rule system of language. These
consist of syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics and pragmatics (Owens, 2008).
Syntax refers to the rules which determine which word combinations and sequences
are appropriate. Morphology refers to how words are internally organised or built
through the use of morphemes which are the smallest units of meaning possible in a
word. Phonology relates to the speech sounds in language, and how they are
sequenced and combined to form words. Pitch, the stress of syllables and volume are
also important aspects of phonology as they can alter the meaning of what is being
said (Antonacci & O’Callaghan, 2004). Semantic knowledge is developed as the
meaning of word labels and concepts are learnt. As more interrelated concepts are
learnt they begin to form semantic networks which enable language users access to a
larger vocabulary of alternative words. Pragmatic knowledge relates to
understanding the social contexts of communication and how language is used for
different purposes (Otto, 2006). These five parameters are interactive in nature and
difficulties in any one of them will have implications across them all.
There are numerous terms which may be used to describe difficulties and
impairments involved in the use and understanding of speech and language. Sub-
classifications can be placed into two broad categories of speech or language
25
impairments. Speech impairments are a result of conditions which affect the
neurological and physiological functions required for speech production (Paul,
2007). Language impairments involve difficulties in the production and/or
comprehension of language (Clegg, 2006).
Language impairments may also be referred to as specific language impairment
(SLI). This refers to disorders that are confined only to difficulties with language
(Paul, 2007). This means that language difficulties appear despite the apparent
normal functioning of other capacities relevant to speech and language production,
such as hearing, physical ability and nonverbal intelligence (Haskill & Tyler, 2007).
SLI has further subcategories as it may present in a combination of receptive and/or
expressive language development difficulties (Bates, 1992). The rate of SLI is
estimated at between 3 to 10% of the population (Nation, 2005).
Secondary language impairments refer to language difficulties that are a result of
other conditions. Language problems may arise due to other developmental issues,
such as cognitive ability, intellectual impairments, pervasive developmental disorder,
autism and Down syndrome (Donaldson, 1995; Luinge et al., 2006; Nation, 2005).
Normal language development can also receive set backs from children incurring
brain injury. Depending on the stage of development, this at times may result in
language delays rather than permanent impairment (Bates, 1992). Language ability
will be influenced differently depending on the developmental issue. For example,
children with Down syndrome may have language abilities below their cognitive
ability, whereas children with Williams syndrome may demonstrate language
abilities which appear to surpass cognitive ability until tested on comprehension
(Donaldson, 1995).
Children diagnosed with Autism may exhibit vastly different language abilities
ranging from being non-verbal, to using echolalia, or to being able to use language
within an average range (Bogdashina, 2005). Even when able to use language,
autistic children tend to have difficulty with its semantic and pragmatic aspects
(Donaldson, 1995; Landa, 2005). Children diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome may
also have severe difficulties in using and understanding socially appropriate
communication (Bogdashina, 2005; Landa, 2005).
26
Different disorders can result in speech production being affected. For example,
cerebral palsy sufferers may have a reduced ability to speak depending on which
parts of their body are affected and to what degree. If the muscles involved in speech
production are affected, articulation problems may occur (Donaldson, 1995).
Children suffering from apraxia may also find it difficult to produce speech
(McCormick, Loeb & Schiefelbusch, 2003).
Hearing loss can also affect a child’s language development. It is thought that up to
12% of children have some degree of hearing loss which could affect their
communication abilities and consequently influence their social and academic
outcomes (Goldberg & McCormick, 2004). The degree to which language
development is affected correlates with the degree of hearing difficulty (Borg,
Edquist, Reinholdson, Risberg & McAllister, 2007). It is harder for a child to
develop language if they are born deaf or suffer severe hearing loss before language
development has occurred (Houston, 2007).
If learning a spoken language, children with hearing impairments tend to experience
a language delay (Robbins, 1994). They may also have significant trouble with age-
appropriate literacy practices (Martindale, 2007). This may be due to the process of
language acquisition being more difficult when relying on reduced audio input. It is
interesting to note that young deaf children who are taught sign language tend to
develop those abilities at a similar rate to hearing children learning a spoken
language (Donaldson, 1995).
There has been concern that even recurring temporary hearing loss may increase the
risk of language impairments or language delays (Morris & Leach, 2003). Otitis
media with effusion (OME) is a common ear infection which results in fluid building
up in the middle ear often resulting in temporary hearing loss (Giebink & Daly,
1994). Roberts, Burchinal and Zeisel (2002) did examine the relationship between
OME and hearing loss and language development in children from age four. It found
that children with repeated OME and resulting hearing loss did display lower levels
of expressive language to their peers at a young age but this difference was gone by
second grade. Instead, the child’s home environment was found to determine levels
of expressive language skills over OME and resulting hearing loss. They did
caution, however, that generalising these results to other populations required
caution.
27
The issue of OME remains especially relevant for Australian indigenous populations.
A recent study completed in a rural Northern Queensland location, estimated the
prevalence of OME in Aboriginal children to be 14.7%, well over the 4% considered
to be a health emergency by the World Health Organisation (Rothstein, Heazlewood
& Fraser, 2007). This figure demonstrates that if OME does impact the development
of language then Aboriginal children could potentially have increased risks of
difficulty.
This raises other important issues that are associated with language abilities relating
to cultural differences. There are many reasons why discrepancies in competence
and performance can occur between oral language users with typical development.
Some are long-term, such as ethnic background, socio-economic status, and regional
occupation. These factors can result in different versions of language or dialects
(Owens, 2008). Dialectal speakers do not have language disorders, just language
differences.
While this may be the case, children from low socio-economic families or from
ethnic or linguistically diverse backgrounds can present at school with significant
differences in their language abilities. Children from low socio-economic
backgrounds have been found to have limited vocabulary compared to their more
affluent peers at school entry (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003). A study completed
in the UK also found that children from low socio-economic backgrounds were
almost twice as likely to exhibit receptive language delay than their peers and were
five times more likely to have moderate or severe expressive language delay
(Ginsborg, 2006).
Bilingual children were once considered to have lower language ability when
compared to monolingual children. This is because previous studies tended to focus
on one language or the other, instead of considering the proficiency held in both
languages (Piper, 2007). It has since been established that this is not the case
(Paradis, 2007). Despite this, young bilingual students learning English as a second
language, often do begin school with lower English language skills and school
readiness skills than English speaking children do (Brice, Miller & Brice, 2006).
Bilingual children can of course still have language impairments, however, children
who are culturally and linguistically different (CALD) tend to be both over and under
diagnosed for language and literacy problems (Paul, 2007). This is partly due to
28
biases in standardised tests and also to misperceptions of teachers and other
professionals. There has been debate as to whether learning more than one language
overwhelms the language abilities of some young CALD children (Paradis, 2007;
Piper, 2007).
2.5 The Academic and Social Implications of Language Difficulties
Children with language difficulties are prone to experiencing difficulties in other
areas of development and may face profound academic and social risks. Due to the
interactions between cognition and language, there can be a co-morbidity of
cognitive difficulties with language impairments. A number of longitudinal studies
have found that children with language impairments tested lower on IQ scores when
compared to age matched peers with typical language development (Donaldson,
1995). This resulted in areas of verbal, performance and full-scale IQ with the
strongest difference being for verbal IQ. Debate has even surrounded the cognitive
ability of children with SLI as it has been put forward that they will often exhibit
other cognitive difficulties, not just difficulty with language (Botting, 2006).
Determining how language influences and shapes the academic abilities of young
children is important as it has long lasting implications for their development and
future school success. While academic ability is developed throughout a child’s
schooling years, it is estimated that before the age of 6 up to one-third of these skills
are in place (Piper, 2007). One study found that children who arrived at preschool
with poor language abilities also had impaired knowledge-acquisition processes and
higher-order thinking skills (Naude, Pretorius & Viljoen, 2003). As a result, these
children were seen as exhibiting low levels of school readiness. Language is thought
to provide people with the ability to conceptualise, clarify and extend understandings
of ideas and concepts (Piper, 2007). If language competencies are reduced then
potentially academic thinking skills valued by schools and teachers may be at risk
also.
Success in school is highly dependent on children having competent language
abilities. Understanding language is fundamental to being able to follow directions
and understand expectations, and using language enables children to share their own
thoughts and ideas (Hamaguchi, 1995). It has also been shown to contribute to the
ability to read. It could be argued that the ability to read is a skill that underlies
29
success in most, if not all, domains within the school curriculum. Formal schooling
relies heavily on print media, such as written instructions, worksheets or text book
materials. As a consequence being able to read is critical to school success. Oral
language skills, such as semantic, syntactic and conceptual knowledge, are needed
for the development of literacy, along with other code-related skills which are print
specific (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). As a result, children with language
impairments often have difficulty with reading.
The strong relationship between language impairments and reading disabilities has
been well documented (Catts et al., 2002). Children identified as having language
impairments in kindergarten were more likely to have reading disabilities in the
second and fourth grades unless their spoken language ability had improved (Catts et
al., 2002). This risk increased if the children had a nonspecific language impairment
as opposed to SLI. A number of studies have found that children with SLI
experience higher proportions of reading difficulties (Catts et al., 2002; Snowling,
Bishop, & Stothard, 2000). Share and Leikin (2004) found different reading
outcomes for children with difficulty in the phonological or syntactic and semantic
areas of language. This would suggest that the effect on reading outcomes will
depend on the degree and area of language difficulty.
Simkin and Conti-Ramsden (2006) found that these difficulties can be long lasting as
children at 11 years of age with language problems still had increased risks of
difficulties with reading. This risk increased if both expressive and receptive
language problems were present. This would seem to confirm that delayed abilities
in receptive and expressive skills can be strong predictors of literacy difficulties
(Doherty & Landells, 2006). Expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge has
also been found to play differential parts in influencing pre-reading skills (Wise,
Sevcik, Morris, Lovett & Wolf, 2007).
La Paro, Justice, Skibbe and Pianta (2004) reveal conflicting reports as to how
longstanding language difficulties will be, with some studies claiming that for
approximately half of children exhibiting language impairment at 4 years of age,
language difficulties will be resolved by the time they enter school. In contradiction
to this, another study mentioned showed that only a fifth of children will have their
difficulties resolved by 9 years of age and yet another claimed that 71% of children
diagnosed at 5 years of age with SLI will still have below average language skills
30
when they turn 18. Another study which focused on preschoolers with SLI found
that by 15 years of age, nearly half of them had difficulties with reading (Snowling et
al., 2000).
When considering the impact of language difficulties on academic outcomes, most
attention has been placed in determining the links between language and literacy
abilities. To a lesser degree there has also been interest in determining the effects of
language impairments on mathematical skill acquisition. It has been pointed out that
mathematical terms are cause enough for confusion for a child struggling with
language (Doherty & Landells, 2006). This has led to debate on whether children
diagnosed with specific language difficulties have trouble with processing only
linguistic information or if these processing difficulties also affect numeracy skills
(Donlan, Cowan, Newton & Lloyd, 2007; Doherty & Landells, 2006). Research
addressing this question seems to suggest that language impairments do correlate to
difficulties with mathematics.
A study by Donlan, Cowan, Newton and Lloyd (2007) compared the mathematical
skills of 48 children with specific language impairments with two matched case
control groups consisting of 55 children each. All children were eight years of age.
One group was matched by age and non-verbal ability and the second was a younger
group matched on language comprehension and age-corrected non-verbal ability.
These control groups were also selected from the same school in order to reduce
environmental differences. Participants undertook a number of tasks involving
counting, calculation, place-value principle and identification of arithmetic
principles. Results indicated that the children with language difficulties had lower
proficiencies in counting and basic mathematical calculations compared to their
peers. They were however more successful than the language matched case control
group on the place-value principle task. The arithmetic principles test also showed
no clear difference in comparison to the age control group. It was suggested that the
children with SLI could perhaps still develop conceptual knowledge despite reduced
abilities in executing mathematical procedures.
Another study was completed by Manor, Shalev, Joseph and Gross-tsur (2000).
Their aim was to determine if kindergarten children with language disorders also had
correlating mathematical difficulties. Forty-five kindergarten children with language
disorders were selected along with a matched case control group matched on gender,
31
social class which was determined by the father’s profession and years of education,
and kindergarten. Attempts were made to match the children on age but this was not
possible due to the high number of children with language disorders repeating the
grade.
Children underwent a language and intelligence test along with an arithmetic test
covering counting, comprehension of number words and symbols, reasoning
principles and arithmetic operations. Significant differences were found between the
two groups. Children with language disorders had lower scores than the control
group on the arithmetic tests despite gaining similar intelligence scores. Problems
with both receptive and expressive language skills were associated with poorer
outcomes in number reasoning and mathematical operations. It was also established
that children with limited expressive language skills only had results which
correlated mainly with impaired counting skills.
Social skills, along with academic skills, are also necessary for school success.
Difficulties in early language development have been shown to predict future
behavioural problems, and if unable to demonstrate social competence before
reaching school, the risk of children not achieving social or academic goals remains
high (Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). It is widely acknowledged in the literature that
behavioural and emotional problems are very common for children exhibiting poor
language skills (Hill & Coufal, 2005; McCabe & Meller, 2004; McCabe, 2005;
Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). McCabe and Meller (2004) have claimed that previous
research has discovered ‘a 50-70% co-morbidity rate between speech, language and
communication disorders with emotional and behavioural disorders in children’ (p.
313). This figure would suggest that language ability and social-emotional
behaviours are very closely interrelated.
Social competence requires communication and language abilities, knowledge of
acceptable standards of behaviour, problem-solving and recognition and
understanding of emotion (McCabe & Meller, 2004). Difficulties with interpreting
or displaying appropriate social cues may lead children with language impairments to
appear as if they are acting impulsively, or they may seem physically aggressive and
intrusive or appear withdrawn from social interaction (McCabe & Meller, 2004).
Withdrawn behaviours might include playing alone or appearing to ignore requests,
while physical aggression might include kicking, hitting, biting or snatching
32
(Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). When a child has limited verbal skills, these
behaviours serve as strategies to either escape demands or gain desired objects. As
noted by Brinton and Fujiki (2006), these types of behaviour impact on their already
reduced ability to establish and maintain positive relationships.
Children with more severe language impairments tend to exhibit higher levels of
behaviour problems and experience higher levels of conflict. McCabe (2005)
discovered that children with severe impairments had significantly more problems
with behaviour and poorer social competence when compared to children with
articulation-only disorders. Conflicts that may arise as a result of these difficulties
can be difficult to resolve. Horowitz, Jansoon, Ljungberg and Hedenbro (2005)
found that boys with language impairments were less likely to demonstrate or even
attempt conflict resolution skills compared to their peers. Their conflicts were also
more likely to result from factors such as inappropriate play intensities and protests
which escalated to screaming.
Another study completed by Horowitz, Westlund and Ljungberg (2008) found
similar results. The behaviour of boys with language impairments was examined in
preschool settings. They were observed to be less likely to attempt reconciliation
with peers after conflict, and were more likely to show either aggression for small
conflicts or withdrawal for large conflict situations. These types of behaviours leave
children at great risk of peer rejection.
It is believed that peer rejection for children with language impairments possibly
begins from as early as preschool (Hart, Fujiki, Brinton & Hart, 2004). The types of
negative social behaviours described above, can lead to even more pronounced peer
rejection. This in turn leads to further developmental consequences, because there is
an increased probability of child maladjustment without peer support, which may
even be replaced by peer verbal and physical mistreatment (Ladd, 2006). Children’s
peer acceptance has been linked to the use of appropriate social skills. This includes
skills such as being able to initiate and contribute to conversations, include all group
members, adapt communication to suit the needs of the listener, make intentions
clear and contribute more positive comments than negative (McCabe & Meller,
2004). Many of these skills involve the use and understanding of oral language.
33
Children with language impairments are unlikely to be able to demonstrate these
social skills. Without this acceptance, a negative spiral may develop in which
language impaired children received limited opportunities to develop their language
skills through interacting with and modelling from their peers. Children with
difficulties in developing peer relationships have been shown to be more socially
included by peers when their teacher held a positive view of their relationship
(Robertson, Chamberlain & Kasari, 2003). Teacher-child relationships for children
with language difficulties become even more important when considering the extra
support required in order for them to establish and maintain positive relationships
with peers.
2.6 Teacher Perceptions of Children with Language Difficulties
Displaying withdrawn or aggressive types of behaviours are likely to result in young
children with language impairments being rejected by peers. It can also lead to a
greater chance of a strained relationship with their teacher (Hemmeter, Ostrosky &
Fox, 2006). Law and Sivyer (2003) point out that although the link between
language difficulties and behavioural or emotional difficulties is presented and
recognised in academic literature, this does not automatically mean that the
association is recognised in everyday educational practice.
This may be especially true if children’s language difficulties have been
unrecognised. Studies have shown that children in this situation have received
negative labels from both parents and teachers due to their perceptions that the child
was ‘difficult’ to manage (Law & Sivyer, 2003). This may be due to the child’s
difficulty in being able to effectively use or comprehend language being
misinterpreted by teachers and parents as disobedience or disinterest in participating
in social interactions.
It is of concern that Nungesser and Watkins (2005) found that ‘only a moderate
number of teachers recognized the possible role of communication limitations in
challenging behaviours’ (p. 144). The beliefs and perceptions that teachers hold
towards a child’s behaviour will influence the approaches they use when interacting
with that child which, in turn, has an effect on the child’s academic, social and
emotional outcomes (Nungesser & Watkins, 2005; Pianta, 1999). Nungesser and
Watkins (2005) also found that when asked about how they would deal with
34
challenging behaviours displayed by children with language difficulties, teachers
were more likely to list reactive approaches, such as time out or removing privileges,
as opposed to proactive approaches, such as modelling language or providing
alternative communication options. These approaches do not necessarily address the
underlying causal factors and may not provide these children with necessary
modelling or scaffolding.
If a child is perceived to be disruptive or difficult by their teacher, the teacher is
likely to avoid interaction with the student (Sutherland & Oswald, 2005). Nungesser
and Watkins (2005) discovered that preschool teachers found aggressive behaviours
to be more disruptive to their classes than withdrawn behaviours. This raises
concerns for children exhibiting aggressive behaviours who are likely to have
teacher-child relationships with high levels of conflict. It also raises questions about
whether children who are more inclined to use withdrawn behaviours are receiving
fewer opportunities to use, hear and practise language (Nungesser & Watkins, 2005).
This seems likely when considering teachers reliance on reactive strategies when
dealing with language impaired children (Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). Combine
with this the possibility of teachers feeling inadequately trained to appropriately
support these students and this potentially means that children with language
difficulties, displaying either aggressive or withdrawn behaviours, may be at risk of
receiving less teacher support due to teacher perceived difficulties in engaging the
child in appropriate learning behaviours.
Despite the potential difficulties of teaching a student with language impairment,
teachers may not view the inclusion of these students as being an undesirable
outcome. A study conducted by Sadler (2005) examined the beliefs and attitudes
held by teachers whose classes contained at least one child with a preschool
diagnosis of moderate or severe speech or language impairment. Data were collected
via a 12-item postal questionnaire. Results found that teachers largely held positive
views. They tended to believe that inclusion for these students held more advantages
than disadvantages. However, important issues such as lack of time and support were
raised and few teachers felt that their level of training or knowledge was adequate to
provide appropriate instruction to this particular group of special needs children.
35
A study conducted by Williams (2006) had a different outcome with the majority of
teachers involved claiming to have average or above knowledge of language
components with 85% feeling confident in their ability to identify and appropriately
respond to children with language difficulties. A cluster of five Perth primary
schools were involved in the study and nominated the participating teachers. During
the study, teachers worked with speech pathology students, attended three
professional development sessions and also completed three questionnaires.
When teachers were provided with the opportunity to diagnose children, teacher
ratings resulted in an 86% sensitivity and 68.2% specificity when compared to
formal testing. This means that they selected children as being at risk who passed
formal testing and identified others who did not pass formal testing as being
competent. Despite receiving professional development, teacher perceptions of their
students’ abilities were shown to differ from the results of direct assessment of child
abilities. It would be interesting to compare these results to those of teachers who
had no specific training in relation to identifying child language difficulties.
Without relevant training teachers may not be aware of the added difficulties
children with language impairments may face or how to provide suitable learning
environments for them. Law and Sivyer (2003) examined an intervention project for
children with language and communication difficulties accompanied by either
emotion or behavioural difficulties. They found that many teachers gained insight
into the children through in depth discussion with speech and language therapists.
Many teachers had not previously thought of the difficulties experienced by these
children. The intervention had positive effects for child skills and also led to
teachers’ perceptions changing in a positive direction.
Research findings have suggested that training and support are important for
professionals with limited experience in dealing with children with speech and
language impairments (Letts & Hall, 2003). When experience and specific training
relating to language impairments are limited, confidence levels can drop leading to
feelings of being overwhelmed. This is of concern as teacher stress has been shown
to negatively influence the quality of teacher-child relationships (Mantzicopoulos,
2005).
36
These studies raise questions about how teacher perceptions and self-beliefs may
influence they way they subconsciously view, assess, interact and form relationships
with students with language impairments. While there appears to be a large body of
research which focuses on the language abilities of young children, the majority of
these tend to focus on determining social, behavioural or reading outcomes. Many of
these studies also aim at informing the professional practice of speech-language
pathologists who work with young children within school settings. Few studies have
attempted to determine teacher knowledge or perceptions of the language abilities of
children (Williams, 2006). It would seem that even fewer have examined the
implications child language ability may have on the quality of teacher-child
relationships.
One study which did focus on the interaction between child language ability and
teacher-child relationship quality was conducted by Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman,
Justice and Pence (2006). This study aimed at determining if child temperament and
language skills predicted teacher-child relationship quality. In order to do this, a
sample of 99 children and 13 teachers were selected. These children were attending
preschool programs for children at risk of school failure. This was based on the
socio-demographic indicator of residing in low-income households. Selected
children also needed to speak English as their first language. Teachers completed
28-item STRS to measure student-teacher relationship quality while a shyness
subscale from a children’s behaviour questionnaire completed by teacher aides was
used as a measurement for temperament. Child language ability was measured
through the analysis of videotaped sessions between each child interacting with an
unfamiliar researcher. Language complexity was then measured by the mean length
of utterance in words and the mean length of utterance in morphemes.
A number of regression analyses were run with the subscales of the STRS used as the
dependent variables. Other child and teacher variables relevant to each research
question were entered as the independent variables. Study results indicated that the
models used in the regression analyses were significant in predicting levels of
conflict and dependency. Teacher effects, such as their perceptions of conflict,
closeness and dependency, were found to be a stronger influence on the quality of the
teacher-child relationships than child language ability and behaviour characteristics.
It should be noted however that only 13 teachers participated in the study.
37
As would be expected, children with low language abilities who were perceived as
bold were viewed as being more difficult than their typically developing peers and
shy, withdrawn counterparts. Children with low language abilities who were shy and
withdrawn received higher ratings of STRS dependency than peers. This may mean
that the negative behaviours that are sometimes associated with children with
language difficulties may be more confrontational to teachers than the language
difficulty itself.
2.7 Research Objectives and Directions for the Current Research
When considering the high risks faced by children with language difficulties, the
importance of quality teacher-child relationships becomes obvious. Teacher-child
relationships high in closeness and low in conflict provide an opportunity for these
children to gain an increased chance of academic and social school success
especially during difficult transition periods such as the start of formal schooling.
After reviewing the existing literature it is evident that further research is needed in
order to determine how child language abilities influence the quality of early teacher-
child relationships. Further research is required to determine if the quality of the
teacher-child relationship established for children with parent reported language
concerns in early childhood settings remains consistent over the transition into
formal schooling.
With this in consideration, the research objectives for this study are:
• Objective 1: To identify differences between the quality of the teacher-child
relationships between young children with parent reported language concerns
and their peers, taking account of child sex, age, cultural and linguistic
differences and socio-economic positioning.
• Objective 2: To determine if the quality of the teacher-child relationships for
young children with parent reported language concerns varies over time,
through the period of the transition to school, as children move from early
education settings (e.g., preschools and long day care) to formal schooling.
The objectives and resulting methodology for the current study were determined by
considering the strengths and limitations of the previous research. Particular
strengths of this research include attention to sample selection, the use of a matched
38
case control research design to compare the quality of the teacher-child relationships
between young children with parent reported language concerns and their peers and a
longitudinal research approach to determine how the quality of the teacher-child
relationships for young children with parent reported language concerns varies over
time, through the period of the transition to school.
This research is important because Australian based research focusing on teacher-
child relationship quality is limited. Using an Australian sample will enable the
teacher-child relationship quality of children with parent reported language concerns
to be considered within an Australian context that can inform Australian educational
policy and practice. Generalisation of previous research findings has been limited
due to the use of small samples within those studies, as discussed in detail in Section
2.6. Secondary data analysis using a large nationally representative data set will
allow for a larger sample selection which will overcome some of these limitations.
Review of the literature also indicated that when using the STRS scales in order to
predict or determine its effect on child outcomes, regression analyses are commonly
used (e.g. Eisenhower, Baker & Blacher, 2007; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004, Saft &
Pianta, 2001; Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice & Pence, 2006). This approach will
therefore be considered when determining if early teacher-child relationships predict
future teacher-child relationship quality. Through examining the teacher-child
relationship quality of children with parent reported language concerns longitudinally
across the transition into school insight will be given into the long-term effects of
early teacher-child relationships. This will allow for identification of suitable
intervention points in order that children may be provided with more support and
resources to make a successful school transition.
This chapter has positioned the current research into context through an examination
of previous theory and research on the topic. The critical nature of early school
transitions was highlighted, as was the importance of quality teacher-child
relationships as a potential protective mediator for children at risk of experiencing
social or academic difficulties. The complex transactional nature of these
relationships was also noted indicating that numerous factors contribute to teacher-
child relationship quality, including child attributes. The increased academic and
social problems faced by children with language difficulties were considered as well
as how teacher perceptions of children may be based on their language abilities. In
39
light of the previous research, the current research objectives have been developed to
address limitations in previous studies. The next chapter will build on this
background and provide specific details on the methodological approaches to be
used.
40
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methods
3.1 Introduction
This chapter builds on the brief introduction given on the research methodology in
Chapter 1. Data from the public access database of Growing Up in Australia: The
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) was used to complete this
research. This chapter provides an overview of the background and purpose of
LSAC, including the sampling design and methodology. The measurement and
instrumentation used in the current analyses are also discussed and the approaches to
the data analysis are introduced.
Large data sets of longitudinal research funded by national governments have
traditionally been used by economists and sociologists in studies of income and
social inequalities within societies. Analyses from such studies have been important
to inform social policy development. Increasingly, longitudinal studies of children’s
development in families have also been funded by governments for similar purposes,
to inform social, family and educational policies (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2000;
Hofferth, 2005). For the purposes of this research, the availability of the LSAC data
sets provided a unique opportunity to gain further knowledge and insight into the
qualities of the teacher-child relationships experienced by young children with parent
reported language concerns and for whom the research findings may be used to
inform policy and practice in educational settings.
3.2 Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian
Children (LSAC)
The LSAC study was initiated by the Commonwealth Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services, Housing and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA)
[formally known as the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) in
2001 when the LSAC study was funded], as a part of the Australian Government
policy of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (Sanson et al., 2002). It
was the first Australian research study that has used a longitudinal design with a
nationally representative sample of children (Sanson et al., 2002). The LSAC data
includes developmental data on individual children across the dimensions of
physical, emotional, cognitive and social development. Major developmental
41
contexts were also considered including home, school/child care and other
community environments.
The main purpose for LSAC is the establishment of a strong evidence base that can
be used to inform policies concerned with early intervention and prevention
programs (Gray & Sanson, 2005; Sanson, Johnstone, LSAC Research Consortium &
FaCS LSAC Project Team, 2004). This includes the policy area of early childhood
education amongst other policy areas of child care, child health and family support.
LSAC has been funded until 2010. During this time, four waves of biennial data
collection are to be completed along with three ‘in-between waves’ of data
collection. Due to the large scope of the study, a multidisciplinary research team was
required to ensure the study was well designed and implemented (Sanson et al.,
2004). The LSAC Research Consortium successfully tendered for the design and
implementation of the research. The LSAC Research Consortium has been involved
in planning the sampling strategy and is also responsible for the development of
appropriate measurement tools for each successive data collection wave. The
progress of the study is guided and monitored by the LSAC Research Consortium
along with representatives from FaHCSIA and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The operational aspects of LSAC are managed by the Australian Institute of Family
Studies (AIFS), which is the lead agency of the LSAC Research Consortium. Along
with AIFS, FaHCSIA is also involved in the management of the LSAC data set.
Funding in the study is not provided for data analyses. Instead, the data set is
available for use by Government departments, both Federal and State, who are able
to commission analyses of data in specific areas of interest. Independent use of
LSAC data by academic researchers and post-graduate students is also promoted by
the Strategic Policy Section of FaHCSIA, provided that the researchers become
registered users. No previous research has using LSAC data has examined the current
research topic.
3.3 LSAC Research Design, Sampling, Instrumentation and Data
Collection Procedures
Design: A cross-sequential research design is used in LSAC. The study tracks
multiple cohorts across time with the capacity to analyse cohort effects, as well as
allowing for cross sectional and longitudinal analyses (Sanson et al., 2002). LSAC
42
has two cohorts, a birth cohort who were 0-1 years of age (Infant Cohort) at the first
wave of data collection (2004) and a cohort who were 4-5 years old (Kindergarten
Cohort) at the first wave of data collection (2004). These cohorts will be tracked
from 2004 until 2010. During this time, there will be four biennial waves of data
collection. Wave 1 was competed in 2004 (data release in 2005) and Wave 2 data
collection was completed in 2006 (data release in 2007). Wave 3 and 4 will be
completed in 2008 and 2010 respectively. In-between wave data collection has also
occurred with the use of mailed questionnaires in 2005 and 2007 and with 2009 to
follow. The first wave of data collection was undertaken by IView, which is a
commercial social science research agency. The Australian Bureau of Statistics
collected Wave 2 data and will collect data for all other future waves.
Sampling strategy: The sampling procedures used by LSAC are outlined in the
LSAC Technical Paper No. 1: Sample Design (Soloff, Lawrence & Johnstone, 2005).
The procedures were designed to result in a nationally representative sample of
children. The sampling frame was developed from Medicare’s enrolment database
through the Health Insurance Commission. It provided the most comprehensive
listing of Australian children for the sampling frame. A two-stage clustered
sampling design strategy was used to identify the nationally representative sample.
Postcodes, and then children within these postcodes, were randomly selected. Some
remote postcodes were excluded due to associated costs for the collection of data.
Only one child per family was recruited for the study, including for families with
multiple births or multiple children within the sampling frame.
3.3.1 Representative Nature of the Kindergarten Cohort Sample
As the sample for each study undertaken as part of this research was selected from
the LSAC Wave 1 and Wave 2 data sets for the Kindergarten Cohort, some of the
key child and demographic characteristics of the sample will be briefly outlined. At
Wave 1 (2004) for the Kindergarten cohort, 4983 children were recruited. Of these
children 2537 were male and 2446 were female. Of the recruited children in the
cohort, 3.85% were identified by parents as having Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander (ATSI) status. This is slightly higher than population estimate by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics of 3.5%. In the Kindergarten Cohort, 15.7% of
children lived in homes where a language other than English was the primary
language spoken. The majority of children (86%) resided in two parent homes.
43
In Wave 2, the families of 4464 children participated (male - 2277 and female -
2187). The proportion of children that qualified for ATSI status remained stable at
3.8%. The proportion of children in homes where a language other than English was
the primary language was 20.8%. The number of children living in two parent
homes decreased significantly from 86% to 76.3% from Wave 1 to Wave 2 data
collection. A comprehensive list of the socio-demographic characteristics of the
sample at Wave 1 is presented in Appendix A. This table provides details on the
representative nature of the Kindergarten Cohort families against census data from
the Australian Bureau of Statistics in order to ascertain how families by demographic
characteristics are over-represented or under-represented in the sample.
3.3.2 LSAC Instruments and Procedures
A range of instruments were developed for Wave 1 and Wave 2 data collection for
the Kindergarten Cohort. These included the Parent 1 Face-to-Face Interviews,
Parent 1 Self-Complete Questionnaires, and a Time Use Diary (Johnstone et al.,
2004). Parent 1 was defined as the parent or guardian who best knew the child
participant. Direct assessments were also completed with the children in the
Kindergarten Cohorts at Waves 1 and 2. Parent 1 was asked permission for
questionnaires to be sent to the teachers of the children in the Kindergarten cohort at
Wave 1 and Wave 2.
The procedures for data collection initially involved Medicare contacting selected
families by letter in order to inform them about the study. Families were given the
option to decline participation. The contact details of families who did not decline
were given to the data collection agency. These families were contacted in order to
arrange interview times. Interviews were the primary data collection method,
through the interview with Parent 1. Interviewers were usually in family homes for
two hours. During this interview, direct child assessment by the interviewer was also
completed. The self-complete modules for Parent 1 and Parent 2 were also
completed during this time where possible, or left behind and returned once
completed (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2005). When parental permission
was given questionnaires were also mailed to a child care provider, preschool
teacher, or primary school teacher who has had contact with the child for at least
eight hours per week (Soloff et al., 2005).
44
3.4 The Current Research
The current research was completed through analyses of LSAC Wave 1 and Wave 2
data for the Kindergarten Cohort. Two sub-samples of children, the first with
complete teacher data at Wave 1 and the second with complete teacher data at Wave
1 and Wave 2 were identified in order to address the following research objectives:
• Objective 1: To identify differences between the quality of the teacher-child
relationships between young children with parent reported language concerns
and their peers, taking account of child sex, age, social-economic positioning
(SEP) and cultural and linguistic diversity (CALD).
• Objective 2: To determine if the quality of the teacher-child relationships for
young children with parent reported language concerns varies over time,
through the period of the transition to school, as children move from early
education settings (e.g., preschools and long day care) to formal schooling.
The objectives for the research are addressed through the two studies with different
samples of participants.
3.4.1 Study 1
The first objective focused on examining the differences in teacher-child relationship
qualities between young children with parent reported language concerns and a
matched sample of children who were not at risk, drawn from the 4983 children in
the Kindergarten Cohort at Wave 1. Two groups of children needed to be identified.
The first requirement for identifying eligible children was that they had data on the
Teacher Questionnaires at Wave 1, since the primary outcome measure, the STRS, is
included in the Teacher Questionnaire. While almost all parents (95.55 %) supplied
permission for teachers to be sent the questionnaire, at Wave 1, only 69% of teachers
returned questionnaires (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2006). This
restriction left 3258 children as eligible to participate in Study 1.
The identification of children who were at risk for language difficulties was then
made. From parental report using data from the interview with Parent 1 (the person
most knowledgeable about the child), two questions were of interest. These two
questionnaire items are from the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status
(PEDS) (Glascoe, 2000). The PEDS is frequently used as a screener for young
45
children to identify developmental delays or impairments. The two PEDS questions
of interest for this study were parent evaluations of their child’s receptive and
expressive language abilities. More detail about the PEDS and these language
questions are provided in Section 3.4.3. The target group for this research consisted
of children identified with potential language difficulties from parents who
responded ‘Yes’ or ‘A little’, as to whether they had concerns about their child’s
receptive and expressive language concerns. While a total of 321 children were
identified by parental responses to the PEDS language concerns questions from the
full Kindergarten Cohort sample, only 212 children had teacher data from Wave 1.
Closer inspection of this latter group revealed that one case had insufficient SEP data
from the Parent 1 interview and another case had extensive missing data on the
measurement for the STRS from the teacher questionnaire. These cases were not
included in the final target group number of 210 children. A summary of this
process and the resulting number of children is presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Summary of Target Group Selection for Study 1
Study 1 Target Group Selection Number of Cases
LSAC Kindergarten Cohort 4983
Cases with teacher data 3258
Cases with teacher data and PEDS ‘Yes’ concerns 212
Cases with sufficient data on key variables 210*
* Final Target group sample for Study 1
A matched-case control group, matched on selected child characteristics, was also
identified from the remaining children in the Kindergarten Cohort. Studies using
case-control group comparisons have been conducted in relation to determining
different group outcomes for student-teacher relationship quality (Eisenhower et al.,
2007; McIntyre et al., 2006). This research design technique has also been employed
46
in other developmental studies for groups of children differing on language ability
(Donlan et al., 2007; Manor et al., 2000).
Matched control cases should be as similar as possible to the target group (Grimes &
Schulz, 2005). Careful selection of a control group with similar demographic
characteristics to the target group is illustrated by a study conducted by Manor,
Shalev, Joseph and Gross-tsur (2000). Their target group consisted of kindergarten
children with language disorders. The control group was matched by sex, social
class and kindergarten class. A match on age was also attempted but not feasible for
their study (see Section 2.5). Child sex, age and ethnicity have been identified as
important child characteristics in previous research focusing on student-teacher
relationship quality (Saft & Pianta, 2001). In regards to child language development,
social class has also been shown to contribute to outcomes (Ginsborg, 2006; Hart and
Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003).
With these above considerations in mind, a matched case control group was selected
from the remaining children in the Kindergarten Cohort who had teacher data.
Matching characteristics used were child sex, child age, family socio-economic
positioning (SEP) and family cultural and linguistic difference (CALD). Details of
these variables are provided in Appendix B. The SEP variable is a derived measure
developed for LSAC by Blakemore, Gibbings and Strazdins (2006). It measures
SEP through consideration of combined parent income, total years of schooling and
occupational prestige. This derived variable of SEP provides a continuous score.
Blakemore et al. (2006) use this score in a categorical manner of low SEP (25%),
medium SEP (50%) and high SEP (25%) of the sample. This categorisation of low,
medium and high was also used in this study for the purpose of matching samples. A
summary of the process followed by Blakemore, Gibbings and Strazdins (2006) in
the SEP variable construction is provided in Appendix C.
After matching on key variables was achieved, a random numbers selection
procedure was then used to identify the individual cases for the control group who
matched a target group child (i.e., with the same characteristics). Any case for the
control group found to have incomplete teacher data was also removed and another
matching case was randomly selected. This process was complete when 210 children
for the control group were identified. A simplified model of the matching procedure
is shown in Figure 3.1. A more detailed outline is provided in Appendix D.
47
Figure 3.1 Matching Procedure for Target and Control Group
3.4.2 Study 2
Research objective 2 focused on the stability of the qualities of the student-teacher
relationships from early education settings across the transition to school. A
summary of the sample selection for Study 2 is presented in Table 3.2. The basis for
the sample used in this analysis was the target group of children (children with both
PEDS language concerns at Wave 1) from Study 1. The size of the target group for
Research Objective 1 was 210 participants. However, sample attrition from Wave 1
to Wave 2 reduced this sample size. A total of 26 children from the sample of interest
at Wave 1 were not part of the LSAC Wave 2 data collection. This left 184 children
in the sample. This was further reduced by the need to have Teacher Questionnaire
data at Wave 2 since the key outcome measure was the STRS included in that
questionnaire. At Wave 2, 84% of teachers returned questionnaires (Australian
Institute of Family Studies, 2006). However, 38 children in the target group did not
have any teacher data at Wave 2 and, as a result, could not be included. From the
Target Group (n=210)
‘Yes’ for both Receptive and Expressive PEDS language concerns
Control Group (n=3048)
‘No’ for one or both Receptive and Expressive PEDS language concerns Matched on demographic variables
Final Matched Groups
Target Group (n=210)
2 x PEDS language concerns
Control Group (n=210)
0 or 1 x PEDS language concern Matched on Sex, CALD, SEP, Age
Kindergarten Cohort with Teacher Data (n = 3258)
Matching Variables
• Boys/Girls 2 categories: A - Sex
• NESB and/or ATSI status 2 categories: B - CALD
• Socio-Economic Positioning 3 categories: C - SEP
• Age into 3 month bands 6 categories: D - Age
48
remaining cases, one had insufficient data on the STRS at Wave 2. This case was
consequently also removed from analyses leaving a total sample size of 145 children.
Table 3.2 Summary of Target Group Selection for Study 2.
Study 2 sample selection Number of cases
with missing data
Remaining
number of cases
Size of target group from Study 1 - 210
Due to attrition from Wave 1 to Wave 2 26 184
Due to missing teacher data 38 146
Case with insufficient STRS data 1 145*
* Final sample size for Study 2
3.5 Measurement Instruments
Data collected from the LSAC Wave 1 Teacher Questionnaire, Wave 2 Teacher
Questionnaire, Wave 1 Parent 1 Interview and the Parent 1 Self-Complete
Questionnaire was used in this study. The Teacher Questionnaire provided
information on the characteristics of the teacher, teaching program and context, and
the child’s attributes and behaviours (Johnstone et al., 2004). The Parent 1 Interview
was administered to the primary caregivers of participating children and collected
data on a range of issues relating to the child’s personal attributes and the child’s
family and educational contexts (Johnstone et al., 2004). The Parent 1 Self-
Complete was used to collect further information about the child and their family,
including details about their child’s temperament and behaviour (Johnstone et al.,
2004).
A range of the constructs and variables used in the reporting of this research in
Chapter 4, drawn from these survey instruments, are presented in Appendix B. The
key measurement scales from parent report and teacher report to the analyses for
these studies are the PEDS, the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta,
2001) and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1999).
These key measures are discussed below.
49
3.5.1 Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS)
The PEDS was used in the analyses in Study 1 and Study 2 to identify children at
risk for language difficulties. The full PEDS screening instrument is a 10 item
questionnaire used with parents of young children in health and developmental
screening. It identifies parental concerns about their child’s development in order to
provide professionals with insight into potential areas of difficulty (Glascoe, 2003).
Each item relates to a different area of child development, including the two
questions utilised by LSAC, relating to receptive and expressive language skills.
Other areas include cognition, fine and gross motor skills, behaviour, social-
emotional well being, self-help skills, and school skills (Wake, Gerner & Gallagher,
2005). PEDS is often used as a screening and surveillance tool by clinicians.
The PEDS is most commonly used as a screening instrument in the following
manner, with clinical cut-offs (Tough, Siever, Benzies, Leew & Johnston, 2006).
One predictive concern in a developmental domain indicates a 30% chance of future
difficulty and two predictive concerns indicates a 50% chance of future difficulties
for the child (Tough et al., 2006). It is currently believed that up to 70% of young
children with developmental difficulties are not identified until school entry
(Coghlan, Kiing & Wake, 2003). It is commonly used across a range of settings
including health, childcare or educational settings as the basis for early detection and
intervention for at risk children (Armstrong & Goldfeld, 2004). As noted by Wagner,
Jenkins and Smith (2006), the use of parent questionnaires as screeners for child
developmental delays has been validated by a number of studies. High similarities
between parent and professional estimates of the developmental abilities of children
have been found (Hundert, Morrison, Mahoney, Mundy & Vernon, 1997). The
PEDS has been established as a valid and reliable measure for screening young
children for developmental difficulties, as well as meeting screening standards for
test accuracy and by standardisation with diverse populations (Wagner et al., 2006).
While research on the psychometric properties of PEDS has been completed in
America, an Australian study concluded that it was unlikely to significantly differ
from the performance levels determined from the American norming population
(Coghlan et al., 2003). PEDS has a high sensitivity of 74-80% when identifying
children with disabilities and a high specificity of 70-80% of correctly identifying
children without disabilities as developing normally (Armstrong & Goldfeld, 2004;
50
Wagner et al., 2006). It has a high inter-rater reliability for the categorisation of
parental concerns (0.95), a test-retest reliability of 0.88 and internal consistency of
0.81 (Tough et al., 2006).
3.5.2 Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
The short form of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) was
included in the Wave 1 and Wave 2 Teacher Questionnaires. The STRS measures
teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with a child. It was used to determine the
quality of teacher-child relationships in Study 1 and Study 2 of the current research.
It has been widely used by numerous researchers wanting to establish the quality of
teacher-child relationships and has demonstrated predictive and concurrent validity
(Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).
The short form of the STRS used in the LSAC study consisted of 15 questions that
are rated on 5-point scales. While the full version of STRS measures Closeness,
Conflict and Dependency in teacher-child relationships, the short version consists of
two subscales of Closeness and Conflict. These scales have been shown to have high
internal consistency (Pianta, 2001). Coefficients of internal consistency were tested
for each subscale using Cronbach’s alpha and the Wave 1 LSAC Kindergarten
Cohort. The results were as follows: Closeness α= 0.84 and Conflict α= 0.87
showing high internal consistency.
3.5.3 The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1999) is a
behavioural screening questionnaire used for 3-16 year olds. There are versions
available of the SDQ for parents, teachers and children to complete. All include the
same 25 items which are rated on a 3-point scale ranging from ‘Not true’ to
‘Certainly true’. These 25 items are then divided into five sub-scales. These sub-
scales consist of Emotional symptoms, Conduct problems, Hyperactivity/inattention,
Peer relationship problems and Prosocial behaviour. All scales except the Prosocial
behaviour scale can be added to provide a Total Difficulties score.
An Australian study was conducted in order to examine the internal consistency and
external validity of the parent-report SDQ within an Australian context (Hawes &
Dadds, 2004). All SDQ subscales were found to have internal reliability and
validity. External validity was demonstrated via correlations between the parent-
51
report SDQ subscales and teacher ratings along with diagnostic interviews. The
study found evidence that the parent-report SDQ had sound psychometric properties.
For the current research, only the parent-report SDQ Total Difficulties score from
Wave 1 was used as a measurement of child behavioural difficulties in the analyses
for the second research objective. The Chronbach alpha level for the SDQ Total
Difficulties scale was α = .79. While the teacher-report SDQ was also available from
the LSAC data set, the parent-report was chosen in order to provide measurement of
child characteristics independent of teacher ratings on the STRS. It has been noted in
a similar previous study that obtaining independent sources of child behavioural
characteristics when using teacher reports to assess student-teacher relationship
quality is important in order to avoid teacher biases (Rudasill et al., 2006).
3.6 Data Preparation and Screening
An application for the use of Wave 1 and Wave 2 LSAC data was completed and
approved by AIFS and FAHCSIA. The data sets were available as SAS and SPSS
files, however, only the SPSS data sets were used for data analyses. The data set
extraction of appropriate samples was the initial data analytic task. The procedure
followed for sample selection in both studies was outlined above. All cases were
checked for complete data on the key variables used in statistical analyses. The cases
with insufficient STRS data were removed. For the matched case control group, any
cases with missing STRS scale items resulted in removal of that case and
replacement in the sample through the random selection of another matched case on
the matching characteristics.
For the target group, cases missing up to two STRS scale items had total STRS scale
scores imputed from the mean of remaining items. This procedure was also followed
for Study 2. No cases in Study 2 were missing any of the child characteristic
variables or SDQ Total Difficulties scores used in the analyses.
Other data preparation involved recoding of selected variables. The age variable in
Study 1 was collapsed into categories for use in the matching procedure. A
comprehensive list of all variables used in data analyses is presented in Appendix B.
Key variables used for the statistical analyses were also checked to ensure the
relevant assumptions were met.
52
3.7 Data Analysis
Two studies were completed in order to address each research objective. Descriptive
analysis of demographic details and characteristics of children, families, teachers and
classrooms were conducted for each study. A comprehensive list of all variables
used for this purpose can be found in Appendix B. The first research objective was
investigated in Study 1. This examined the differences in the quality of teacher-child
relationships between a target group, being children identified as having parent
reported language concerns, and a matched case control group. A multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to identify differences between the two
groups on the two dependent measures (Wave 1 STRS Closeness scores and Wave 1
STRS Conflict scores).
The analyses took account of issues and assumptions in the use of MANOVA,
including particular account of the measurement and distributional properties of the
data (Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A small number of
outliers were present, however, MANOVA is considered to be robust to minor
violations of normality, especially if a reasonable size sample is used (Pallant, 2005).
To ensure robustness to normality assumptions, a recommended sample size of at
least 20 cases per cell is needed in the MANOVA analysis (Pallant, 2005). The
sample size used for Study 1, with 210 children in each group resulting in 420 cases
in all, was more than adequate to be a robust analysis.
The second study examined the stability of the quality of the teacher-child
relationship, using the STRS scales of Closeness and Conflict from Time 1 of
measurement (Wave 1 data 2004) to Time 2 of measurement (Wave 2 data 2006).
This considered whether the quality of the teacher-child relationship at Wave 2 could
be predicted from the quality of the previous teacher-child relationship at Wave 1
(prior to school). In order to achieve this, four multiple regression analyses were
conducted. Multiple regression analyses are appropriate when assessing the
relationship between an outcome variable (e.g., STRS Closeness and Conflict, in turn
as outcome variables) and several independent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007).
The first two regression analyses used the scores on the Wave 2 STRS Closeness
scales as the outcome variables, while the last two used the Wave 2 STRS Conflict
53
scales as the outcome variables. The independent variables used in each regression
analysis consisted of child sex, age, LOTE and ATSI status and the SDQ Total
Difficulties score. Child sex, age and ethnicity have been identified as important
child characteristics in previous research focusing on student-teacher relationship
quality (Saft & Pianta, 2001). Wave 1 SDQ Total Difficulties scores as rated by
parents were also included as an independent measure of child behavioural
characteristics at Wave 1. It was also included to provide an indication of the effect
of early child behaviour on future teacher-child relationship quality. In addition to
this, the second and fourth regressions also had the Wave 1 STRS Closeness and
Conflict scales added as predictor variables. This strategy was used to establish
whether the Wave 1 STRS predicted outcomes over and above the basic regression
model. The dependent and independent variables used in each analysis are presented
in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Variables used in Multiple Regressions for Study 2.
No. Dependent Variable Independent Variables
1 Wave 2 STRS
Closeness
Child sex, age, LOTE, ATSI, SDQ Total Difficulties
2 Wave 2 STRS
Closeness
Child sex, age, LOTE, ATSI, SDQ Total Difficulties
plus Wave 1 STRS Closeness Wave 1 STRS Conflict
3 Wave 2 STRS
Conflict
Child sex, age, LOTE, ATSI, SDQ Total Difficulties
4 Wave 2 STRS
Conflict
Child sex, age, LOTE, ATSI, SDQ Total Difficulties
plus Wave 1 STRS Closeness, Wave 1 STRS Conflict
Before the analyses were completed, the issues and assumptions relevant to multiple
regression were considered, including adequate sample size, multicollinearity,
outliers and normality of distribution (Pallant, 2007). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007)
provide a formula for determining the required sample size for multiple regression
54
analyses being: N≥50 + 8m, with m being equal to the number of independent
variables. The maximum number of independent variables used in the multiple
regression analyses for this study was seven. This means that a minimum sample
size of 106 was required, far fewer than the 145 case sample used.
Multicollinearity occurs due to high intercorrelations between predictor variables and
can lead to inaccurate results in multiple regression (Barrett, Leech & Morgan, 2005;
Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2002). The collinearity statistics for each regression
were checked and these indicated that no issues of multicollinearity were present. A
small number of outliers were present, however, as noted by Cohen, Cohen, West
and Aiken (2002) as sample size increases the effect of outliers decrease, especially
so in conditions where no multicollinearity is present. While there was a minor
deviation from normal distribution, it has been noted by Lumley, Diehr, Emerson and
Chen (2002) that the assumption of normal distribution is not required for regression
when the sample size is adequately large as in the current study.
3.8 Ethical Considerations
The ethical considerations pertaining to secondary data analysis were also examined
before data analysis was undertaken. It is imperative that all research projects are
conducted ethically especially those relating to young children (MacNaughton,
Rolfe, & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001; Lambert, 2003). The current research focused
specifically on data relating to young children, however, the LSAC data set was
confidentialised. This is common for the public release of large data sets used in
secondary data analyses (McMillian & Schumacher, 2006). The use of such data sets
is considered exempt from ethical review as outlined by the National Statement on
Ethical Conduct in Human Research in Section 5.1.22 (Australian Government et
al., 2007, p. 79):
“Institutions may choose to exempt from ethical review research that (a) is
negligible risk research (as defined in paragraph 2.1.7 – no foreseeable risk of
harm or discomfort and any foreseeable risk is no more than inconvenience);
and (b) involves the issue of existing collections of data or record that contain
only non-identifiable data about human beings.”
As the current research contained only confidentialised data, with no identifying
details of participants, it clearly falls within this category.
55
3.9 Conclusion
This chapter has provided details of the methodology followed throughout the
completion of this research. Specifically, information about Growing Up in
Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) was provided in
regards to its background and purpose along with the research design and methods
used. The direction for the current research was then provided along with the
objectives. The methods used for identifying an appropriate sample for each study
were then described, followed by details on the instruments used for data analysis.
The procedures followed were then outlined. A description of the approach taken for
data analysis was presented next. After this the ethical considerations relating to the
current research were provided. Chapter 4 will continue on from this point by
presenting the results obtained from the analyses described in this chapter.
56
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Introduction
This research has drawn on data for the Kindergarten Cohort from Growing Up in
Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian children (LSAC) to examine the
qualities of teacher-child relationships for a sub-sample of children who were
considered at risk for language difficulties by parent reports at age 4-5 years. This
chapter presents the results of two studies. Study 1 uses Wave 1 data to identify the
differences in the relationship that children with parent reported language concerns
had with their teacher, in qualities of closeness and conflict, compared to a
comparison group of children matched on the child attributes of sex, age, SEP and
CALD. The results for Study 1 are presented in Section 4.2. Study 2 uses Wave 1
and Wave 2 data to explore the second research objective that focussed on stability in
the qualities of the teacher-child relationship for children whose parents had
expressed concerns for their language development at age 4-5 years and whether the
qualities of their relationship with their teacher at age 4-5 was predictive of the
qualities of their relationship with their teachers at age 6-7 years. The results for
Study 2 are presented in Section 4.3. This section is then followed by the chapter
conclusion.
4.2 Study 1 – Matched Case Control Study
The research objective for this study was:
Objective 1: To identify differences in the quality of the teacher-child
relationships between young children with parent reported language concerns
and their peers, taking account of child sex, age, social-economic positioning
(SEP) and cultural and linguistic diversity (CALD).
In this section, the manner in which a target group at risk for language difficulties
and a matched case control group were identified is briefly reviewed. The results of
the study are then presented. The results include descriptive analyses of the two
groups of children on various characteristics, including teacher reports of their
learning and competencies in the classroom. A MANOVA is then reported on the
differences between groups on the qualities of the teacher-child relationships.
57
The first study identified children at risk of language difficulties through parent
report on two items drawn from the PEDS (Glascoe, 2000). The items asked parents
to indicate whether they had concerns for the development of their children’s
receptive and expressive language abilities, respectively. This group is referred to as
the target group. Children identified for the target group needed to have parent report
of concerns on both PEDS items to be included in the group. The parent report on
language concerns was obtained from the LSAC interview with Parent 1, being the
person most knowledgeable about the child, usually the mother. Additionally, since
the key outcome measure was the teacher report on the qualities of their relationship
with the child, this group also needed to have data from a returned Teacher
Questionnaire. When this was accounted for, the target group comprised 210
children.
A matched case control group was then identified from children in the Kindergarten
Cohort whose parents did not have concerns for their language development.
Children in the target group were matched to other children in the Kindergarten
Cohort by sex, age, social-economic positioning (SEP), and cultural and linguistic
diversity (CALD). Given any profile for a child in the target group, a matching case
with the same profile, by sex, age, SEP, and CALD status was identified. If there
were more than one case with the same profile, then a single case was selected by the
use of a random numbers table.
4.2.1 Descriptive Analyses
Child, Parents, and Household Demographics
The demographic characteristics for the two groups of children who are the focus of
Study 1 are presented in Table 4.1. As presented in Table 4.1 the mean age of the
target group children was 4.7 (SD = .23). Males were more likely to have PEDS
concerns. They made up 66.2% of the target group. The majority of target group
children (88.1%) spoke English at home and 4.8% had either Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander status (ATSI). As the matched case control group were selected on
the basis of matched characteristics to the target group, the proportions of children in
the control group on these characteristics are similar.
The demographic details for parents and households in both groups are also
presented in Table 4.1. The overall Social-Economic Positioning (SEP) of each
58
group was used in the matching procedure resulting in similar characteristics
between groups. A total of 167 (79.5%) of the target group had two parent
households compared to 176 (83.8%) of control group children. Of the target group
parents, 140 (67.6%) were married compared to (73.3%) of the control group
parents.
Mothers of the target group had a mean age of 33.9 years (SD = 6.6) while control
group mothers had a mean age of 34.2 years (SD = 6.1). Bachelor degrees or other
post-graduate degrees were held by 18.1% of target group mothers compared to
21.8% of control group mothers. Only 44.8% of mothers from the target group were
employed while 53.8% of mothers from the control group also had employment.
Target group fathers had a mean age of 37.7 years (SD = 6.8), similar to control
group fathers who had a mean age of 37.3 years (SD = 5.9). A total of 20.5% target
group fathers held a Bachelors degree or higher and this was similar in proportion to
control group fathers (20.0%). A total of 72.9% of target group fathers were
employed, compared to 79.5% of control group fathers. Household income for
20.5% of the target group families was between $1000-1499 per week compared to
25.7% of control group households.
Teachers and Classrooms
The demographic details for teachers and early childhood classrooms in which the
children were participating are also presented in Table 4.1. The majority of teachers
for each group of children were female with 99.5% for the target group and 99.0%
for the control group. Teacher age was similar between the two groups with the
mean age of teachers from the target group being 39.2 (SD = 10.36) and the control
group being 40.7 (SD = 10.45). The average number of years of teaching experience
in early childhood settings was also similar for target group teachers with 14.2 years
(SD = 8.5) and control group teachers with 14.6 years (SD = 8.9. The mean length
of time in their current workplace for target group teachers being at their current
workplace was 6.3 years (SD = 5.5) and for control group teachers it was 6.0 years
(SD = 5.7). The target group had a larger number of teachers with a bachelor or post-
graduate degree (62.0%), while over half of the control group teachers also had a
bachelor degree or higher (54.3%).
59
Table 4.1 Demographics by Group Status
Target Group
(n=210)
Control Group
(n=210)
Children Mean Age (SD) 4.7 (.23) 4.7 (.23) Sex - % male 66.2% (139) 66.2% (139) LOTE - % Speak English at home 88.1% (185) 88.6% (186) ATSI status 4.8% (10) 5.3% (11) Parents and Households Both Parents in Household - % Yes 79.5% (167) 83.8% (176) Marital status - % married
67.6% (140) 73.3% (154)
Mothers’ mean age in years (SD) 33.9 (6.6) 34.2 (6.1) Mothers’ education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
18.1% (38) 21.8% (46)
Mothers’ employment - % employed
44.8% (94) 53.8% (113)
Fathers’ mean age in years (SD) 37.7 (6.8) 37.3 (5.9) Fathers’ education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
20.5% (43) 20.0% (42)
Fathers’ employment -% employed
72.9% (153) 79.5% (167)
Family weekly income - % of families: $ 100 - $ 399 $ 400 - $ 599 $ 600 - $ 799 $ 800 - $ 999 $1000 - $1499 $1500 - $1999 $2000 or more per week
7.6% (16) 16.7% (35) 15.2% (32) 11.9% (25) 20.5% (43) 13.8% (29) 9.5% (20)
6.2% (13) 13.4% (28) 12.9% (27) 13.8% (29) 25.7% (54) 11.4% (24) 11.4% (24)
Teachers and Classrooms Mean age in years (SD) 39.2 (10.36) 40.7 (10.45) Sex - % female 99.5% (203) 99.0% (196) Teachers mean early childhood experience in years (SD)
14.2 (8.5) 14.6 (8.9)
Teacher mean length of time in current workplace (SD)
6.3 (5.5) 6.0 (5.7)
Teacher education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
62.0% (124) 54.3% (114)
Preschool based at school - % children attending
30.0% (63) 34.8% (73)
Public / government early childhood program - % children attending
35.2% (74) 37.6% (79)
60
The most common early childhood classroom setting for children was in public
education programs provided by the state or territory governments, with 35.2% of the
target group and 37.6% of the control group attending. Other setting types were non-
profit community-based child care centres or kindergartens, for-profit child care
centres, and church-affiliated programs. As expected given the high number of
public education programs, 30% of the target group children and 34.8% of the
control group children attended preschools that were attached to a school. Class
numbers were similar across both groups with 54.3% of the target group and 51.9%
of the control group attending early childhood settings which had 21-30 children
present in the class.
Classroom demographics for children attending were similar across groups. The
majority of these classrooms had only 1-5 children from Non-English Speaking
Backgrounds (see Figure 4.1) with 82.4% for the target group and 81.0% for the
control group. This was similar for the number of children with ATSI status with
86.9% for the target group and 84.7% for the control group. The number of children
with disabilities present in classrooms was also more frequently in the 1-5 range for
both target group classrooms (88.1%) and control group classrooms (93.2%).
0102030405060708090
100
21-30 Children
attending
1-5 Children
from NESB
1-5 Children with
ATSI status
1-5 Children with
disabilities
Classroom Child Composition
Perc
ent
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.1 Classroom Child Composition at Wave 1
61
Children’s Language Production and Comprehension
In the Parent 1 interview, parents were asked to respond to questions relating to their
child’s communication ability and history (see Figure 4.2). Because children in the
target group were identified by parental concern about the development of receptive
and expressive language, then parental responses to questions about other
communication abilities were expected to also reflect concerns about language
production and comprehension. There were also children in the control group who
may have presented with parental concern on one of the PEDS items (but not both).
From the control group, 43 (20.5%) had expressive language concerns only and nine
(4.3%) had receptive language concerns only. As anticipated the control group
children were rated far less frequently as having any difficulties.
Parents were asked questions relating to their child’s expressive language ability.
The first questions inquired as to whether they considered that their child was
reluctant to speak. A total of 24 (11.4%) target group parents felt this was the case as
opposed to only 2 (1%) of control group parents. A total of 116 (35.7%) of target
group parents considered their child’s communication to be unclear to their families
while this was indicated by only 7 (3.3%) control group parents. Children were
considered to have communication which was unclear to others by 116 (55.2%)
target group parents compared to only 17 (8.1%) control group parents. A further 87
(41.4%) of target group parents felt their child had difficulty in ‘finding’ expressive
words in comparison to 6 (2.9%) of control group parents. Ninety-seven (46.2%)
target group parents felt their child had trouble putting words together while only 8
(3.8%) control group parents felt this to be the case.
Less concern was evident in questions relating to receptive language comprehension
for both the target and control groups. Target group parents identified 58 (27.6%) of
children as having trouble understanding their parents as opposed to only 4 (1.9%) of
control group children. Fifty-nine (28.1%) target group children were also noted as
having trouble understanding others. For control group children this was only a
concern for 2 (1%) parents. Clearly, as with the questions relating to expressive
language, target group children were far more likely to be noted by parents as having
these specific types of receptive language difficulties.
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rel
ucta
nt to
spea
k
Comm
unic
atio
n un
clea
r to
fam
ily
Com
mun
icat
ion
unclea
r to
othe
rs
Diff
icul
ty fi
ndin
g w
ords
Troub
le p
uttin
g w
ords
toge
ther
Troub
le u
nder
stan
ding
par
ent
Troub
le u
nder
stan
ding
oth
ers
Voi
ce so
unds
unu
sual
Stutte
r/lisp
Late star
ting
to ta
lk
Concerns Relating to Language Production and Comprehension
Perc
ent
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.2 Specific Parental Concerns Relating to Child Language Production
and Comprehension by Group Status
Voice production and quality appeared to be less of an issue for both groups. A total
of 24 (11.4%) target group children were noted as having a voice that sounded
unusual while only 2 (1%) of the control group children were regarded by parents as
having an unusual voice. There were 41 (19.5%) of the target group children with a
stutter or lisp while 12 (5.7%) of the control group children also had these speech
production difficulties. Of particular interest were the parent responses to a question
asking if their child was late starting to talk. A total of 134 (63.8%) target group
children were identified as being late starting to talk. This was only the case for 26
(12.4%) of the control group children, considerably less than the 63.8% of children
from the target group. This would suggest that being late starting to talk was a
potential indicator of future language difficulties.
Additional Services Used by the Children
Teachers were also asked to note if the study child received any additional services,
such as visiting therapists to support their learning. A total of 45.2% of children
from the control group received additional services, while only 10.5% of children
from the target group did. These services and the percentage of children receiving
63
them by group can be seen in Figure 4.3. One of the extra services listed was speech
therapy, which 24.8% of the target group were identified as using compared to 6.7%
of the control group. Learning support was the next most common reason for the
target group requiring additional services (21.9%). The target group received more
support than the control group across all categories.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Add
ition
al S
ervi
ces
Speec
h The
rapy
Psych
olog
ical
Ass
essm
ent
Learn
ing
Suppo
rt
Behav
iour
Man
agem
ent
Oth
er
Additional Services
Percen
t
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.3 Percentage of Children Receiving Additional Services in Early
Childhood Classroom Settings
Teacher Ratings of Early Literacy and Numeracy Skills
Examination of teacher ratings of the study child’s early literacy and numeracy skills
also revealed differences between the two groups. Rates of interest in reading and
emerging reading skills tended to be lower for the target group (see Figure 4.4).
Children from the target group were generally interested in books (89.2%) although
far fewer were interested in reading (38.7%). Only 14.7% were able to read simple
words, although some were noted as being able to read complex words (2.5%) and
simple sentences (5.4%). A total of 14.2% were noted as being uninterested in
reading altogether.
64
In comparison to this, the control group was more interested in books (98.1%) and
reading (56.3%). A quarter of the control group children were able to read simple
words (25%), although as would be expected, only a few could read complex words
(4.3%) and simple sentences (6.7%) although these results were still higher than
those for the target group. Only 2.4% of the control group children were classed as
being uninterested in reading, a noticeably smaller proportion than that of target
group. Overall, children in the control group tended to exhibit higher interest in
books and reading and were more frequently seen to have emerging reading skills.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gen
eral
inte
rest in
boo
ks
Inte
rested
in re
adin
g
Can
read
sim
ple w
ords
Can
read
com
plex
wor
ds
Can re
ad si
mpl
e se
nten
ces
Uni
nter
este
d in
read
ing
Emerging Reading Skills and Interest
Perc
ent
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.4 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Reading by Group
Status
Teachers also provided information pertaining to emerging writing skills (see Figure
4.5). The target group were mostly engaged in experimentation with writing tools
(80.5%). Under half of them were showing awareness of writing directionality
(43.9%). A similar number were showing interest in copying (40.5%). A total of
58% were able to write their names, however, only 12.2% were writing simple
words. A small number of children were able to write simple sentences (3.9%). A
large number of children (20.5%) were considered by their teachers to be
uninterested in writing.
65
The control group once again exhibited higher levels of interest and emerging skills.
A total of 90.4% were experimenting with writing tools and well over half were
showing awareness of writing directionality (68.3%). Copying was shown interest
by 56.7% and a total of 79.3% were able to write their names. Nearly a quarter of
the group were able to write simple words (23.6%) and a small number were writing
simple sentences (5.3%). Only 4.3% were considered to be uninterested in writing
by their teachers, a much smaller result than the target group.
0102030405060708090
100
Exper
imen
ts w
ith w
ritin
g to
ols
Aw
are
of w
ritin
g di
rect
iona
lity
Inte
rested
in c
opyi
ng
Abl
e to
writ
e ow
n na
me
Abl
e to
writ
e sim
ple w
ords
Abl
e to
writ
e sim
ple se
nten
ces
Uni
nter
este
d in
writ
ing
Emerging Writing Skills and Interest
Percen
t
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.5 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Writing by Group
Status
Teachers also rated child numeracy skills (see Figure 4.6). According to their
teachers, a large number of the target group were able to sort and classify (86.0%)
and count objects (79.5%). Fewer were able to count to 20 (38.5%) but just over half
were able to recognise numbers (54.5%). Only 16% were able to do simple addition
and 13.5% showed no interest in numbers. In comparison to this, the control group
had 96.6% of children able to sort and classify, 92.8% were able to count objects and
56.5% were able to count to 20, which was nearly 20% more than the target group.
A large number were also able to recognise numbers (72.9%) and 35.3% were able to
do simple addition, over twice the number of target group children. Only 1% of
66
children were considered by teachers to show no interest in numbers. Overall, like
literacy skills, children in the target group received teacher ratings on numeracy
which regarded them to have lower levels of interest and skills when compared to the
control group.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Abl
e to
sort
and
clas
sify
Abl
e to
cou
nt o
bjec
ts
Abl
e to
cou
nt to
20
Abl
e to
reco
gnise nu
mbe
rs
Abl
e to
do
simpl
e ad
ditio
n
Uni
nter
este
d in
num
bers
Emerging Numeracy Skills and Interest
Percen
t
Target Group Control Group
Figure 4.6 Teacher Ratings of Child Interest and Skill in Numeracy by Group
Status
4.2.2 Comparative Analysis by Group Status on the STRS
A MANOVA was used to identify the differences between the target group and the
control group for the closeness and conflict scales on the STRS. The dependent
measures used were: the mean scores of the STRS Closeness scale and the STRS
Conflict scale. The independent variable consisted of group status being either target
or control group. As discussed in Chapter 3, the assumptions of MANOVA were
reviewed prior to conducting the analysis. Using Wilks’ Lambda, a significant
difference was found in the quality of teacher-child relationships between groups, F
(2, 417) = 19.29, p = .000. The effect size for the overall model using partial eta
squared was .085. This is considered to be a small effect size. However, even a
small effect can have practical importance (McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000).
When the dependent variables were examined separately both closeness, F (1, 418)
=27.28, p=.000, and conflict, F (1, 418) = 22.25, p=.000, remained statistically
67
significant. Group means (see Table 4.2) showed that results were significant in the
expected direction as target group children had lower levels of closeness and higher
levels of conflict than the children in the control group. These results indicate that
children identified as having potential receptive and expressive language difficulties
are more likely to have lower quality relationships with teachers than their peers.
Table 4.2 MANOVA Results for Wave 1 STRS Closeness and Conflict by Group
Status
Target Group (n = 210)
Control Group (n = 210)
Measure M SD M SD F Sig.
STRS Closeness Wave 1 3.96 .81 4.33 .61 27.28 .000 STRS Conflict Wave 1 1.81 .61 1.47 .61 22.25 .000
The results from Study 1 would suggest that despite being matched on sex, age,
CALD and SEP, children with parent reported language concerns still had teacher-
child relationships marked by less closeness and more conflict than their peers.
While the effect size was small, there is still practical significance in these results
given the high risks already faced by the target group children. Descriptive results
also indicated differences in academic abilities. The target group had lower levels of
skill proficiency. Family, teacher and classroom characteristics were very similar for
both groups suggesting that the differences in teacher-child relationship outcomes are
attributable to either child language ability and/or conditions that have comorbidity
with language ability, for example, increased behavioural issues (McCabe & Meller,
2004; McCabe, 2005) or developmental issues which have resulted in secondary
language impairments (Donaldson, 1995; Luinge et al., 2006; Nation, 2005).
Eisenhower, Baker and Blacher (2007) also found differences in teacher-child
relationship quality between children with intellectual disability and peers which
were not fully accounted for by child intellectual ability. In that study, attributes
such as the behaviour and emotional self-regulation ability of the children with
intellectual disabilities were found to contribute to the variance in teacher-child
relationship quality. The findings from the current study add to the evidence from
previous studies that children with developmental differences in the early childhood
years are less likely to have positive relationships with their teachers. This presents
important information that needs to be considered in classroom practice.
68
4.3 Study 2 – Stability in the Quality of Teacher-Child Relationships
The research objective for this study was:
• Objective 2: To determine if the quality of the teacher-child relationships for
young children with parent reported language concerns varies over time,
through the period of the transition to school, as children move from early
education settings (e.g., preschools and long day care) to formal schooling.
In this section, descriptive analyses of the sample of children used for this study are
presented with information on the children and their families at Wave 1 and Wave 2.
Multiple regression models are presented in order to address the second research
objective related to the stability of the qualities of the teacher-child relationship
across the period of the transition to school.
The second study examined the stability of teacher-child relationship quality for
children at aged 4-5 through the transition to formal schooling at age 6-7 years. The
focus of these analyses remains on the children identified for Study 1 whose parents
had concerns for their receptive and expressive language abilities. However, while
the target group for Study 1 consisted of 210 children, attrition in the Kindergarten
Cohort from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (26 children) and the lack of a returned Teacher
Questionnaire, which provided the information on the quality of the teacher-child
relationship for children at Wave 2 (38 children) resulted in the loss of 64 cases.
Additionally, one other case was removed from the analyses due to substantial
missing data on the teacher data for the STRS at Wave 2. Thus, the sample size for
Study 2 was 145 children that comprised children from the Study 1 target group who
were identified with both PEDS expressive and receptive language concerns by their
parents at Wave 1 and for whom parent and teacher data was available for Wave 1
and Wave 2.
All children in the sample for Study 2 had been identified by their parents as having
both receptive and expressive language concerns at Wave 1. However, by Wave 2,
parental concerns had decreased. Forty-four cases (30.3%) were no longer identified
as having any concerns. From the remaining cases, 52 (35.8%) were still identified
as having both receptive and expressive language concerns and 49 (33.9%) had one
concern only. Therefore, concern for language development was still evident for
approximately 70% of the children.
69
4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics
Child, Parent, and Household Demographics
Child, family and household demographics for the sample group for this study are
provided in Table 4.3. The demographic characteristics at Wave 1 and Wave 2 are
presented in order to consider any changes in these characteristics across the time
interval of two years, as children make the transition to school. At Wave 2, the mean
age of the children was 6.8 years (SD = .24). As for the sample group in Study 1,
there were more boys than girls, with 94 boys (64.8%) in the Sample group.
At Wave 2, households with both parents in the home remained similar at 82.1%
from 83.4% at Wave 1. Education levels of mothers and fathers were similar at
Wave 1 to Wave 2. Mothers’ employment at Wave 1 was 44.9% which increased to
53.8% at Wave 2. Possibly, this is a result of children reaching school age enabling a
return to the workforce. Fathers’ employment also remained similar from 75.9 at
Wave 1 and 77.2% at Wave 2. The most common weekly income for these families
from Wave 1 to Wave 2 was $1000-$1499 per week bracket with 23.4% of families
at Wave 1 and 24.1% at Wave 2 falling within this category.
Teachers and Classrooms
Wave 2 teachers had 16.3 years of teaching experience (SD = 10.8) and had been
working in their current workplace for 7.2 years (SD = 6.5). Levels of education
were higher at Wave 2. Only 61.6% of teachers at Wave 1 held a bachelor degree or
higher compared to 75.6% of Wave 2 teachers. This is likely to be because, at Wave
1, many children were in child care settings where the mandatory level of education
to be a group leader is 2 years (teacher of a class group), compared to the mandatory
level of education for a teacher in a primary school which is 4 years. The children
had teachers at Wave 1 and Wave 2 with similar characteristics, with the exception
of levels of education.
70
Table 4.3 Demographics for Study 2 Sample at Wave 1 and Wave 2
Wave 1 (n=145) Wave 2 (n=145)
Children Mean Age (SD) 4.7 (.23) 6.8 (.24) Sex - % male 64.8% (94) 64.8% (94) LOTE - % Speak English at home 91.0% (132) 91.0% (132) ATSI status - % Yes 4.8% (7) 4.8% (7) Parents and Households Both Parents in Household - % Yes 83.4% (121) 82.1% (119) Marital status - % married
73.15 (106) 70.4% (102)
Mothers’ mean age in years (SD) 34.7 (5.56) 36.8 (5.56) Mothers’ education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
17.2% (25) 17.3% (25)
Mothers’ employment - % employed
44.8% (65) 53.8% (78)
Fathers’ mean age in years (SD) 37.6 (5.99) 39.6 (5.99) Fathers’ education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
20.0% (29) 19.6% (28)
Fathers’ employment - % employed
77.2% (112) 75.9% (110)
Family weekly income – % of families: $ 100 - $ 399 $ 400 - $ 599 $ 600 - $ 799 $ 800 - $ 999 $1000 - $1499 $1500 - $1999 $2000 or more per week
3.5% (5) 15.5% (24) 11.7% (17) 13.8% (20) 23.4% (34) 16.6% (24) 10.4% (15)
7.7% (11) 9.2% (13) 6.3% (9) 9.2% (13) 24.1% (35) 18.6% (27) 23.4% (34)
Teachers and Classrooms Sex - % female 99.3% (144) 94.8% (137) Teachers mean years of experience (SD)
13.7 (7.33) 16.3 (10.8)
Teacher mean length of time in current workplace (SD)
6.5 (5.22) 7.24 (6.5)
Teacher education - % Bachelor or Post-Graduate Degree
61.6% (89) 75.6% (102)
Wave 1 - Preschool based at school Wave 2 Grade 1 - % children attending
31.7% (46) 62.5% (90)
State or Government run - % children attending
31.2% (45) 69.0% (100)
71
At Wave 2, 62.5% of children were attending Grade 1 (see Table 4.3). As indicated
in Figure 4.7, class size increased from 54.5% of classes at Wave 1 having 21-30
children in attendance compared to 72.9% of classrooms at Wave 2. The number of
classes with less than five children from a non-English speaking background
decreased from 84.3% (Wave 1) to 41.5%. This was also the case for the number of
classrooms with children from an ATSI status (87.9% to 40.3%) and the number of
classroom with children with disabilities (90.2% to 63.2%).
0102030405060708090
100
21-30 Children
attending
1-5 Children
from NESB
1-5 Children with
ATSI status
1-5 Children with
disabilities
Classroom Child Composition
Perc
ent
Wave 1 Wave 2
Figure 4.7 Classroom Child Composition from Wave 1 to Wave 2
Additional Services Used by the Children
A large percentage of the children in Study 2 were receiving additional services in
their early childhood settings at Wave 1 (44.1%) and 72 (50.0%) were identified by
Wave 2 teachers as receiving additional help in their school setting (see Figure 4.8).
A range of reasons were provided as explanation for the need for these specialised
services. Literacy problems (12.6%), language impairments (11.9%) and
emotional/behavioural problems (11.2%) were the most common reasons. Wave 2
teachers were also provided with the opportunity to specify if the child had an
Individual Education Plan (IEP). While 8 teachers did not respond to this question, a
total of 50 children (36.5%) from the remaining 137 were identified as being on an
I.E.P.
72
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Intelle
ctua
l disa
bilit
y
Hea
ring
impa
irmen
t
Physic
al d
isabi
lity
Speec
h/lang
uage
impa
irmen
t
Learn
ing
prob
lem
s rea
ding
Learn
ing
prob
lem
s mat
hem
atics
Emot
iona
l/beh
avio
ural p
robl
ems
Poor E
nglis
h
Reasons for Additional Services in School Settings
Per
cen
t
Figure 4.8 Percentage of Children Receiving Additional Services at Wave 2
Teacher Ratings of Literacy and Numeracy Skills
Teachers at Wave 2 were asked to rate children’s proficiency on a number of items
related to reading, writing and mathematical skills. There were five response options
on the literacy and numeracy scales by which the teachers could rate the child’s
skills: ‘not yet’, ‘beginning’, ‘in progress’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘proficient’. The
‘beginning’, ‘in progress’ and ‘intermediate’ categories have been combined in the
following figures.
The teacher ratings of children’s reading skills are shown in Figure 4.9. Overall the
majority of Study 2 children were noted as having skills ranging from beginning to
proficient, however, notably 11% of children were not yet able to understand or
interpret stories, 16.1% were unable to read words with regular vowels; and 25.9%
were not reading words with irregular vowels. Age appropriate books were not
being read by 14.5% of the sample and 25.5% were unable to read them fluently.
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Und
erstan
ds &
inte
rpre
ts st
ory
Rea
ds w
ords
with
regu
lar v
owel
soun
ds
Reads
wor
ds w
ith ir
regu
lar v
owel
s
Reads
age
app
ropr
iate
boo
ks
Reads
age
app
ropr
iate
boo
ks fl
uent
ly
Reading Competencies
Perc
ent
Not Yet Beginning - Intermediate Proficient
Figure 4.9 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Reading Skills
The teacher ratings of child writing and computing skills are shown in Figure 4.10.
As with reading skills, overall the majority of Study 2 children were noted as having
skills ranging from beginning to proficient. The percentage of children not yet
demonstrating writing and computer skills were generally higher than those noted for
reading. Thirty-two (22.1%) children were not yet writing sentences with more than
one clause. Forty-four (30.6%) were not using a beginning, middle and end in
writing composition and thirty-eight (26.2%) were not showing any understanding of
print conventions. Nearly a quarter of children were also noted as not yet able to use
computers (22.9%).
The teacher ratings of child mathematical thinking skills are presented in Figure
4.11. Once again the majority of children were rated somewhere between ‘beginning
to show’ to having ‘proficiency’ in mathematical skills. The Study 2 sample were
well rated for patterning in particular with only 5 children (3.5%) noted as not yet
able to continue patterns with three items. The understanding of place value was not
yet demonstrated by 24 children (16.9%). Counting with two types of coins was
74
difficult for 31% of the sample. Only 23 children (16.0%) were not yet able to
organise data into graphs and the same result was found for children not yet able to
make reasonable estimates of quantities. Measurement using common instruments
was not yet demonstrated by nearly a third of the children (29.2%) and the use of a
variety of math strategies was also elusive for nearly the same proportion of the
sample (27.1%).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sente
nces
with
mor
e th
an o
ne cla
use
Compo
ses b
egin
ning
, mid
dle, end
Und
erstan
ds so
me pr
int c
onve
ntio
ns
Use
s com
pute
r for
var
iety
of p
urpo
ses
Writing Competencies
Perc
ent
Not Yet Beginning - Intermediate Proficient
Figure 4.10 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Writing and Computer Literacy
Skills
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Contin
ue p
atte
rn w
ith 3
item
s
Und
erstan
d pl
ace
valu
e
Count
s ch
ange
with
2 ty
pes c
oin
Org
anises
dat
a in
to g
raph
s
Reaso
nabl
e es
timat
es o
f qua
ntiti
es
Mea
sure
s with
com
mon
instr
umen
ts
Var
iety
of s
trate
gies
for m
aths
Mathematical Competencies
Percen
t
Not Yet Beginning - Intermediate Proficient
Figure 4.11 Wave 2 Teacher Ratings of Child Mathematical Thinking Skills
4.3.2 Predictive Models of Wave 2 STRS Closeness and Conflict
To determine the relations between child variables and teachers’ perceptions of their
relationships with the children at Wave 2, four regression analyses were performed.
The outcome variables were the mean scores on the closeness and conflict scales of
the STRS at Wave 2. For each outcome variable, there were two regression analyses
performed. In the first regression model for each outcome variable, a range of child
characteristics were included to assess their predictive power on the teacher-child
relationship at Wave 2. In the second regression model for each outcome variable,
the same child characteristics were used as the predictors with the addition of the
Wave 1 mean scores for STRS closeness and conflict to clarify how Wave 2
outcomes for STRS closeness and conflict were predicted by teachers’ perceptions of
their relationship with the child at Wave 1.
The child variables included as predictors in each regression model were child sex,
child age in months, ATSI status, LOTE status and the Wave 1 SDQ Total
Difficulties score as reported by Parent 1. This latter variable was included because
76
of previous research that indicates child behaviour and self-regulation skills are
implicated in teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with children (Blair, 2002;
McBryde et al., 2004; McClelland et al., 2000). While the teacher-report for the
SDQ at Wave 1 was also available, the parent report was chosen in order to provide
an assessment of child behaviour independent of teacher ratings on the STRS. It has
been noted in a previous study that obtaining independent sources of child
behavioural characteristics when using teacher reports to assess student-teacher
relationship quality is important in order to avoid teacher biases (Rudasill et al.,
2006).
The descriptive statistics for these variables, as well as for the STRS scores at Wave
1 and Wave 2 for the children included in the Study 2 sample are presented in Table
4.4.
Prediction of Wave 2 STRS Closeness Scores
The correlations between the variables used in the two regression models for the
prediction of Wave 2 scores for STRS Closeness are presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of STRS scores at Wave 2 and Predictor
Variables
Wave 2 STRS Scores and Predictor Variables (N = 145)
No. (%)
Child Sex (% boys) 94 (64.8)
ATSI status (% with ATSI status) 7 (4.8)
LOTE status (% with LOTE status) 13 (9.0)
Mean (SD)
Child Age in Months 81.6 (2.82)
Wave 1 SDQ Total Difficulties 14.0 (6.09)
Wave 1 STRS Closeness 3.9 (0.81)
Wave 1 STRS Conflict 1.8 (0.80)
Wave 2 STRS Closeness 4.0 (0.66)
Wave 2 STRS Conflict 1.5 (0.78)
77
Table 4.5 Correlations between Continuous Variables used in Regression
Analyses for Predicting STRS Closeness and Conflict at Wave 2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1 SDQ Difficulties - -.23** .32** -.19** -.11
2 STRS Closeness (Wave 1) - -.16** .38** -.20*
3 STRS Conflict (Wave 1) - -.23** -.36**
Predicting Closeness
4 STRS Closeness (Wave 2) - -
Predicting Conflict
5 STRS Conflict (Wave 2) -
Note. *p<.05; **p<.01. (N =145)
Regression Model 1 (Closeness): In the first regression analysis that used child
characteristics, without Wave 1 STRS scores, the model was statistically significant
in predicting Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores, F(5, 139) = 3.629, p = .004. The
unstandardised coefficients, standard errors, standardized coefficients and t scores
are shown in Table 4.6. Only two of the variables significantly contributed to the
prediction, child age (p = .01) and Wave 1 SDQ Total Difficulties scores (p = .02).
The adjusted R squared value was .08. This indicated that only 8% of the variance in
Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores was explained by the model.
Regression Model 2 (Closeness): The second multiple regression added Wave 1
STRS Closeness and Conflict scores to the model as predictor variables. This model
was also statistically significant in predicting Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores, F(7,
137) = 6.021, p =.000. The unstandardised coefficients, standard errors, standardized
coefficients and t scores are shown in Table 4.6. With Wave 1 STRS scores added,
child age remained a significant contributor to the model (p = .009). Wave 1 SDQ
Total Difficulties no longer contributed significantly, however, Wave 1 STRS
Closeness scores were highly significant in predicting Wave 2 STRS Closeness
scores (p = .000). The adjusted R squared value rose to .20 indicating that 20% of
the variance in Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores was explained by the model, in
comparison to only 8% in the previous model. The effect size (r) for Wave 1
Closeness was .84. This is regarded as a large effect size (Burns, 2000).
78
Table 4.6 Regression Models 1 and 2 for Prediction of STRS Closeness Wave 2
Variable B SEB ββββ t
Regression 1 (Closeness) (Constant) 8.30 1.54 5.38
Sex .17 .11 .12 1.50
Age -.05 .02 -.21 -2.61*
ATSI -.42 .25 -.14 -1.68
LOTE -.06 .19 -.03 -.33 SDQ Difficulties -.02 .01 -.20 -2.45*
Regression 2 (Closeness) (Constant) 7.12 1.49 - 4.79 Sex .08 .11 .06 .77 Age -.05 .02 -.20 -2.66* ATSI -.32 .23 -.11 -1.38 LOTE -.02 .18 -.00 .09 SDQ Difficulties -.01 .01 -.08 -.93 Wave 1 STRS Closeness .26 .06 .33 4.17** Wave 1 STRS Conflict -.11 .07 -.14 -1.70
Note. For Regression 1 Adjusted R square = .084; F(5, 139) = 3.629, p = .004. For Regression 2
Adjusted R square = .196; F(7, 137) = 6.021, p = .000 *p<.05; **p<.01.
The second regression analysis indicated that Wave 1 STRS Closeness scores
contributed significantly to the prediction of Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores. While
both regressions resulted in a statistically significant model, the second regression
explained 20% of the variance in Wave 2 STRS Closeness scores. The effect size of
this predictive model for Wave 1 STRS Closeness was large, indicating that
developing early teacher-child relationships with high levels of closeness holds
practical long-term benefits for children and future teachers.
79
Prediction of Wave 2 STRS Conflict Scores
Two regression analyses were conducted using Wave 2 STRS Conflict scores as the
outcome variable. In the first regression model the degree which child sex, age,
ATSI status, LOTE status and SDQ Total Difficulty scores predicted Wave 2 STRS
Conflict scores was assessed. The correlations between the continuous variables used
in the two regression models for the prediction of Wave 2 scores for STRS Conflict
are presented in Table 4.5.
Regression Model 1 (Conflict): In the first regression analysis that used child
characteristics, without Wave 1 STRS scores, the model was not statistically
significant in predicting Wave 2 STRS Conflict scores, F(5, 139) = 1.867, p=.104.
The unstandardised coefficients, standard errors, standardized coefficients and t
scores are shown in Table 4.7. As would be expected, the adjusted R squared value
was .03 indicating that only 3% of the variance in Wave 2 STRS Conflict score was
explained by the model.
Regression Model 2 (Conflict): In the second regression analysis, Wave 1
Closeness and Conflict scores were included as predictor variables. Unlike the
previous model, this model was statistically significant, F(7, 137) = 4.220, p = .000.
The unstandardised coefficients, standard errors, standardized coefficients and t
scores are shown in Table 4.8. The only variable that made a statistically significant
contribution to predicting Wave 2 STRS Conflict scores was Wave 1 STRS Conflict
scores (p=.000). The adjusted R squared value rose to .135 signifying that 13.5% of
the variance in Wave 2 STRS Conflict scores was explained by the model. The
addition of Wave 1 STRS Conflict scores greatly increased the adjusted R squared
value and provided a statistically significant model. The effect size (r) for Wave 1
STRS Conflict was .82.
The results for regression analyses for Wave 2 STRS Conflict indicated that Wave 1
STRS Conflict scores contributed to the prediction of Wave 2 STRS Conflict scores.
The first regression model did not result in a significant model and it was only
through the addition of Wave 1 STRS Conflict scores in the second regression that a
statistically significant model emerged. With a large effect size, the practical
significance of these findings suggest that early identification of highly conflictual
teacher-child relationships and appropriate intervention may lead to less conflict in
future teacher-child relationships.
80
Table 4.7 Regression Models 1 and 2 for Prediction of STRS Conflict Wave 2
Variable B SEB ββββ t
Regression 1 (Conflict) (Constant) .15 1.88 - .08
Sex -.34 .14 -.21 -2.49*
Age .02 .02 .06 .68
ATSI -.07 .30 -.02 -.21
LOTE -.17 .23 -.06 -.74 SDQ Difficulties -.02 .01 -.14 1.71
Regression 2 (Conflict) (Constant) .356 1.82 - .20 Sex -.22 .13 -.14 -1.71 Age .02 .02 .06 .70 ATSI -.20 .29 -.06 -.70 LOTE -.21 .21 -.08 -.97 SDQ Difficulties .00 .01 .00 .02 Wave 1 STRS Closeness -.14 .08 -.14 -1.74
Wave 1 STRS Conflict .31 .08 .32 3.86* Note. For Regression 3 Adjusted R square = .029; F(5, 139) = 1.867, p=.104. For Regression 4 Adjusted R square = .135; F(7, 137) = 4.220, p = .000 *p<.05; **p<.01.
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter has presented the results obtained when the nature of teacher-child
relationship quality for young children with parent reported language concerns was
investigated. Results for Study 1, which addressed the first research objective,
indicated that the matching procedure used for the target and control group was
effective as demographic details were similar across a range of child, parent and
classroom variables. Results also indicated that differences in teacher-child
relationship quality between children with parent reported language concerns and a
81
matched case control peer group were evident. Children with parent reported
language concerns were more likely to have teacher-child relationships marked by
lower levels of closeness and higher levels of conflict.
Study 2, which addressed the second research objective, examined whether teacher-
child relationships quality at Wave 1 for children with parent reported language
concerns predicted relationship quality at Wave 2. It was found that initial teacher-
child relationship quality did contribute to the prediction of teacher-child relationship
outcomes at Time 2 after accounting for other key child characteristic variables
known to influence teacher-child relationship quality. Chapter 5 will discuss these
results and their implications for theory, policy and practice. The limitations of the
current study will then be noted along with the implications for further research.
82
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions
5.1 Introduction
The overall aim for this research was to examine the quality of teacher-child
relationships for young children with parent reported language concerns. The
increased social and academic risk faced by children with language difficulties
indicated that they may require higher levels of support from teachers within
classroom contexts. This research was undertaken through the use of secondary data
analysis using data from Growing Up In Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children.
This chapter will review the findings for the two research studies conducted for this
thesis. Attention is given to previous research findings in relation to the results from
these current studies. Implications for theoretical development in this area of
research about the importance of teacher-child relationships to children’s social and
academic development are discussed, as well as the implications for policy and
practice. The methodological limitations of the current research are outlined as well
as directions for future research.
5.2 Study 1 - Review of Research Findings
The objective of the first study in this thesis was to identify differences between the
quality of the teacher-child relationships between young children with parent
reported language concerns and their peers. It examined differences in the quality of
teacher-child relationships for children at risk of language difficulties and a matched
sample of peers also drawn from the Kindergarten Cohort of LSAC. The study used
cross-sectional data from Wave 1 when the children were 4 years of age. The target
group consisted of children whose parents had concerns about their receptive and
expressive language abilities, as measured by items from the PEDS which was
developed by Glascoe (2000). The control group was matched on the characteristics
of sex, age, CALD status, and family SEP. Teacher-child relationship quality was
measured by the subscales of closeness and conflict from the short version of the
STRS (Pianta, 2001).
Statistically significant differences were evident between the two groups in the
qualities of the teacher-child relationship. The target group were found to have lower
83
levels of closeness and higher levels of conflict than the matched case control group.
These results suggest that children identified by parents as having both receptive and
expressive language concerns are more likely to have relationships with teachers that
are less close and more conflictual than their peers.
Males were far more likely to be identified as having both PEDS language concerns,
making up 66.2% of the target group in this study. Previous research suggests that
boys potentially face a number of risk factors in educational contexts. Teachers are
more likely to rate their relationships with boys as having higher levels of conflict
than girls (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Colwell & Lindsey, 2003; Kesner, 2000). Males in
the target group in this research were more likely to have lower quality student-
teacher relationships based on their sex, along with reduced relationship quality
because of their language difficulties. Previous studies have also shown that boys
with language impairments are more likely to show aggressive or withdrawn
behaviour and have more difficulty with conflict resolution skills than peers
(Horowitz et al., 2005; Horowitz et al., 2008). If these types of behavioural issues
are also present, establishing positive teacher-child relationships becomes less likely.
Children in the target group were far more likely to be identified as having language
production and comprehension difficulties than children in the matched case control
group. This was expected as the target group children were selected on the basis of
having the PEDS receptive and expressive language concerns. However, a small
number of control group children also had either receptive (20.5%) or expressive
(4.3%) PEDS language concerns. Over five times as many target group children
were rated by parents as being late talkers compared to children from the matched
case control group. There are conflicting reports as to how longstanding early
language difficulties will be (La Paro et al., 2004). However, delayed speech
development for these target group members was potentially an early indicator of
them being at risk of receptive and expressive language difficulties at age 4-5 years.
Teacher ratings of emerging child literacy and numeracy skills revealed group
differences. Children in the target group were rated as being less interested in books,
and as showing fewer reading skills, for example being able to read simple or
complex words. Teachers also considered them to be more uninterested in reading
than the children in the matched case control group. Similar differences were
evident for teacher’s ratings of emergent writing skills and mathematical skills.
84
Correlations between child language difficulties and poorer literacy and numeracy
outcomes in school have been well documented (Catts et al., 2002; Donlan et al.,
2007; Manor et al., 2000; Naude et al., 2003). While beyond the scope of the current
study, it would be worthwhile to determine the long term outcomes of these group
differences in literacy and numeracy skill as these LSAC children progress through
school. Protective benefits on academic outcomes from more positive teacher-child
relationships for the target group children could also be examined.
As previously noted, significant differences in teacher-child relationship quality were
found between the target group children and the matched case control group.
Children whose parents had concerns for their children’s expressive and receptive
language skills had lower levels of closeness and higher levels of conflict with their
early childhood teachers at age 4-5 years. This result was in line with previous
research. Child attributes and characteristics such as child sex (Birch & Ladd, 1998;
Colwell & Lindsey, 2003; Kesner, 2000) and child ethnicity in relation to teacher
ethnicity (Kesner, 1997; Saft & Pianta, 2001) have also been found to influence
teacher-child relationship quality
One previous study which also focused on determining if child language ability
resulted in different student-teacher relationship quality was completed by Rudasill,
et al. (2006). They found that children with low language abilities and bold
temperaments received higher teacher ratings of conflict on the STRS than
counterparts who were shy and withdrawn, and peers who were typically developing.
Direct comparisons between these results and the current findings are not possible
due to the use of a measure of child temperament and the full version of the STRS in
the Rudasill et al. study. Despite these differences, the current results complement
these previous findings. Both studies indicate that children with language difficulties
are more likely to experience lower quality teacher-child relationships than their
peers.
While there is limited previous research on the effects of child language ability on
teacher-child relationships, similar studies have been conducted where children with
various developmental and learning difficulties have been compared with their peer
groups. A study conducted by McIntyre et al. (2006) compared children with
intellectual impairments to typically developing peers in order to examine factors
influencing positive adaptation to school. The STRS was used to measure teacher-
85
child relationship quality. Children with intellectual impairments were found to have
lower quality relationships with teachers. They were also found to have lower levels
of self-regulation and social skills than their typically developing peers. Eisenhower
et al. (2007) compared the teacher-child relationship quality of children with and
without intellectual disability at 6 years of age. They found that the children with
intellectual disabilities were rated to have relationships that were less close and more
conflictual and dependent than that of their peers. It should be noted, however, that
as for the Rudasill et al. (2006) study, variance in teacher-child relationship quality
did not result from the influence of just one child attribute. Eisenhower et al. (2007)
found that children’s level of behaviour and emotional self-regulation also
contributed significantly.
Each of these previous studies, found that along with language or intellectual
impairments, respectively, other factors such as temperament, self-regulation,
emotional and behavioural issues contributed significantly to the resulting
relationship quality differences between children. While the current research did not
include these attributes in analyses for the first research question, it is possible that
such child characteristics contributed to the results.
Differences found between the target and control groups in this study may have been
a result of low language competence and associated emotional and behavioural
problems that are often present for children with language impairments. Teacher
reports of the additional services used by children also indicated that some children
had other developmental issues, perhaps suggesting the presence of language
difficulties or impairment was a secondary consequence.
Behavioural and emotional problems have been shown to be common for children
with language difficulties (Hill & Coufal, 2005; McCabe & Meller, 2004; McCabe,
2005; Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). Behaviour problems and resulting levels of
conflict have been found to increase in relation to the severity of the child’s language
impairment (McCabe, 2005). As children in the target group for the current study
were identified by parental concern for receptive and expressive language, it is
possible that co-morbidity with behavioural or emotional problems associated with
their lack of language competence may be present.
86
Finally, it should be noted for Study 1 that while statistical significance was reached,
the effect size was relatively small. This does not mean that the results should be
dismissed however as low effect sizes are often found in social science research
(McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000). Given the increased risk factors faced by children
with language difficulties, there is still practical significance in these results because
all potential opportunities to provide additional support should be identified and
utilised while children are still in the early stages of their development. Awareness
of the impact that a high quality teacher-child relationship may have on later social
and academic outcomes is an important consideration for early intervention.
5.3 Study 2 - Review of Research Findings
The second research objective was to determine the quality of the teacher-child
relationships for young children with parent reported language concerns over time,
through the period of the transition to school, as children move from early education
settings (e.g., preschools and long day care) to formal schooling. It aimed at
determining if the quality of the teacher-child relationship experienced by children
with parent reported language concerns prior to school remained stable through the
children’s transition into formal schooling. The sample consisted of children from
the target group for Study 1 who also had teacher data on the teacher-child
relationship scale at Wave 2 in the LSAC data set. As for Study 1, teacher-child
relationship quality was measured by the subscales of Closeness and Conflict from
the short version of the STRS (Pianta, 2001).
Results indicated that teacher-child relationship quality at Wave 1 for children aged 4
years was a significant predictor of the quality of the teacher-child relationship at
Wave 2 when children were 6-7 years of age, over the contribution of other variables
included in the predictive models. The effect sizes for Wave 1 Closeness and Wave
1 Conflict, in the prediction of Wave 2 Closeness and Conflict respectively, were
large. This would suggest that in terms of practical significance, early teacher-child
relationships present an opportune time for intervention to address and support more
positive teacher-child relationships as children transition into formal schooling.
While all 145 children for Study 1 (Wave 1 analysis) were selected on the basis of
parent rated concerns for receptive and expressive language, by Wave 2 fewer
parents had concern for their children’s language competencies. At Wave 2 only
87
50.3% of the target group still had parental rated receptive language concerns and
parents had expressive language concerns for only 54.2% of the children. As
reported by La Paro et al. (2004) language difficulties may be resolved for
approximately half of children with language impairments by the time they enter
school. The findings of the current study would certainly suggest that this is so.
Classroom characteristics changed noticeably for the children from Wave 1 to Wave
2. On average class size became larger for children at Wave 2. The class groups
were less likely to have children from a non-English speaking background or ATSI
status although the number of children in the classrooms with disabilities increased
slightly. The effect that the classroom demographical composition has on teacher
stress levels remains an important consideration for future research given that high
teacher stress tends to result in more negative teacher-child interactions
(Mantzicopoulos, 2005).
At Wave 2, teachers reported that of the target group 50% were receiving specialist
services in their school settings. The three most common reasons for children
requiring specialist services in formal school settings were due to learning problems
with reading, language impairments, and emotional/behavioural problems. One third
of the children had an Individual Education Plan (IEP.). There are strong associations
between language impairments and reading difficulties (Catts et al., 2002; Snowling,
2000). Children identified with language impairments in kindergarten have been
found to have higher risks of reading disabilities by second grade. There are higher
risks for reading difficulties associated with nonspecific language impairments
compared to children with SLI (Catts et al., 2002). Doherty and Landells (2006) also
found that delayed abilities in receptive and expressive language skills predict
literacy difficulties.
A small number of children at Wave 2, by teacher report were receiving additional
help for learning problems with mathematics. Little research has examined the effect
that early language difficulties can have on mathematical ability but problems with
receptive and expressive language skills have been linked to reduced mathematical
outcomes (Manor et al., 2000). Another study also using a matched case control
group has also found that the children with language difficulties had poorer
mathematical outcomes than their peers (Donlan et al., 2007). Debate has been
raised as to whether children with specific language difficulties processing abilities
88
also affect numeracy skills (Donlan et al, 2007; Doherty & Landells, 2006). While
only a few children from the current study would seem to be having extreme
difficulties with mathematics, the overall mathematical performance of the whole
Kindergarten cohort is unknown. The link between early language difficulties and
later mathematical outcomes is an area worth further investigation.
The second common reason for the provision of additional support was for speech
and/or language impairments. Seventeen children at Wave 2 were receiving extra
help at school for this reason. This was unexpectedly low given the high number of
children at Wave 2 who were still rated by their parent as having receptive and/or
expressive language difficulties. Reasons for this may be that children with language
difficulties are not always diagnosed early or easily (Law & Sivyer, 2003) or that the
schools did not have access to language and speech services.
Intellectual impairments or cognitive disorders can result in language problems
(Donaldson, 1995; Luinge et al., 2006; Nation, 2005). Physical conditions may also
lead to difficulty producing speech (Donalson, 1995; McCormick et al., 2003).
Hearing loss can also impact language development (Borg et al., 2007; Goldberg &
McCormick, 2004; Houston, 2007). Reasons for specialised support at Wave 2 also
included child intellectual disability, physical disability and hearing impairments.
This would suggest that a number of these children in the target group at Wave 2 had
language difficulties as a secondary concern.
A third reason for additional support at Wave 2 was due to emotional and/or
behavioural problems. As previously discussed early language development
difficulties have been shown to be predictive of social and behavioural problems
(Nungesser & Watkins, 2005). Children with more severe language impairments
tend to have more significant problems with behaviour (McCabe, 2005) and at the
same time be more likely to be diagnosed with language impairments. Children with
language difficulties which have not been formally diagnosed tend to receive labels
of being difficult to manage from both parents and teachers (Law & Sivyer, 2003).
As noted by Law and Sivyer (2003) speech and language difficulties have been
found to be underreported for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties.
Teacher ratings of child abilities in areas of literacy and mathematical thinking at
Wave 2 could be considered to be consistent with the percentage of children who
89
were reported as requiring additional services. While the children as a whole were
rated as “beginning to show skills” through to “being proficient” for the different
skills rated, commonly between 15 - 25 % of the target group were rated as “not yet”
demonstrating any level of the relevant literacy or mathematical thinking skills that
were appropriate to their age group.
The multiple regression models developed in Study 2 indicated that teacher-child
relationship quality at Wave 1 for children with parent reported language concerns
were strongly predictive of the quality of the teacher-child relationship quality at
Wave 2. Other variables in these models included sex, age, ATSI status, LOTE
status, along with the parent-rated behavioural difficulties on the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).
In predicting the STRS Closeness score at Wave 2, a statistically significant model
was obtained using the five predictor variables listed above, with child age and SDQ
Total Difficulties scores as significant contributors. When Wave 1 STRS Closeness
and Conflict scores were added to the model in the second regression model, the
explained variance in the Wave 2 STRS Closeness score increased from 8% to 20%.
The Wave 1 STRS Closeness score was the most significant contributor to the
model, followed by child age. The SDQ Total Difficulties score was not a
significant contributor once the STRS scores were added. The effect size for Wave 1
STRS Closeness was large. It would therefore seem that fostering close teacher-
child relationships in early settings is worthwhile as a basis for improving future
teacher-child relationships marked by closeness.
The predictive models for Wave 2 STRS Conflict had similar results. The first
model which used the five child attribute predictors was not statistically significant.
Explained variance for the first Wave 2 STRS Conflict model was only 3%. When
the Wave 1 STRS Closeness and Conflict scores were added to the regression model
the explained variance rose to 13.5%. The Wave 1 STRS Conflict scores was the
only significant contributor in this final model. The effect size calculated for Wave 1
STRS Conflict scores was large. This indicates that long-term benefits can be found
in intervening in early teacher-child relationships marked by conflict, so that
negative patterns of interaction with teachers are not continued in future school
settings by children at risk of language difficulties.
90
The results of these regression models provide support to previous research
examining the stability of teacher-child relationships from early childhood settings
into school. One previous study has examined whether these teacher-child
relationships showed stability or change across a three year timeframe as children
transitioned from child care settings into kindergarten (Howes et al., 2000). The full
version of the STRS with three scales of Closeness, Conflict and Dependency was
used as the teacher-child relationship measure. Path analyses revealed that early
teacher-child relationships did predict future relationship quality. Results were
slightly different from this study as more variance could be explained for conflict
(28%) as opposed to closeness and dependency (less than 10%). Direct comparison
is not possible due to the differing approach to statistical analyses and the use of the
full rather than the short version of the STRS.
Another study also supported by the current research findings, did use a short version
of the STRS (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Higher levels of stability in STRS Conflict
were found than STRS Closeness across child transitions from early childhood
settings into first grade. As with the current study, these results indicate that the
nature of teacher-child relationships formed in early childhood settings can have long
term implications for children.
For children at risk of language difficulties, these long term implications may carry
even more significance. Some children, due to their early childhood experiences or
development, are better able to adjust to the demands of formal schooling (Rimm-
Kaufman et al., 2000). Children with disabilities for example have an increased risk
of experiencing difficult school transitions and consequent school adjustment
(Rosenkoetter et al., 2007). Close teacher-child relationships are more likely to
enable children to make smoother adjustments to school (Birch & Ladd, 1997). They
also contribute to long-term child achievement (Baker, 2006; O’Conner &
McCartney, 2007; Pianta, 1999). Given this, in light of the results of Study 2, it
seems worthwhile to provide children at risk of language difficulties experiencing
negative teacher-child relationship interactions, with early interventions aimed at
helping both the child and their teacher to develop positive patterns of interaction
which may carryover to other settings.
91
5.4 Implications of the Findings for Theoretical Understandings
The results of this research provide support for existing theories on the nature of
teacher-child relationships. Teacher-child relationships are thought to be
transactional in nature. Pianta’s (2006) model recognised that child, teacher and
contextual factors interact and influence each other resulting in teacher-child
relationship quality outcomes. Study 1 found differences in teacher-child
relationship quality between two groups of children who had been matched on sex,
age, CALD and SEP. Children whose parents considered them to have receptive and
expressive language difficulties were found to have teacher relationships with lower
levels of closeness and higher levels of conflict.
In this study child language difficulties, and any causing or coexisting developmental
or biological factors, did influence teacher-child relationship quality. According to
Pianta’s transactional model of student-teacher relationships (2006) these
combinations of child characteristics would interact with teacher characteristics
leading to the teacher forming a perception about the child. Identifying these teacher
beliefs and perceptions may be important in order that effective training can be
developed (Pianta, 1999).
In the second study the regression analyses found that early teacher-child relationship
quality contributed to the prediction of future teacher-child relationships above all
other predictor variables including child behavioural difficulty scores. Children
experienced similar levels of closeness and conflict with teachers from Wave 1
(2004) to Wave 2 (2006). These results also support Pianta’s (2006) model as
depending on the child attribute, teachers facing similar classroom and school
contexts may have similar reactions to and perceptions of children.
As in previous studies, these results also lend support to attachment theories. As
noted in Chapter 2, attachment theories view early relationships as being critical in
the development of internal models of attachment relationships (Birch & Ladd, 1998;
Burchinal et al., 2002). These then influence future relationship interactions. The
results from Study 2 do indicate that children may form patterns of behaviour in
teacher-child interactions which are repeated over time resulting in similar teacher-
child relationship outcomes.
92
5.5 Implications for Policy and Practice
The results of this research are highly relevant to Australian education policy and
practice. Limited previous research has focused on determining what types of
teacher-child relationships are experienced by young children with language
difficulties, let alone research within Australian settings. The data used to complete
this research was obtained from LSAC which had the primary purpose of providing
data capable of informing Australian polices on early intervention and prevention
programs across a range of child developmental areas, including education (Gray &
Sanson, 2005; Sanson et al., 2004). This has been achieved as insight has been
provided into the teacher-child relationship quality experienced by children at risk of
language difficulties during an important time of child development.
A number of important implications for policy and practice can be found through
examination of the results of this research. Firstly, educational policy and practice
relating to school transitions can be informed. Currently there are few explicit
guidelines easily accessible to teachers on appropriate practices for the transition to
school. There are exceptions to this as New South Wales provides guidelines
relevant to typically developing and special needs children (NSW Department of
Education and Training, 2000). As noted in Chapter 2, sending letters home, class
visits and orientation programs for children are common transition practices
(LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2008). Many of these tend to take place towards the end of
the school year in preparation for the following year.
The results of this study suggest that an ideological shift needs to take place in
regards to the approach taken in readying children for the transition to school.
Highly supportive transition practices are important in providing children with
smooth transitions into formal schooling thus increasing the probability of school
adjustment. These types of practices involve resources however and therefore
schools with fewer resources are less likely to be able to provide them (Pianta et al.,
1999). Early teacher-child relationships can be used as a cost effective resource for
this purpose.
As seen in this study, early child closeness or conflict with teachers contributes to the
prediction of future relationship quality and these children had poorer relationships at
Wave 1 compared to their peers. Focusing on developing quality teacher-child
93
interactions in early learning settings will therefore help in providing children with
skills valued in formal school settings (Pianta, 2002). Arriving at school with
increased ability to establish close teacher-child relationships is likely to contribute
to child school adjustment thus increasing their chance for positive social and
academic outcomes (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).
Incorporating the use of teacher-child relationship reports in early childhood settings
could also be beneficial in improving future relationship outcomes. Teacher-child
relationship tests such as the STRS could be completed by teachers in early
childhood settings in order to provide further insight into developing patterns of
interaction. As noted by Pianta (1999) in order for teacher-child relationships to be
used as preventive intervention teachers need to be able to identify relationships that
are problematic. They also then need the skills and resources to address and improve
the negative patterns of teacher-child interaction. Teacher and early childcare
professionals therefore require training which will enable them to critically evaluate
and facilitate the social processes that take place within their classrooms.
The results of this study also suggest that policy changes should be made in order to
encourage the early detection of potential developmental difficulties, including those
relating to language ability. While differences were found between the target and
control group in Study 1 it is possible that teachers were unaware of any child
difficulties. As discussed in Chapter 2, teacher ability to diagnose child language
difficulties has been shown to differ from formal assessment (Williams, 2006).
Previous studies have found that when language difficulties have not been identified,
children are often dismissed as being difficult by teachers (Law & Sivyer, 2003).
With children identified as being at risk of language difficulties through parent
reports experiencing lower quality teacher-child relationships as a result, this clearly
needs to be addressed.
This would benefit a wide spectrum of children. It is thought that up to 70% of
children with disabilities or delays are not identified until starting school (Coghlan et
al., 2003). This is cause for concern when considering that social, emotional and
behavioural patterns may be set in early childhood before the transition to school
occurs. This has certainly proven to be the case for patterns of teacher-child
relationships found in this study and others which have also examined the
94
consistency of these relationships during early year transitions (Howes et al., 2000;
Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).
A simple, cost effective method of addressing this issue could involve the use of
PEDS. While not the primary focus of this study, an incidental finding was the
apparent predictive ability of the PEDS receptive and expressive language concerns
in identifying potential child developmental issues. As noted in Chapter 3, two
predictive concerns on the PEDS for a young child can indicate up to a 50% chance
of future difficulty or disability (Tough et al., 2006). The number of children
receiving additional services at Wave 2 (50%) would suggest that this is the case.
Typically in early childhood settings and formal schooling, teachers report back to
parents about child development, however, the use of parental reporting could
potentially be used to raise concerns and discussion about developmental issues.
This could lead to an increase in early identification of developmental problems,
including language impairments and difficulties. Early identification would also
allow for the provision of specialist support where necessary.
Early intervention costs can vary widely depending on the type and duration of
intervention needed, along with the level of training or qualifications required by
staff (Barnett, 2000). Quality teacher-child relationships have been shown to have
positive influences on child outcomes (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Palmero et al., 2007;
Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). As noted above, teacher-child relationships can be used
as preventive intervention if teachers have appropriate training (Pianta, 1999).
Previous research has indicated that if professionals have limited experience with
children with language difficulties training and support are essential (Letts & Hall,
2003).
As previously discussed, negative teacher perceptions towards children with
emotional or behavioural issues as a result of communication difficulties changed
after intervention involving speech and language therapists (Law & Sivyer, 2003).
Training and insight by specialists may also increase teacher confidence, which as a
result may reduce teacher stress which has a negative influence on teacher-child
relationship quality (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). Speech therapists that enter school
environments could provide strategies for modelling appropriate interactions. By
providing teachers with a more in depth understanding of the needs of children with
95
language difficulties it is more likely that a positive teacher-child relationship will
develop.
5.6 Limitations of this Research
There are a number of limitations that have been identified within this research.
Firstly, while using secondary data analysis was conducive to gaining access to a
large sample size, it did also bring limitations. One such limitation was LSAC’s use
of the short version of the STRS (Pianta, 2001). This is a sound measure of teacher-
child relationship quality and has been used in previous research (Pianta & Stuhlman,
2004). It does however contain only a Closeness and Conflict scale. While these are
still able to provide an indication of teacher-child relationship quality, the full
version of the STRS also includes a Dependency scale and this would have been
useful to this research.
The available literature on children with language impairments suggests an increased
risk of comorbidity with inappropriate behaviours, which can range from conflictual
behaviour to children being shy and withdrawn (McCabe & Meller, 2004). Previous
research using the STRS has found that children perceived as shy tend to have high
ratings on the Dependency scale (Rudasill et al., 2006). While significant results
were found with the short version of the STRS, the full version may have provided
further insight into the nature of teacher-child relationships for children with parent
reported language concerns.
Another limitation of this study resulting from the availability of data in LSAC was a
result of only one formal measurement of receptive language. No formal direct
assessment of child expressive language was included in any LSAC Wave 1
instruments. The use of parent questionnaires as screeners has been validated by
previous studies (Wagner et al., 2006) and has been found to be similar to
professional estimates (Hundert et al., 1997). PEDS in particular has been found to
have a high sensitivity and specificity (Armstrong & Goldfeld, 2004; Wagner, et al.,
2006). After careful consideration, parent judgements on the PEDS receptive and
expressive language concerns were therefore used as an indication of whether
children were at risk for language difficulties.
This does mean however that direct comparisons to studies utilising samples with
formal assessments of language ability should be done cautiously. Nearly half of the
96
Study 1 target group and half of the Study 2 sample were receiving additional
services in classroom contexts. While speech and language impairments were noted
as one of the reasons for the extra support, other reasons included a range of
disabilities, impairments, learning or behavioural problems. This would suggest that
a number of children may have had secondary language problems. It needs to
therefore be noted, that underlying medical conditions were not controlled for in this
study and as such may have contributed to the results.
Finally, this research has focused specifically on determining if child language
competence resulted in differing levels of teacher-child relationship quality, and if
these patterns of relationships remained consistent across school transitions. In
utilising this approach, other influencing factors on teacher-child relationship quality
have not been considered. Having direct observations on teacher-child classroom
interactions may have added further strength and depth to this study. This was
beyond the scope of the current study but it does have implications for future
research.
5.7 Directions for Further Research
The findings of this study indicate several possible directions for future research.
Firstly as noted above, the child attribute of language ability has been shown to
contribute to teacher-child relationship outcomes. Future research could also
examine the characteristics of teachers that influence their ability to develop and
maintain positive relationships with these children, for example their expectations,
perceptions and attitudes. Teacher attitudes towards children with language
difficulties have been shown to change when provided with appropriate training
(Law & Sivyer, 2003). A clearer understanding of these influencing teacher
characteristics would provide direction for the development of effective teacher
training.
Another important aspect of the classroom environment not addressed in this study
involves consideration of the influence peer interactions can also have on teacher-
child interactions. Peer acceptance is more likely when children are viewed
positively by teachers (Robertson et al., 2003). This is important to note considering
that early peer rejection is thought to be more likely for children with language
impairments (Hart et al., 2004). Future research examining the effects of peer
97
relationships on teacher-child relationship outcomes for children with language
difficulties would therefore be beneficial.
Future research should also explore other classroom and school contextual factors in
order to determine which features enhance teacher ability to form close relationships
with at risk students. Schools may increase risks depending on the availability of
support and resources. Highly supportive practices may not occur if a school is
inadequately resourced (Pianta et al., 1999). Classroom characteristics such as lack
of support or resources, or a high level of children with additional needs may all
contribute to increased teacher stress. Teacher stress not surprisingly has been
shown to decrease quality teacher-child interactions (Mantzicopoulos, 2005). Closer
examination of the classroom and school factors that contribute to teacher-child
relationship quality would therefore lead to a further understanding of ways in which
opportunities for the establishment of positive teacher-child relationships can be
increased.
Another direction for future research is for further investigation of differences in
teacher-child relationship outcomes as a result of child language ability. This study
has indicated that differences do exist based on the classification of children being
identified as at risk for language difficulties through the use of PEDS. Descriptive
results however indicated that children were receiving additional services for a range
of reasons, including but not limited to speech and language impairments. This
would suggest that a combination of children with primary and secondary language
impairments were part of the sample. While this study has provided insight into the
teacher-child relationships experienced by these children, future studies could
examine differences in relationship quality for both groups of children. This would
then allow for any comorbidity with other developmental issues to be accounted for.
While not the primary focus of this study, descriptive results for Study 1 indicated
that differences in teacher ratings of child ability in literacy and numeracy were
already beginning to become evident. There are numerous previous studies which
have indicated the increased academic risks faced by children with language
impairments (Catts et al., 2002; Naude et al., 2003; Share & Leikin, 2004; Snowling,
2000). Continued peer comparison could perhaps provide further insight into any
correlation between early child competencies and teacher-child relationship quality
and future academic outcomes.
98
5.8 Conclusions
In conclusion this research has provided valuable insight into the nature of teacher-
child interactions for a subsample of Australian children identified as having parent
reported language concerns. It was important to consider the effect of child language
ability on teacher-child relationship quality in order to establish if differences did
exist between children with language difficulties and peers. Differences were found
which implied children with parent reported language concerns were disadvantaged
despite already facing multiple risk factors. Due to the transactional nature of
teacher-child relationships, it is clear that future research needs to determine the
effect that teacher attributes and classroom contexts have on teacher-child
relationship outcomes for children with language difficulties.
The patterns of teacher-child relationships established by children with parent
reported language concerns in early childhood settings contributed to the prediction
of future teacher-child relationship quality. Teachers therefore need to have an
awareness of the long-term implications their relationships with children can have on
child outcomes. This should also be reflected by educational policy with the
provision of clear guidelines for early childhood and school settings, along with
appropriate training where necessary.
Given the risk factors already faced by children with language difficulties,
addressing any negative teacher-child relationship patterns in early childhood seems
worthwhile through the use of appropriate cost effective training and interventions.
To do so will increase the ability of these children to establish positive relationships
in future school contexts thus providing them with a means of support and increased
opportunity for social and academic success.
99
References
Antonacci, P. A., & O'Callaghan, C. M. (2004). Portraits of literacy development:
Instruction and assessment in a well-balanced literacy program, K-3. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Armstrong, M., & Goldfeld, S. (2004). Good beginnings for young children and
families: A feasibility study. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from
http://www.rch.org.au/ emplibrary/ccch/PEDSwodonga.pdf.
Australian Government, National Health & Medical Research Council, Australian
Research Council & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007).
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Retrieved
November 12, 2007, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ publications/
synopses/_files/e72.pdf
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2005). Growing up in Australia: The
longitudinal study of Australian children 2004 annual report. Melbourne:
Author.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2006). LSAC data user guide – Version 2.1.
Melbourne: Author.
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school
adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3),
211-229.
Barnett, W. S. (2000). Economics of early childhood intervention. In J. P. Shonkoff
& S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention (2 ed., pp.
589-610). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
100
Barrett, K. C., Leech, N. L., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). Spss for intermediate
statistics: Use and interpretation. Abingdon: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bates, E. (1992). Language development. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2, 180-
185.
Beyazkurk, D., & Kesner, J. E. (2005). Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and
United States schools: A cross-cultural study. International Education
Journal, 6(5), 547-554.
Biggar, H., & Pizzolongo, P. J. (2004). School readiness: More than ABCs. Young
Children, 59(3), 64-66.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's
early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61-79.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the
teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934-946.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a
neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry.
American Psychologist, 57, 111-127.
Blakemore, T., Gibbings, J. & Strazdins, L. (2006). Measuring the socio-economic
position of families in HILDA & LSAC. Paper presented at the ACSPRI
Social Science Methodology Conference, December, Sydney, NSW.
Bogdashina, O. (2005). Communication issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome:
Do we speak the same language? London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
101
Borg, E., Edquist, G., Reinholdson, A.-C., Risberg, A., & McAllister, B. (2007).
Speech and language development in a population of Swedish hearing-
impaired pre-school children, a cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 71, 1061-1077.
Botting, N. (2006). The interplay between language and cognition in typical and
atypical development. In J. Clegg & J. Ginsborg (Eds.), Language and social
disadvantage: Theory into practice. Cornwall, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Brice, A. E., Miller, K. J., & Brice, R. G. (2006). Language in the English as a
second language and general education classrooms: A tutorial.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(4), 240-247.
Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (2006). Social intervention for children with language
impairment: Factors affecting efficacy. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
28(1), 39-41.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Berlin, L. J., Leventhal, T. A., & Fuligni, A. S. (2000). Depending
on the kindness of strangers: Current national data initiatives and
developmental research. Child Development, 71 (1), 257 – 268.
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002).
Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade:
Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of
School Psychology, 40(5), 415-436.
Bryan, K. (2004). Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language
difficulties in young offenders. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 39(3), 391-400.
102
Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4 ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson Education Australia.
Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a paradigm
shift. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 338-352.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B. & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal
investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(6), 1142-1157.
Clegg, J. (2006). Childhood speech and language difficulties and later life chances.
In J. Clegg & J. Ginsborg (Eds.), Language and social disadvantage: Theory
into practice (pp. 59-73). Cornwall, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Coghlan, D., Kiing, J., & Wake, M. (2003). Parents' evaluation of developmental
status in the Australian day-care setting: Developmental concerns of parents
and carers. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39, 49-54.
Cohen, F., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Abingdon:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colwell, M., & Lindsey, E. (2003). Teacher-child interactions and preschool
children's perceptions of self and peers. Early Child Development and Care,
173(2-3), 249-258.
Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviourally at-risk
African American students: The importance of student-teacher relationships
for student outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 45, 83-109.
103
Dockett, S., Mason, T., & Perry, B. (2006). Successful transition to school for
Australian Aboriginal children. Childhood Education, 82(3), 139-144.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2002). Who’s ready for what? Young children starting
school. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(1), 67-89.
Dockrell, J., & Messer, D. (1999). Children’s language and communication
difficulties: Understanding, identification and intervention. London: Cassell.
Doherty, I., & Landells, J. (2006). Literacy and numeracy. In J. Clegg & J. Ginsborg
(Eds.), Language and social disadvantage: Theory into practice (pp. 44-58).
Cornwall, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Donaldson, M. L. (1995). Children with language impairments: An introduction.
London, Great Britian: Jessica Kingsley.
Donlan, C., Cowan, R., Newton, E. J., & Lloyd, D. (2007). The role of language in
mathematical development: Evidence from children with specific language
impairments. Cognition, 103, 22-33.
Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices:
Findings from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 28(3), 199-206.
Eisenhower, A. S., Baker, B. L., & Blacher, J. (2007). Early student-teacher
relationships of children with and without intellectual disability:
Contributions of behavioural, social, and self-regulatory competence. Journal
of School Psychology, 45, 363-383.
104
Espinosa, L. M., Thornburg, K. R., & Mathews, M.C. (1997). Rural kindergarten
teachers’ perceptions of school readiness: A comparison with the carnegie
study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(2),119-125.
Forest, E. J., Horner, R. H., Lewis-Palmer, T. & Todd, A. W. (2004). Transitions for
young children with Autism from preschool to kindergarten. Journal of
Positive Behaviour Interventions, 6(2), 103-112.
Giebink, G. S., & Daly, K. (1994). Epidemiology and management of otitis media in
children. In K. G. Butler (Ed.), Hearing impairment and language disorders:
Assessment and intervention (pp. 27-36). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Ginsborg, J. (2006). The effects of socio-economic status on children's language
acquistion and use. In J. Clegg & J. Ginsborg (Eds.), Language and social
disadvantage: Theory into practice (pp. 9-27). Cornwall, UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
Glascoe, F. P. (2000). Parents’ Evaluations of Developmental Status (PEDS) –
Authorised Australian Version. Parkville, Vic: Centre for Community Child
Health.
Glascoe, F. P. (2000). Detecting and addressing developmental and behavioural
problems in primary care. Pediatric Nursing, 26(3), 251-274.
Glascoe, F. P. (2003). Parents' evaluation of developmental status: How well do
parents' concerns identify children with behavioural and emotional problems?
Clinical Pediatrics, 42(2), 133-138.
105
Goldberg, L. R., & McCormick-Richburg, C. (2004). Minimal hearing impairment:
Major myths with more than minimal implications. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 25(3), 152-160.
Goodman, R. (1999). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – SDQ. Retrieved
June 29, 2007, from www.sdqinfo.com
Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative methods in social science. London: Continuum.
Gray, M., & Sanson, A. (2005). Growing up in Australia: The longitudinal study of
Australian children. Family Matters, 72, 4-9.
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2005). Compared to what? Finding controls for case-
control studies. The Lancet, 365, 1429-1433.
Hamaguchi, P. M. (1995). Childhood speech, language and listening problems: What
every parent should know. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the
trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child
Development, 72(2), 625-638.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2007). Teachers'
perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem
behaviours. Social Development, 17(1), 115-136.
Hart, K. I., Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & Hart, C. H. (2004). The relationship between
social behavior and severity of language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 647-662.
106
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Baltimore, M.D.: Brookes.
Hartas, D. (2005). Language and communication difficulties. London: Continuum.
Haskill, A. M., & Tyler, A. A. (2007). A comparison of linguistic profiles in
subgroups of children with specific language impairment. American Journal
of Speech - Language Pathology, 16(3), 209-221.
Hawes, D. J. & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of
the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 38(8), 644-651.
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations
for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention. School Psychology
Review, 35(4), 583-601.
Hill, J. W. & Coufal, K. L. (2005). Emotional/behavioural disorders: A retrospective
examination of social skills, linguistics, and student outcomes.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(1), 33-46.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status
affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child
Development, 74, 1368-1378.
Hofferth, S. (2005). Secondary data analysis in family research. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 891-907.
107
Horowitz, L., Jansson, L., Ljungberg, T., & Hedenbro, M. (2005). Behavioural
patterns of conflict resolution strategies in preschool boys with language
impairment in comparison with boys with typical language development.
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40(4), 431-
454.
Horowitz, L., Westlund, K., & Ljungberg, T. (2008). Aggression and withdrawal
related behavior within conflict management progression in preschool boys
with language impairment. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 38(3),
237-253.
Houston, T. (2007). Childhood hearing loss: Acting early improves language skills.
Pediatrics for Parents, 23(10), 2-3.
Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher
relationships and children's second grade peer relations. Social Development,
9(2), 291-204.
Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of
perceived teacher-child relationships between preschool and kindergarten.
Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 113-132.
Hundert, J., Morrison, L., Mahoney, W., Mundy, F., & Vernon, M. L. (1997). Parent
and teacher assessments of the developmental status of children with severe,
mild/moderate, or no developmental disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 17(4), 419-434.
Jerome, A. C., Fujiki, M., Brinton, B. & James, S. L. (2002). Self-esteem in children
with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 45, 700-714.
108
Johnstone, R., Project Operations Team & LSAC Research Consortium (2004). Data
management issues: Discussion paper number 3. Retrieved June 30, 2007,
from Australian Institute of Family Studies, Growing Up in Australia
website: http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/pubs/dp3/dp3.pdf
Keicolt, K. J. & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary analysis of survey data. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kesner, J. E. (1994). Effects of teacher attachment history on teacher-child
relationships. Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing
World – Conference Proceedings (pp1-8). Arlington, VA: NCFR Annual
Conference.
Kesner, J. E. (1997). Ethnicity and gender and the quality of teacher-child
attachment relationships. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
NCFR Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World,
November, Arlington, VA.
Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher
relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 28(2), 133-149.
Ladd, G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and
psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four
predictive models. Child Development, 77(4), 822-846.
Lambert, E. B. (2003). Introducing research to early childhood students. Tuggerah,
N.S.W.: Social Science Press.
109
Landa, R. J. (2005). Assessment of social communication skills in preschoolers.
Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11(3),
247-252.
La Paro, K. M., Justice, L., Skibbe, L. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Relations among
maternal, child, and demographic factors and the persistence of preschool
language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
13(4), 291-303.
Law, J., & Sivyer, S. (2003). Promoting the communication skills of primary school
children excluded from school or at risk of exclusion: An intervention study.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 19(1), 1-25.
Letts, C., & Hall, E. (2003). Exploring early years professionals' knowledge about
speech and language and development and impairment. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 19(2), 211-229.
Lin, H., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. (2003). Kindergarten teachers' views of
children's readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18,
225-237.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Pre-
kindergarten teachers' use of transition practices and children's adjustment to
kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 124-139.
Luinge, M. R., Post, W. J., Wit, H. P., & Goorhuis-Brouwer, S. M. (2006). The
ordering of milestones in language development for children from 1 to 6
years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(5),
923-940.
110
Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the
normality of assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of
Public Health, 23, 151-169.
MacNaughton, G., Rolfe, S. A. & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing early childhood
research: International perspectives on theory and practice. Crows Nest,
NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Magnuson, K. A., Lahaie, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2006). Preschool and school
readiness of children immigrants. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), 1241-
1262.
Magnuson, K. A., Meyers, M. K., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Inequality in
preschool education and school readiness. American Educational Research
Journal, 41(1), 115-157.
Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children
and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables.
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425-442.
Manor, O., Shalev, R. S., Joseph, A., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2000). Arithmetic skills in
kindergarten children with developmental language disorders. European
Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 5, 71-77.
Martin, D. (2000). Teaching children with speech and language difficulties. London:
David Fulton.
Martin, D., & Miller, C. (1996). Speech and language difficulties in the classroom.
London: David Fulton.
111
Martindale, M. (2007). Children with significant hearing loss: Learning to listen,
talk, and read - Evidence-based best practices. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 28(2), 73-76.
Mashburn, A. J., & Henry, G. T. (2004). Assessing school readiness: Validity and
bias in preschool and kindergarten teachers' ratings. Educational
Measurement, Issues and Practice, 23(4), 16-30.
Mashburn, A. J. & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness.
Early Education and Development, 17(1), 151-176.
McBryde, C., Ziviani, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2004). School readiness and factors that
influence decision making. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 193-
208.
McCabe, P. C. (2005). Social and behavioral correlates of preschoolers with specific
language impairment. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 373-387.
McCabe, P. C., & Meller, P. J. (2004). The relationship between language and social
competence: How language impairment affects social growth. Psychology in
the Schools, 41(3), 313-321.
McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social
policy for children. Child Development, 71(1), 173-180.
McCauley, R. J. (2001). Assessment of language disorders in children. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
112
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for
early academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 307-329.
McCormick, L., Loeb, D. F., & Schiefelbusch, R. L. (2003). Supporting children
with communication difficulties in inclusive settings (2 ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based
inquiry (6 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., & Baker, B. L. (2006). The transition to school:
Adaptation in young children with and without intellectual disability. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(5), 349-361.
McLean, J., & Snyder-McLean, L. (1999). How children learn language. San Deigo,
California: Singular Publishing Group.
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Research and evaluation methods in
special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Moore, K. A. (2006). Defining the term “at risk”. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
Morris, P. S., & Leach, A. J. (2003). Is early surgical referral for children with
persistent otitis media with effusion (OME) appropriate? Medical Journal of
Australia, 179, 436-437.
Nation, K. (2005). Developmental language disorders. Psychiatry, 4(9), 114-117.
113
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Young children develop
in an environment of relationships: Working Paper #1. Retrieved September
25, 2007, from http://www.developingchild.net
Naude, H., Pretorius, E., & Viljoen, J. (2003). The impact of impoverished language
development on preschoolers' readiness-to-learn during the foundation phase.
Early Child Development and Care, 173(2), 271-291.
Nungesser, N. R. & Watkins, R. V. (2005). Preschool teachers' perceptions and
reactions to challenging classroom behaviour: Implications for speech-
language pathologists. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools,
36(2), 139-151.
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2000). Transition to school for young
children with special learning needs: Guidelines for families, early childhood
services and schools. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from, http://www.det.nsw.
edu. au/ policies/general_man/general/spec_ed/transition02.pdf
O'Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and
achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369.
Otto, B. (2006). Language development in early childhood (2 ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Owens, R. E. (2008). Language development an introduction (7 ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
114
Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Reiser, M. (2007).
Preschoolers' academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child
relationship play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 407-422.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS version 12. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Paradis, J. (2007). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Theoretical
and applied issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 551-564.
Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment
and intervention (3rd ed.). St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier.
Paul, R., & Kellogg, L. (1997). Temperament in late talkers. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 803-810.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C.,
Kagan, S. L., et al. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to
children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second
grade. Child Development, 72(5), 1534-1553.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Pianta, R. C. (2001). The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Lutz, FA,
Psychologial Assessment Resources.
115
Pianta, R. (2002). School readiness: A focus on children, families, communities, and
schools. The informed educator series. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
Service.
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and
teachers: Implications for research and practice. In C. M. Evertson & C. S.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp.685-710). NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L. & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’
practices related to the transition to school: Results of a national survey. The
Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 71-86.
Pianta, R. C. & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's
success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-
458.
Piper, T. (2007). Langauge and learning: The home and school years. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Redmond, S. M. & Rice, M. L. (2002). Stability of behavioural ratings of children
with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45(1), 190-
201.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the
transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical
research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491-511.
116
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers' judgments of
problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15(2), 147-166.
Robbins, A. M. (1994). Facilitating language comprehension in young hearing-
impaired children. In K. G. Butler (Ed.), Hearing impairment and language
disorders: Assessment and intervention (pp. 57-69). Gaithersburg, MD:
Aspen.
Roberts, J. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Zeisel, S. A. (2002). Otitis media in ealry
childhood in relation to children's school-age language and academic skills.
Pediatrics, 110(4), 696-706.
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B. & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers’
relationships with included students with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 33(2), 123-130.
Rosenkoetter, S. E., Hains, A. H. & Dogaru, C. (2007). Successful transitions for
young children with disabilities and their families: Roles of school social
workers. Children and Schools, 29(1), 25-34.
Rothstein, J., Heazlewood, R., & Fraser, M. (2007). Health of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children in remote far north Queensland: Findings of the
paediatric outreach service. Medical Journal of Australia, 186(10), 519-521.
Rudasill, K. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Justice, L. M. & Pence, K. (2006).
Temperament and language skills as predictors of teacher-child relationship
quality in preschool. Early Education and Development, 17(2), 271-291.
117
Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of
children with a preschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 147-163.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with
students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children.
School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125-141.
Sammons, P., Elliot, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B.
(2004). The impact of pre-school on young children's cognitive attainments at
entry to reception. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 691-712.
Sanson, A., Johnstone, R., LSAC Research Consortium, & FaCS LSAC Project
Team. (2004). Growing up in Australia takes its first steps. Family Matters,
67, 46-53.
Sanson, A., Nicholson, J., Ungerer, J., Zebrick, S., Wilson, K. & Ainley, J. et al.
(2002). Introducing the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children: LSAC
discussion paper no. 1. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from Australian Institute of
Family Studies, Growing Up in Australia website: http://www.aifs.gov.au/
growingup/pubs/discussionpaper1.pdf
Share, D. L., & Leikin, M. (2004). Language impairment at school entry and later
reading disability: Connections at lexical versus supralexical levels of
reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 87-110.
Simkin, Z., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2006). Evidence of reading difficulty in
subgroups of children with specific language impairment. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 22(3), 315-331.
118
Snowling, M., Bishop, D. V. M. & Stothard, S. E. (2000). Is preschool language
impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 587-600.
Soloff, C., Lawrence, D. & Johnstone, R. (2005). LSAC technical paper no. 1:
Sample design. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from Australian Institute of Family
Studies, Growing Up in Australia website: ttp://www.aifs.gov.au/"
|http://www.aifs.gov.au/ growingup/pubs/techpapers/tp1.pdf
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors
to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental
Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.
Stuhlman, M. W. & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Teacher's narratives about their
relationships with children: Associations with behaviour in classrooms.
School Psychology Review, 31(2), 148-163.
Sutherland, K. S., & Oswald, D. P. (2005). The relationship between teacher and
student behaviour in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioural
disorders: Transactional processes. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
14(1), 1-14.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P. & Catts, H. (2000). The association of
reading disability, behavioural disorders, and language impairment among
second-grade children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4),
473-482.
119
Tough, S., Siever, J. E., Benzies, K., Leew, S., & Johnston, D. W. (2006). The
community perinatal care follow up study: Screening for developmental
problems among preschool-aged children. Retrieved September 28, 2007,
from http:// www. pedstest.com/files/CPC_Follow_Up_Report.pdf
Wagner, J., Jenkins, B., & Smith, J. C. (2006). Nurses' utilisation of parent
questionnaires for developmental screening. Pediatric Nursing, 32(5), 409-
412.
Wake, M., Gerner, B., & Gallagher, S. (2005). Does parents' evaluation of
developmental status at school entry predict language, achievement, and
quality of life 2 years later? Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5(3), 143-149.
Williams, C. (2006). Teacher judgements of the language skills of children in the
early years of schooling. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(2), 135-
154.
Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., & Wolf, M. (2007). The
relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening
comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading
comprehension by children with reading disabilities. Journal of Speech,
Language & Hearing Research, 50(4), 1093-1109.
120
Appendix A
LSAC Wave 1 Kindergarten Cohort Sample Characteristics
Note: ABS= 2001 Census for families for 0 and 4 year olds, except where * based on March 2004 Estimated Resident Population for families of 0 and 4 year olds
(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2006).
121
Appendix B
Data Analysis Plan - Variables used and Derived for Analyses
Wave 1 Variables
Child Characteristics Wave 1
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
hicid HIC ID number CSCAGEM 4/5 - SC's age (months)
Study child age in months at time of survey
zf02m1 SC - F2F A3 – Sex
Is (Study Child) male or female? 1 Male 2 Female
zf12m1 SC - F2F A13 - Indigenous Status (ATSI)
Is Study Child of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin? 1 No 2 Yes, Aboriginal 3 Yes, T/Strait Islander 4 Yes, both
cf11m1 4/5 - SC - F2F A12 - Main language spoken at home (LOTE)
Does Study Child speak a language other than English at home?
CALD Cultural and Linguistic Differences (CALD)
Derived from zf12m1 (ATSI) and cf11m1 (LOTE) – variables combined to show child cultural and linguistic differences.
ctcd 4/5 - Teacher/carer data present
Yes/No
Parent Concerns About Child’s Language and SDQ Total Difficulties Wave 1
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
cgd01a1 4/5 - F2F B60 - Concerns – speech
Do you have any concerns about how child talks and makes speech sounds? Would you say no, yes or a little? 1 No 2 Yes 3 A little -2Don’t know
cgd01a2 4/5 - F2F B61 - Concerns - understand speech
Do you have any concerns about how child understands what you say to him/her? Would you say no, yes or a little? 1 No 2 Yes 3 A little
122
-2 Don’t know
cpedselc 4/5 - PEDS Expressive Language Concern
Derived from cgd01a1 with 'a little' coded with yes.
cpedsrlc 4/5 - PEDS Receptive Language Concern
Derived from cgd01a2 with 'a little' coded with yes.
clc02a 4/5 - F2F B63.1 - Communication - reluctant to speak
You said that you were concerned about child’s speech or understanding. In which area(s) does child have difficulties? NOT THE CAUSE, BUT THE PROBLEM THE CHILD HAS. MARK ALL THAT APPLY 1 Reluctant to speak
clc02b 4/5 - F2F B63.2 - Communication - unclear to family
2 Speech not clear to the family
clc02c 4/5 - F2F B63.3 - Communication - unclear to others
3 Speech not clear to others
clc02d 4/5 - F2F B63.4 - Communication - finding words
4 Difficulty finding words
clc02e 4/5 - F2F B63.5 - Communication - putting together
5 Difficulty putting words together
clc02f 4/5 - F2F B63.6 - Communication - understanding parent
6 Doesn’t understand you when you speak
clc02g 4/5 - F2F B63.7 - Communication - understanding others
7 Doesn’t understand others when they speak
clc02h 4/5 - F2F B63.8 - Communication - voice sounds unusual
8 Voice sounds unusual
clc02i 4/5 - F2F B63.9 - Communication - stutters or lisps
9 Stutters, stammers or lisps
clc03 4/5 - F2F B64 - SC late starting to talk
1 Yes 2 No -2 Don’t know
casdqt 4/5 - P1 - SDQ Total score
Sum of ap1hypr, ap1emot, ap1peer and ap1cond
Parent and Household Characteristics Wave 1
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
cp2 4/5 - SC has 2 parents in the home
Study Child has 2 parents in the home 0 No; 1 Yes
123
cf06cm 4/5 - M@4/5 - F2F A7 - Relationship to parent 1
How is family member related to Parent 1? 0 Self; 1 Legal spouse; 2 De Facto partner 3 Biological Child; 4 Adopted child; 5 Step Child; 6 Foster child; 7 Grandchild; 8 Boarder/Housemate 9 Unrelated child; 10 Unrealted adult; 11 Partner; 12 Parent; 13 Full sibling; 13.5 Full or half sibling; 14 Step/half sibling; 15 Adopted sibling; 16 Foster sibling; 17 Sibling; 18 Grandparent; 19 Aunt/Uncle; 20 Niece/Nephew; 21 Cousin; 22 Other Relative/In-law; 23 Biological parent; 24 Adopted parent; 25 Step-parent; 26 Foster parent; 27 Child
cf07cm 4/5 - M@4/5 - F2F A8 - Relationship to parent 2
How is family member related to Parent 2? 0 Self; 1 Legal spouse; 2 De Facto partner 3 Biological Child; 4 Adopted child; 5 Step Child; 6 Foster child; 7 Grandchild; 8 Boarder/Housemate 9 Unrelated child; 10 Unrealted adult; 11 Partner; 12 Parent; 13 Full sibling; 13.5 Full or half sibling; 14 Step/half sibling; 15 Adopted sibling; 16 Foster sibling; 17 Sibling; 18 Grandparent; 19 Aunt/Uncle; 20 Niece/Nephew; 21 Cousin; 22 Other Relative/In-law; 23 Biological parent; 24 Adopted parent; 25 Step-parent; 26 Foster parent; 27 Child
zf02cm M@4/5 - F2F A3 - Sex Is Mother male or female?
cf03cm 4/5 - M@4/5 - F2F A4 - Age
What was Mother's age last birthday?
cfd08m3a 4/5 - M - F2F H5 - Highest qualification
What is the level of the highest qualification that Mother completed? (Bachelor degree includes honours) 1 Postgraduate degree; 2 Graduate diploma/certificate; 3 Bachelor degree; 4 Advanced diploma/diploma; 5 Certificate; 6 Other; (-2 Don't know)
cmemp 4/5 - M - Employment status
Mother employed by Labour Force Survey definition 1 Employed; 2 Unemployed; 3 Not in labour force
zf02cf
F@4/5 - F2F A3 - Sex Is Father male or female?
cf03cf 4/5 - F@4/5 - F2F A4 - Age
What was Father's age last birthday?
cfd08f3a 4/5 - F - F2F H5 - Highest qualification
What is the level of the highest qualification that Father completed?
124
(Bachelor degree includes honours) 1 Postgraduate degree; 2 Graduate diploma/certificate; 3 Bachelor degree; 4 Advanced diploma/diploma; 5 Certificate; 6 Other; (-2 Don't know)
cfemp 4/5 - F - Employment status
Father employed by Labour Force Survey definition 1 Employed; 2 Unemployed; 3 Not in labour force
cfn05 4/5 - F2F K20 - Combined yearly income before tax
Before income tax is taken out, what is your present yearly income (for you and partner combined)? Include pensions and allowances before tax, superannuation or health insurance. Parent 1 and Partner combined before tax: 1 $2400 or more per week ($124800 or more per year) 2 $2200-$2399 per week ($114400-
$124799) 3 $2000-$2199 per week ($104000-
$114399) 4 $1500-$1999 per week ($78000-
103999) 5 $1000-$1499 per week ($52000-
$77999) 6 $800-$999 per week ($41600-$51999) 7 $700-$799 per week ($36400-$41599) 8 $600-$699 per week ($31200-$36399) 9 $500-$599 per week ($26000-$31199) 10 $400-$499 per week ($20800-$25999) 11 $300-$399 per week ($15600-$20799) 12 $200-$299 per week ($10400-$15599) 13 $100-$199 per week ($5200-$10399) 14 $50-$99 per week ($2600-$5199) 15 $1-$49 per week ($1-$2599) 0 Nil income -99 Negative income -2 Don’t know -3 Refused
Zcsepar Zcsepar Socio-economic position variable, constructed for LSAC by Blakemore, Gibbings & Strazdins, 2006. For further detail see Appendix C.
zcseparBin3 zcsepar Binned into 3 (SEP)
Derived from zcsepar binned into 3 – closest to 25%, 50%, 25% in order to show low, mid and upper SEP families.
125
Teacher and Classroom Characteristics Wave 1
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
cpc01b1 4/5 - F2F C31 - SC attends school etc.
Does child go to a school, kindergarten, preschool or a day care centre? 1 Yes 2 No
cpc06a1 4/5 - Main education - F2F C34 - Program type
Which one does child go to? 1 Year 1 in school 2 Pre-year 1 program in a school (Prep, Kindergarten, Reception, Transition or Pre-primary 3 Pre-school program in a school 4 Pre-school program at a non-school centre 5 Mobile pre-school 6 Day care centre where child has a pre-school program 7 Day care centre where child does not have a pre-school program 8 Day care centre, not sure about a pre-school program
cpc37a1 School sector Is this a government, Catholic or Independent school? 1 Government 2 Catholic 3 Independent 4 Other
cpc24 4/5 - T/C E1 - Sex of teacher/carer
Are you male or female? 1 Male 2 Female
cpc08t2 4/5 - T/C E2 – Age of teacher/carer
What was your age last birthday?
cpc32a1 4/5 - T/C E4 - No. years in child care settings
Counting this year, for how many years have you worked for 10 hours or more per week in child are settings, early education programs or school settings (include paid and unpaid positions).
cpc32b2a 4/5 - T/C E5 - Years in workplace
Counting this year, how many years have you worked in this particular school or centre, even if your position has changed? (If just started this year, write 01)
cpc26b1 4/5 - T/C E6 - Highest qualification
What is the highest educational qualification you have completed? 1 Masters or Doctoral Degree 2 Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate (completed after a Bachelor
126
Degree) 3 Bachelor Degree (including Honours) 4 Advanced Diploma or Associate Degree 5 Diploma or Associate Diploma 6 Certificate 7 Other (please specifiy) 0 None of the above
Additional Services
cpc30 4/5 - T/C B2 - Additional services
Has the study child received any additional services that are specifically available or provided through your centre/school to support his/her learning? (e.g. speech therapy, physiotherapy, SUPS support worker)? 1 Yes; 2 No (-2 Not sure)
cpc30a 4/5 - T/C B3.1 - Extra services - speech therapy
What extra services has this child received through your centre/school since being in your group? Speech therapy 0 No; 1 Yes
cpc30b 4/5 - T/C B3.2 - Extra services - psych assess
What extra services has this child received through your centre/school since being in your group? Psychological assessment
cpc30c 4/5 - T/C B3.3 - Extra services - learning support
What extra services has this child received through your centre/school since being in your group? Learning support
cpc30d 4/5 - T/C B3.4 - Extra services - behaviour mngmnt
What extra services has this child received through your centre/school since being in your group? Behavioural management programs
cpc30e
4/5 - T/C B3.5 - Extra services – other
What extra services has this child received through your centre/school since being in your group? Other
Classroom Child Composition
cpc14t1a
4/5 - T/C - T/C A1 - No. children usually present
On average how many children are in the group on any day that the study child attends? 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
127
cpc31a1
4/5 - T/C A5 - No. NESB children
On average, how many children in this group are from a non-English speaking family background? (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
cpc31b1
4/5 - T/C A6 - No. ATSI children
On average, how many children in this group are from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background? (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
cpc31c1
4/5 - T/C A7 - No. disabled children
On average, how many children in this group have had a diagnosed disability? (e.g. intellectual, sensory, physical, autistic spectrum disorder, developmental delay) (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
Teacher Ratings of Literacy &
Numeracy
clc04t1a
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.1 - SC generally interested in books
In considering reading skills is this child... Generally interested in books (e.g. picture books or books with print)? 0 No; 1 Yes; (-2 Not sure)
clc04t1b
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.2 - SC interested in reading
In considering reading skills is this child... Interested in reading (e.g. wants to know meaning of printed materials)?
clc04t1c
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.3 - SC able to read simple words
In considering reading skills, is this child... Able to read simple words (e.g. dog, cat)?
clc04t1d
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.4 - SC able to read complex words
In considering reading skills, is this child... Able to read complex words (e.g. table, orange)?
clc04t1e
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.5 - SC able to read simple sentences
In considering reading skills, is this child... Able to read simple sentences (e.g. John is big)?
128
clc04t1f
4/5 - T/C - T/C C7.6 - SC uninterested in reading
In considering reading skills, is this child... Uninterested in reading?
clc04t2a
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.1 - SC is experimenting with writing tools
In considering writing skills, is this child... Experimenting with writing tools?
clc04t2b
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.2 - SC is aware of writing directionality
In considering writing skills, is this child... Aware of writing directionality (left to right, top to bottom or as appropriate for own language)?
clc04t2c
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.3 - SC is interested in copying
In considering writing skills, is this child... Interested in copying letters and words from printed materials
clc04t2d
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.4 - SC is able to write their name
In considering writing skills, is this child... Able to write his/her name?
clc04t2e
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.5 - SC is able to write simple words
In considering writing skills, is this child... Able to write simple words (e.g. dog, cat)?
clc04t2f
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.6 - SC is able to write simple sentences
In considering writing skills, is this child... Able to write simple sentences (e.g. John is big)?
clc04t2g
4/5 - T/C - T/C C8.7 - SC is uninterested in writing
In considering writing skills, is this child... Uninterested in writing?
clc04t3a
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.1 - SC is able to sort and classify
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Able to sort and classify objects by shape or colour?
clc04t3b
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.2 - SC is able to count objects
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Able to count the number of a few objects accurately?
clc04t3c
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.3 - SC is able to count to 20
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Able to count to 20?
clc04t3d
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.4 - SC is able to recognise numbers
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Able to recognise numbers?
clc04t3e
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.5 - SC is able to do simple addition
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Able to do simple addition with concrete materials
129
clc04t3f
4/5 - T/C - T/C C9.6 - SC is uninterested in numbers
In considering numeracy skills, is this child… Uninterested in numbers?
Teacher-Child Relationship Wave 1
ctp01a1
Share affectionate relationship
I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child. 1 Definitely does not apply 2 Not Really 3 Neutral/Not sure 4 Applies somewhat 5 Definitely applies (Response choice for 1649-1663).
ctp01b1 Struggle to get along This child and I always seem to be
struggling with each other (ie. Having a hard time getting along).
ctp01a2 Seeks comfort when upset If upset, this child will seek comfort from me.
ctp01a3 Uncomfortable w/ phys affection
This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me.
ctp01a5 Values relationship This child values his/her relationship with me.
ctp01a6 Beams with pride when praised
When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride.
ctp01d2 Shares information about self
This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself.
ctp01b2 SC easily becomes angry This child easily becomes angry with me.
ctp01d1 Easy to be in tune with feelings
It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling.
ctp01b7 Remains angry after discipline
This child remains angry or is resistant after being disciplined.
ctp01b3 Dealing with SC drains energy
Dealing with this child drains my energy.
ctp01b4 Difficult day when in bad mood
When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day.
ctp01b8 Feelings can be unpredictable
This child’s feelings toward me can be unpredictable or can change suddenly.
ctp01b9 Is manipulative with teacher
This child is manipulative with me.
ctp01d3 Shares feelings/experiences
This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me.
CTWARMR Warm Relationship Derived from STRS Warm items
CTCONF Carer Conflict Scale (fv) Derived from STRS Conflict items CTOCOMB Open communication
scale (older child vrsn) Derived from STRS Open Communication items
cSTRSClose Wave 1 STRS Closeness score
Derived from the mean total of Warm and Open communication STRS scale
130
items.
cSTRSConflict Wave 1 STRS Conflict score
Derived from the mean total of Conflict STRS scale items
Wave 2 Variables
Child Characteristics Wave 2
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
hicid HIC ID number
DSCAGEM 6/7 - SC's age (months)
Study child age in months at time of survey
zf02m1 SC - F2F A3 – Sex
Is (Study Child) male or female? 1 Male 2 Female
zf12m1 SC - F2F A13 - Indigenous Status (ATSI)
Is Study Child of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin? 1 No 2 Yes, Aboriginal 3 Yes, T/Strait Islander 4 Yes, both
df11m1 6/5 - SC - F2F A12 - Main language spoken at home (LOTE)
Does Study Child speak a language other than English at home?
dtcd 6/7 - Teacher/carer data present
Yes/No
Parent Concerns About Child’s Language Wave 2
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
dgd01a1 6/7 - Concerns – speech Do you have any concerns about how child talks and makes speech sounds? Would you say no, yes or a little? 1 No 2 Yes 3 A little -2Don’t know
dgd01a2 6/7 - Concerns - understand speech
Do you have any concerns about how child understands what you say to him/her? Would you say no, yes or a little? 1 No 2 Yes 3 A little -2 Don’t know
dpedselc 6/7 - PEDS Expressive Language Concern
Derived from dgd01a1 with 'a little' coded with yes.
dpedsrlc 6/7 - PEDS Receptive Language Concern
Derived from dgd01a2 with 'a little' coded with yes.
131
Parent and Household Characteristics Wave 2
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
dp2
6/7 - SC has 2 parents in the home
Study Child has 2 parents in the home 0 No; 1 Yes
df06dm
6/7 - M@6/7 - Relationship to parent 1
How is family member related to Parent 1? 0 Self; 1 Legal spouse; 2 De Facto partner 3 Biological Child; 4 Adopted child; 5 Step Child; 6 Foster child; 7 Grandchild; 8 Boarder/Housemate 9 Unrelated child; 10 Unrealted adult; 11 Partner; 12 Parent; 13 Full sibling; 13.5 Full or half sibling; 14 Step/half sibling; 15 Adopted sibling; 16 Foster sibling; 17 Sibling; 18 Grandparent; 19 Aunt/Uncle; 20 Niece/Nephew; 21 Cousin; 22 Other Relative/In-law; 23 Biological parent; 24 Adopted parent; 25 Step-parent; 26 Foster parent; 27 Child
df07dm
6/7 - M@6/7 - Relationship to parent 2
How is family member related to Parent 2? 0 Self; 1 Legal spouse; 2 De Facto partner 3 Biological Child; 4 Adopted child; 5 Step Child; 6 Foster child; 7 Grandchild; 8 Boarder/Housemate 9 Unrelated child; 10 Unrealted adult; 11 Partner; 12 Parent; 13 Full sibling; 13.5 Full or half sibling; 14 Step/half sibling; 15 Adopted sibling; 16 Foster sibling; 17 Sibling; 18 Grandparent; 19 Aunt/Uncle; 20 Niece/Nephew; 21 Cousin; 22 Other Relative/In-law; 23 Biological parent; 24 Adopted parent; 25 Step-parent; 26 Foster parent; 27 Child
zf02cm M@4/5 - F2F A3 - Sex Is Mother male or female?
df03cm 6/7 - M@4/5 - F2F A4 - Age
What was Mother's age last birthday?
dfd08m3a 6/7 - M - Highest qualification
What is the level of the highest qualification that Mother completed? (Bachelor degree includes honours) 1 Postgraduate degree; 2 Graduate diploma/certificate; 3 Bachelor degree; 4 Advanced diploma/diploma; 5 Certificate; 6 Other; (-2 Don't know)
dmemp 6/7 - M - Employment status
Mother employed by Labour Force Survey definition 1 Employed; 2 Unemployed; 3 Not in labour force
132
zf02cf
6/7 F@4/5 - F2F A3 - Sex
Is Father male or female?
df03cf 6/7 - F@4/5 - F2F A4 - Age
What was Father's age last birthday?
dfd08f3a 6/7 - F - Highest qualification
What is the level of the highest qualification that Father completed? (Bachelor degree includes honours) 1 Postgraduate degree; 2 Graduate diploma/certificate; 3 Bachelor degree; 4 Advanced diploma/diploma; 5 Certificate; 6 Other; (-2 Don't know)
dfemp 6/7 - F - Employment status
Father employed by Labour Force Survey definition 1 Employed; 2 Unemployed; 3 Not in labour force
DHINC Household income Categories ranging from $<100 - >$2000
Teacher and Classroom Characteristics Wave 2
Code Variable Label Question Form and/or Variables Derived From
dpc06a1
6/7 - School - F2F D5 – Program type
In what grade or year level is study child currently enrolled at school? 12 Kindergarten/ Reception / Preparatory; 13 Year 1 (Grade 1); 16 Year 2 (Grade 2); 17 Ungraded; 15 Other (specify)
dpc37a2
6/7 - F2F D1 - School sector
Is this a government, Catholic or Independent school? 1 Government 2 Catholic 3 Independent 4 Other
dpc24 6/7/ - T/C - Sex of teacher/carer
Are you male or female? 1 Male 2 Female
dpc32a1 No. years experience.
How many years teaching experience do you have?
dpc32b2a 6/7 - T/C - Years in workplace
Counting this year, how many years have you worked in this particular school or centre, even if your position has changed? (If just started this year, write 01)
dpc26b2 6/7 - T/C - Highest qualification
What is the highest educational qualification you have completed? 1 Masters or Doctoral Degree 2 Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate (completed after a Bachelor Degree) 3 Bachelor Degree (including Honours) 4 Advanced Diploma or Associate Degree
133
5 Diploma or Associate Diploma 6 Certificate 7 Other (please specifiy) 0 None of the above
Additional Services
dpc56a
6/7 - Teach 15 - Child receives specialised services
Does this child receive any specialised services provided within the school because of a diagnosed disability or additional need? 1 Yes; 2 No
dpc56b
6/7 - Teach 15 - Child receives specialised services
What is the main reason that the study child requires additional assistance or specialised services to enable them to succeed in the regular school program ? 1 Intellectual disability; 2 Hearing impairment; 3 Vision impairment; 4 Physical disability; 5 Speech or language impairment; 6 Learning disability/learning problems in reading; 7 Learning disability/learning problems in mathematics; 8 Emotional or behavioural problems; 9 Poor understanding of Standard Australian English or ESL; 10 Giftedness
dpc52
6/7 - Teach 17 - Currently has Individual Education Plan
Does this child currently have an Individual Education Plan (IEP)? 1 Yes; 2 No
Classroom Child Composition dpc14t1a
6/7 - T/C - T/C 31 - No. children usually present
On average how many children are in the group on any day that the study child attends? 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
dpc31a1
No. NESB children
On average, how many children in this group are from a non-English speaking family background? (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
dpc31b1
6/7 - T/C 34 - No. ATSI children
On average, how many children in this group are from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background? (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
dpc31c1 6/7 - T/C 35 - No. On average, how many children in this
134
disabled children
group have had a diagnosed disability? (e.g. intellectual, sensory, physical, autistic spectrum disorder, developmental delay) (NOT INCLUDING THE STUDY CHILD) 1 1-5; 2 6-10; 3 11-20; 4 21-30; 5 31 or more
Teacher Ratings of Literacy &
Numeracy
dlc09a1
6/7 - Teach 18a - Contributes relevant info
Academic Rating Scale - Language and Literacy The study child...Contributes relevant information to classroom discussions (e.g. during a classroom discussion, can express an idea or personal opinion on a topic and the reasons behind the opinion) 1 Not yet; 2 Beginning; 3 In progress; 4 Intermdeiate; 5 Proficient; (-1 Not applicable)
dlc09a2
6/7 - Teach 18b - Understands and interprets a story
The study child...Understands and interprets a story or other text read to him/her (e.g. by writing a sequel to a story, or dramatising part of a story, or posing a question about why a particular event occurred as it did)
dlc09a3
6/7 - Teach 18c - Reads words with regular vowel sounds
The study child...Reads words with regular vowel sounds (e.g. reads ‘coat’, ‘junk’, ‘lent’, ‘chimp’, ‘halt’ or ‘bike’)
dlc09a4
6/7 - Teach 18d - Reads words with irregular vowels
The study child...Reads words with irregular vowel sounds (e.g. reads ‘through’, ‘point’, ‘enough’ or ‘shower’)
dlc09a5
6/7 - Teach 18e - Reads age appropriate books
The study child...Reads age appropriate books independently with comprehension (e.g. reads most words correctly, answers questions about what was read, makes predictions while reading, and retells the story after reading)
dlc09a6
6/7 - Teach 18f - Reads age appropriate books fluently
The study child...Reads age appropriate books fluently (e.g. easily reads words in meaningful phrases rather than reading word by word)
dlc09a7
6/7 - Teach 18g - Able to write sentences with >1
The study child...Able to write sentences with more than one clause
135
clause
dlc09a8 6/7 - Teach 18h - Composes beginning, middle and end
The study child...Composes a story with a clear beginning, middle and end
dlc09a9 6/7 - Teach 18i - Understands some print conventions
The study child...Demonstrates an understanding of some of the conventions of print (e.g. appropriately using question marks, exclamation points and quotation marks)
dlc09a10 6/7 - Teach 18j - Uses computer for variety of purposes
The study child...Uses the computer for a variety of purposes (e.g. by writing a page for a class book, or looking up information on a topic of interest, or solving maths problems, or recording a scientific observation)
dlc09b1 6/7 - Teach 19a - Continue pattern using three items
The study child...Can continue a pattern using three items
dlc09b2 6/7 - Teach 19b - Understanding of place value
The study child...Demonstrates an understanding of place value (e.g. by explaining that fourteen is ten plus four, or using two stacks of ten and five single cubes to represent the number 25)
dlc09b3 6/7 - Teach 19c - Models, etc. whole numbers
The study child...Models, reads, writes and compares whole numbers (e.g. recognising that 30 is the same quantity if it is 30 rabbits or 30 tallies or 15 + 15 red dots, or describing that the number 25 is smaller than 41)
dlc09b4 6/7 - Teach 19d - Counts change with two types of coins
The study child...Counts change with two different types of coins (e.g. one dollar and two twenty-cent pieces or a fifty-cent piece and three ten-cent pieces)
dlc09b5 6/7 - Teach 19e - Organises data into graphs
The study child...Surveys, collects and organises data into simple graphs (e.g. making tally marks to represent the number of boys and girls in the classroom, or making a bar, line, or circle graph to show the different kinds of fruit children bring to school for lunch and the quantity of each type)
dlc09b6 6/7 - Teach 19f - Reasonable estimates of quantities
The study child...Makes reasonable estimates of quantities (e.g. looking at a group of objects and deciding if it is more than 10, about 50, or less than 100)
dlc09b7 6/7 - Teach 19g - Measures using common instruments
The study child...Measures to the nearest whole number using common instruments (e.g. rulers, or tape measures, or thermometers, or scales)
136
dlc09b8
6/7 - Teach 19h - Uses a variety of strategies for maths
The study child...Uses a variety of strategies to solve maths problems (e.g. using manipulative materials, using trial and error, making an organised list or table, drawing a diagram,looking for a pattern, acting out a problem, or talking with others)
Teacher-Child Relationship Wave 2
dtp01a1
Share affectionate relationship
I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child. 1 Definitely does not apply 2 Not Really 3 Neutral/Not sure 4 Applies somewhat 5 Definitely applies
dtp01b1 Struggle to get along This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other (ie. Having a hard time getting along).
dtp01a2 Seeks comfort when upset
If upset, this child will seek comfort from me.
dtp01a3 Uncomfortable w/ phys affection
This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me.
dtp01a5 Values relationship This child values his/her relationship with me.
dtp01a6 Beams with pride when praised
When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride.
dtp01d2 Shares information about self
This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself.
dtp01b2 SC easily becomes angry
This child easily becomes angry with me.
dtp01d1 Easy to be in tune with feelings
It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling.
dtp01b7 Remains angry after discipline
This child remains angry or is resistant after being disciplined.
dtp01b3 Dealing with SC drains energy
Dealing with this child drains my energy.
dtp01b4 Difficult day when in bad mood
When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day.
dtp01b8 Feelings can be unpredictable
This child’s feelings toward me can be unpredictable or can change suddenly.
dtp01b9 Is manipulative with teacher
This child is manipulative with me.
dtp01d3 Shares feelings/experiences
This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me.
DTWARMR Warm Relationship Derived from STRS Warm items
DTCONF Carer Conflict Scale (fv)
Derived from STRS Conflict items
DTOCOMB Open Derived from STRS Open Communication
137
communication scale (older child vrsn)
items
dSTRSClose Wave 2 STRS Closeness score
Derived from the mean total of Warm and Open communication STRS scale items.
dSTRSConflict Wave 2 STRS Conflict score
Derived from the mean total of Conflict STRS scale items
138
Appendix C
Socio-Economic Positioning Variable Construction
Summary from: Blakemore, Gibbings & Strazdins, 2006, p. 15.
139
Appendix D
Matching Procedure for the Target and the Control Group
Kindergarten Cohort with Teacher Data = n3258
Target Group (n=210) 2 x PEDS language concerns
Control Group (n=3048)
0 or 1 PEDS language concerns
Construct Variables
• Male/Female 2 categories A Sex = 1, 2
• LOTE and/or ATSI status 2 categories B CALD = 1, 2
• Socio-Economic Position 3 categories C SEP = 1, 2, 3
• Age into 3 month bands 6 categories D Age = 1, 2....6
ABCD A = 1, 2 B = 1, 2 C = 1, 2, 3 D = 1, 2 ....6
Recode RA = 1=1000, 2=2000 RB = 1=100, 2=200 RC = 1=10, 2=20, 3=30 RD = 1=1, 2=2.......6=6
Sum Match RA+RB+RC+RD I.e.: A=1, B=2, C=3, D=6 Then Sum Match = 1000+200+30+6 = 1236
Example of Matching Procedure
Split file by Group 1 and Group 2. Sort by ‘Sum Match’ Match across groups.
Group 1
210
Group 2
3048
1235 1235 1235 * 1236
1234* 1234* 1235 1235 1236*� 1236*� 1236*� 1236*� 1236*�
Results 1235 – 2 exact matches
1 to select randomly using random numbers chart from 1234/1236 *
1236 – 1 to randomly select from 5�
Matching Strategy
STEP 1 – Extract perfect matches STEP 2 – Look for +1/-1 matches STEP 3 – If a +/- match is not possible, go back to the previous variable. E.g. 1241 and 1246
Final Matched Groups
Target Group (n = 210)
2 x PEDS language concerns
Control Group (n = 210) 0 or 1 x PEDS language concerns
Matched on Sex, CALD, SEP, Age