maternal reading and teaching

8/10/2019 Maternal Reading and Teaching

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/maternal-reading-and-teaching 1/22

Reading Research Quarterly

Vol. 41, No. 1

January/February/March 2006

© 2006 International Reading Association

(pp. 68–89)

doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.3

L

Maternal reading and teaching patterns: Associations withschool readiness in low-income

African American familiesPIA REBELLO BRITTO

Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN

Teachers College and College of Physicians and Surgeons,

Columbia University, New York, USA

TERRI M. GRIFFINManhattanville College, Purchase, New York, USA

earning begins at birth, and parents have been called children’s first teachers(Bornstein, 1995; Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg,Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000). Adults play a significant role in guiding thecognitive and linguistic development of a young child (Vygotsky, 1934/1978, p.84). Vygotsky considered the roots of learning to be social, mediated by language

and then internalized. Parents often act as the more knowledgeable “other,” sup-porting and extending the child’s learning to read, write, and solve problems.Scholars have studied a variety of behaviors that capture this aspect of parenting,including reading books, talking with children, encouraging communication, andengaging in problem solving. Research on parent and child verbal interactions hasbeen studied via audiotaped conversations in the home (Dickinson & Beals, 1994;Hart & Risley, 1995). Another set of studies has focused on parent and child book reading as a critical aspect of parent teaching behaviors (Britto & Brooks-Gunn,2001) with the caveat that some of this work has only examined frequency of

68



69

THIS STUDYexplored the congruence in reading and teaching patterns of low-income, young African Americanmothers while interacting with their preschool-age children in their homes (N=126). Survey and standardized testdata were collected on maternal education and language ability, and videotape data were collected, transcribed,and coded on shared book-reading and puzzle-solving sessions, using validated coding procedures. Two reading pat-terns (Story-Readers and Story-Tellers) and three teaching patterns (Low Support and Low Teaching; Supportand Low Teaching; and Support and Teaching) were identified based on maternal verbal and nonverbal interactionsduring these sessions. Children whose mothers were identified as Story-Tellers and the Support and Teaching groupof mothers had better language skills than children whose mothers were not in these groups, controlling for mater-nal education and verbal skills.

Maternal readingand teachingpatterns:

Associations withschool readinessin low-income,

African American families

ESTE ESTUDIO exploró la congruencia entre los patrones de lectura y enseñanza en jóvenes madres afro-ameri-

canas de bajos recursos durante la interacción, en el hogar, con sus hijos en edad preescolar (N=126). Se recolectarondatos sobre la educación y habilidad lingüística de las madres mediante informes y tests estandarizados. Se recogierondatos videograbados que se transcribieron y codificaron en sesiones de lecturas compartidas y resolución de proble-mas, usando procedimientos de codificación validados. Dos patrones de lectura (Lectoras de Cuentos y Narradorasde Cuentos) y tres patrones de enseñanza (Poco Apoyo y Poca Enseñanza, Apoyo y Poca Enseñanza y Apoyo y Enseñanza) se identificaron sobre la base de las interacciones verbales y no verbales de las madres durante estas se-siones. Los niños cuyas madres fueron identificadas como Narradoras de Cuentos y pertenecientes al grupo de

Apoyo y Enseñanza mostraron mejores habilidades lingüísticas que los niños cuyas madres no pertenecían a estosgrupos, aun controlando la educación y habilidades lingüísticas de las madres.

Lectura materna

y patrones deenseñanza:

Asociaciones conla preparaciónpara la escuelaen familias afro-americanas debajos recursos

DIESE STUDIE untersuchte die Übereinstimmung in Lese- und Unterrichtsmustern von jungen afro-amerika-nischen Müttern mit niedrigem Einkommen im Umgang mit ihren vorschulaltrigen Kindern zu Hause (N=126).Die Untersuchungsergebnisse und vereinheitlichten Testdaten wurden über die mütterliche Ausbildung undderen Sprachtalent gesammelt; Video-Kassettendaten wurden gesammelt, übertragen und kodiert bezüglich demgemeinsamen Bücherlesen und der Zusammenkünfte zum Lösen von Problemen unter Anwendung festgelegterKodierungsverfahren.Zwei Lesemodelle (von Geschichten-Lesern und Geschichten-Erzählern) und drei Unterrichtsmuster (mit wenig Unterstützung und geringfügigem Unterricht; mit Unterstützung und bei geringem Unterricht; und mitUnterstützung und Vollunterricht) wurden festgelegt, basierend auf die mütterlichen mündlichen und nicht-mündlichen Beeinflussungen während dieser Treffen. Kinder, deren Mütter als Geschichtenerzähler erkannt wur-den und solche aus der Unterstützungs- und Unterrichtsgruppierung von Müttern hatten bessere Sprachfertigkeitenals jene Kinder deren Mütter nicht in diesen Gruppierungen waren, kontrolliert zwecks mütterlicher Erziehung und

sprachlicher Leistungen.

Mütterliche Lese-undUnterrichtsmuster:BeziehungenmittelsSchulunterstützungin afro-amerikanischenFamilien mitniedrigem

Einkommen

ABSTRACTS



70

CETTE ÉTUDE a exploré la congruence entre lecture et structures d’enseignement de jeunes mères afro-améri-caines à bas revenus pendant qu’elles interagissaient avec leurs enfants d’âge préscolaire à la maison (N= 126). On

a recueilli des données d’enquête et de tests standardisés sur l’éducation familiale et la maîtrise du langage parlé ;on a également effectué des vidéos, qui ont été transcrites et codées, lors de séances de lecture partagée et de ses-sions de résolution de problèmes, en utilisant des procédures de codage validées. Deux patrons de lecture (Lecteursd’histoire et Raconteurs d’histoire) et trois patrons pédagogiques (Faible soutien et faible enseignement ; Soutienet faible enseignement ; Soutien et enseignement) ont été identifiés sur la base des interactions verbales et non ver-bales pendant ces sessions. Les enfants dont les mères avaient été identifiées comme Raconteurs d’histoire et legroupe des mères Soutien et enseignement ont présenté de meilleurs niveaux de langage que les enfants dont lesmères n’étaient pas dans ces groupes, l’éducation maternelle et le niveau de langage étant contrôlés.

Lecturematernelle et

structurespédagogiques :associationsavec la maturitépour la viescolaire dans des

familles afro-américaines àbas revenus

ABSTRACTS



shared book-reading interactions (Raikes et al.,2005). A third line of research has looked at theteaching of specific skills (such as buttoning a shirt,tying a shoelace, eating with a spoon), as illustratedby the Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training

(NCAST), an evidence-based assessment system of parent teaching behaviors (Barnard, 1997; Barnard& Kelly, 1990; Barnard & Sumner, 2002). Yet a fourth line of research has focused on maternal be-haviors during puzzle solving and free play types of activities (Hoff-Ginsburg & Tardiff, 1995).

Each of these four lines of research provides a unique understanding of parental teaching strategies

with young children and has demonstrated (to a greater or lesser degree) Vygotskian notions of guid-ed teaching and participation, and in some casesscaffolding. However, little is known about how parental teaching varies across situations (e.g., talk-

ing with children, shared book reading, puzzle solv-ing). It is likely that some congruence exists acrosssituations, that is, that parents who promote childengagement in learning situations might also encour-age greater child verbal interactions during book reading. At the same time, variability in teaching patterns across situations might exist (for example,some parents who do not engage in extended verbalconversations during book reading might demon-strate proficiency at teaching in a problem-solving situation). However, our knowledge of how much,how often, and in what situations teaching is consis-

tent is very limited. The present study was designedto examine the congruence in two situations, book reading and puzzle solving, in a sample of preschoolchildren and their mothers.

Why study parent teaching? A large body of literature indicates that parent–child interactions inthe home are associated with school readiness(Collins et al., 2000; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;Hart & Risley, 1999). For instance, children ex-posed to a richer verbal environment in the homedemonstrate better vocabulary skills in early child-hood (Hart & Risley, 1995). Parent and childshared book reading is associated with language

skills, reading ability, and school achievement (Bus,van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Ewers &Brownson, 1999; Saracho, 1997; Senechal &LeFevre, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998;

Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Interactions aroundproblem solving and playing with toys also are asso-ciated with school readiness (Britto & Brooks-Gunn, 2001; Crain-Thoreson, Dahlin, Powell,2001; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Spiker, Ferguson,& Brooks-Gunn, 1993). However, we do not know if such associations are stronger for some teaching

situations than others. The present study was de-signed to see if the associations between maternalteaching interactions in a book reading and puzzletask would be similar with regard to school readi-ness indicators.

Parental teaching varies by social class (Britto,Fuligni, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002; Brooks-Gunn &Markman, 2005; Hoff, 2003, Vernon-Feagans,Hammer, Miccio, & Manlove, 2001). Several rea-sons have been put forth to explain these differences(Boyd, Brock, & Rozendal, 2004; Gadsden, 1995;Ogbu, 1981). Similar effects are also seen whencomparing black and white children in the UnitedStates, in large part due to the fact that a dispropor-tionate percentage of ethnic minority children arepoor and have mothers with low levels of education(Brooks-Gunn & Markman; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov,

1994; Luthar, 1999). Because maternal teaching islinked with school readiness, it is not surprising thatgaps in school readiness exist between economicclasses of children and between black and whitechildren. A few studies have been able to estimatehow much these gaps are due to differences in par-enting. Based on some estimates, parental languageuse in the home and teaching strategies could ac-count for 25% to 60% of the gap (Brooks-Gunn,Klebanov, & Duncan, 1996; Brooks-Gunn &Markman; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Phillips,Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Jencks, 1998).

In this study we focus on a group of children withlow levels of school readiness—those whose mothersare young, poor, and African American. Our hy-pothesis is that the differences we observe in mater-nal reading and teaching patterns will be associated

with children’s school readiness outcomes.The present study addresses three sets of ques-

tions. First, what patterns of maternal reading andteaching can be identified? Second, how much con-gruence is there between maternal reading andteaching patterns? Third, what are the associationsbetween maternal reading and teaching patterns andtheir children’s school readiness? The intent of the

study is to contribute to an understanding of the ways in which poor, urban, minority children are ex-posed to literacy and learning practices—via parent–child interactions, variability in this expo-sure, and links to child outcomes.

Maternal reading and teaching patterns Patterns of reading that have been studied sug-

gest variability in practice, ranging from simplereading of the text to discussions of events related to

Maternal reading and teaching patterns 71



the book (Bus, 2001; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;Hammer, 2001; Hammett, van Kleeck, & Huberty,2003; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002).Studied behaviors include language use, functionali-ty of talk, and timing of conversation. Language use

focuses on maternal use of decontextualized lan-guage (defined as an ability to talk about absent objects with little reliance on the shared physicalcontext; Snow, 1991), which is strongly associated

with later developing literacy skills (Dickinson, DeTemple, & Hirschler, 1992). Functionality of talk has primarily been studied in terms of the nature of parents’ questions during the book-reading activity (ranging from simple requests for labeling andpointing to more complex comprehension-basedquestions, inferences, and predictions; Haden,Reese, & Fivush, 1996). Maternal decontextualizedlanguage use and labeling questions are examined inthe present study.

A third behavior involves the timing of con-versation (Reese & Cox, 1999). It is not known if itis most beneficial for a parent to interject with ques-tions and comments before beginning to read thebook, during reading the book, after reading thebook, or some combination of all three. The place-ment of maternal comments and questions are ex-amined in this study. We hypothesize that maternalcomments and questions interspersed not only throughout the reading of the text but also beforeand after the reading of the text will be associated

with decontextualized language use. With the use of these three behaviors (lan-

guage use, functionality, and timing), three patternsof book reading are expected to emerge from thecluster analyses: (1) encouraging child participationin the book-reading activity by asking questions; (2)extending the conversation around the book to thechild’s real life by using decontextualized forms of language; and (3) engaging in a straight reading of the text, without much verbal interaction, that is,little use of comments or questions.

Two broad dimensions of teaching patterns

have been identified in problem-solving and puzzletasks: (1) affect, responsivity, and support; and (2)direct teaching and instruction (Barnard & Kelly,1990; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Spiker et al.,1993). The latter dimension refers to teaching behaviors such as guided participation, whichinvolves the provision of verbal cues and instruc-tion. Four teaching patterns are expected: (1) sup-port and teaching, (2) no support and no teaching,(3) support and no teaching, and (4) no supportand teaching.

Congruence between maternal reading and teaching patterns

Little work has examined the congruence be-tween teaching behaviors across tasks (Bauer, 2000;Crain-Thoreson et al., 2001). The present study ad-dresses this issue. In addition we are interested inidentifying correlates of these patterns. Variability inmaternal reading has been linked to maternal lan-guage ability and educational achievement(Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003;Haveman & Wolfe, 1995). Puzzle-solving interac-tions have been linked to maternal mental health(Bornstein, 1995; Bradley, 1995). We examine thepossible links between these correlates and teaching patterns.

Association between maternal teaching and children’s school readinessThe presence of decontextualized language in

book-reading interactions has been linked with high-er kindergarten achievement test scores. In otherparent–child interactions, maternal sensitivity, sup-port, and encouragement have been linked with chil-dren’s language skills, cognitive growth, engagement,and competence (Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, &Swank, 1997; NICHD Early Child Care ResearchNetwork, 2001; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker,1995). In the present study, we examine linguistic,

emotionally supportive, and instructional character-istics of maternal reading and teaching patterns, ex-pecting that children whose mothers are bothsupportive and also provide teaching guidance to thechildren during the book reading and puzzle solving

will have higher school readiness and language scoresthan children whose mothers focus their attentioneither on teaching or on supportiveness.

Method

Design The sample in this study included participantsfrom the Newark Young Family Study (NYFS), anobservational study embedded within the TeenageParent Demonstration Program (TPD). The TeenageParent Demonstration Program, begun in 1986, wasdesigned to test the feasibility and explore the impli-cations of making welfare eligibility contingent uponteenage mothers’ participation in self-sufficiency ac-tivities, school, work, and job training. This programused an experimental design in which 6,000 first-

72 Reading Research Quarterly J AN UA RY /F EB RU AR Y/ MA RC H 2 0 06 4 1/ 1




time, welfare-eligible adolescent mothers from threesites (Chicago, Illinois, and Camden and Newark,New Jersey) were enrolled and then randomly as-signed to one of two groups—intervention or con-trol. For the intervention group, the mothers’ Aid to

Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) sup-port was contingent upon their participation in self-sufficiency activities. Mothers who did notparticipate in self-sufficiency activities had part of their AFDC stipend sanctioned (reduced). At thesame time, the intervention mothers received specialservices such as case management, workshops, edu-cation, training and employment-related services,and other support services, such as assistance inmaking child-care arrangements and financial subsi-dies for child care to facilitate their compliance withprogram requirements (Kisker, Rangarajan, & Boller,1998). The workshops covered a range of topics in-

cluding motivation and employment preparation,life skills, parenting, and family planning. Controlmothers received financial and other forms of assis-tance already provided under the regular AFDC pro-gram. Participation in the intervention had nosignificant effects on parenting behaviors (Reichman& McLanahan, 2001).

The evaluation of the Teenage ParentDemonstration Program was primarily conducted

with survey instruments including interviews andself-report questionnaires during two time periods24 months apart (Maynard, 1995). The embedded

observational study examined interactions within thefamilies and developmental processes (Aber, Brooks-Gunn, & Maynard, 1995). Families were seen intheir homes approximately 40 months after initialintake into the TPD study. Whether or not mothersparticipated in this evaluation study did not affecttheir eligibility for services.

Procedure The families were seen three times: at baseline

(Time 1); at a 24-month follow-up (Time 2), and ata 40-month follow-up (Time 3). Mothers were inter-

viewed at all three points, and they were assessed forreading level (Times 1 and 2) and receptive vocabu-lary (Time 3). At Time 3, assessments of the homeenvironment, shared book reading, puzzle solving,and child school readiness were conducted during a three and a half hour visit with two trained field staff

workers (Aber et al., 1995; Sprachman, Carcagno, &Goodman, 1994). One worker was assigned the in-terviewer coordinator role and the other staff memberthe associate role. All field staff came from Newark and at least one of the two was African American.

Training for the coordinator involved a five-day ses-sion, and training for the associate involved a three-day session, during which all data collectionprocedures were demonstrated, videotapes shown,and practice sessions observed. Once the training was

completed, the field staff had to undergo a stringentcertification process. The field staff were eligible fordata collection only after they were certified. In addi-tion, during the course of the study, the videotapes of the field staff were randomly checked (about 20% of the tapes) to ensure fidelity to the protocol. Field staff

were not necessarily the same over the three time pe-riods, given the fact that such field work is part-timeand often temporary in large-scale studies conductedby research firms, such as Mathematica Policy Research, Abt Associates, Research Triangle Institute,Manpower Development Research Corporation, and

Weststat. While the pool of field staff varied over the

three time periods, all engaged in systematic training sessions and received feedback during data collection(Sprachman et al., 1994).

During the shared book-reading session, eachmother was asked to read the book Sounds I Hear (Gelbart, 1983) to her child. Mothers were told, “Allreaders have their own way of reading books.... Sofeel comfortable doing it your own way.” The HomeInstruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIP-PY; Baker, Piotrkowski, & Brooks-Gunn, 1999) pro-duced the book in 1983 as part of their curriculumfor children 3 to 4 years of age. It is a concept book

with 15 pages of illustrations and text (47 indepen-dent clauses), which focus on sounds made by ani-mals, objects, and vehicles found in both urban andrural settings. The book-reading session lasted ap-proximately seven minutes.

For the puzzle-solving activity, the mother andchild were given two puzzles, and the mother was in-structed to allow the child to try the puzzles aloneand then to give “whatever help you think he/sheneeds to do it him/herself” (Chase-Lansdale &Brooks-Gunn, 1994). The first puzzle was relatively simple for the child to complete, and the second wasrelatively difficult for the children to complete with-

out the help of the mother. Puzzles were chosen fordifficulty based on previous research with African

American mothers and their young children (Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn) and on pilot testing. Forthe children 31 2 years or less, the first (easy) puzzle

was a boat, and the second (difficult) one was Grover(a character from Sesame Street ). The older childrencompleted puzzles of a kite and Cookie Monster (an-other character from Sesame Street ). It took 2 min-utes longer to complete the hard puzzle (M = 5.80minutes; SD = 1.60) compared with the easy puzzle



(M = 3.85 minutes; SD = 1.71). On average the puz-zle task took 9 minutes.

Participants

The 126 participants are a representative sub-sample of African American mothers from theNewark site (N = 276), whose children were 25months or younger at baseline (Time 1). Of the 276mothers, 15 were ineligible to participate (11 hadmoved; 4 were no longer living with target child). Of the remaining 261 eligible participants, 189 consent-ed to participate in the study. The retention rates forthe sample were very high (72%; Kisker et al., 1998).Nonresponse analysis comparing the 189 respondents

with the 72 nonrespondents on baseline sociodemo-graphic characteristics indicated significant differ-ences on 2 variables. The nonrespondents were on

average a bit older and were less likely to have beenliving with a parent (Sprachman et al., 1994). Of the189 respondents, complete data, including book reading and puzzle solving, were collected and code-able on 126 participants (7 Hispanic mother-and-child dyads were not included due to primary language issues). The 126 mothers included in thisstudy did not differ from the 56 mothers excludedfrom the analyses in terms of sociodemographic char-acteristics of age, educational attainment, householdmembership, marital status, child age, and child gen-der. The sample was equally divided between the in-

tervention (48%) and control (52%) groups. At entrance into the study (Time 1), the par-ticipants were all teenage mothers between 14 and20 years of age (M = 17.47, SD = 1.13). At the fol-low-up or Time 2 (about two years after baseline),the mothers on average were 20 (SD = 1.10) years of age. At the time of the observation or Time 3 (about40 months after baseline), the mean age of themothers was 21 (SD = 1.25) years.

At Time 1, the children ranged in age fromtwo weeks to 25 months (M = 7 months, SD = 5.07months), and 54% were girls. At Time 2, the chil-dren were, on average 30 (SD = 6.21) months of age,

and at Time 3, the mean age of the children was 48(SD = 7.36) months.

In terms of maternal education, at Time 1, nomother had completed high school or received a General Equivalency Diploma certificate, whereas by Time 2, 20% of the mothers had completed highschool. At Time 1, the average reading grade level, asmeasured by the Test of Adult Basic Education, wasat the 7th grade. Only 16% of the mothers werereading at or above the 10th-grade level. By Time 2,the average reading grade level had gone up by one

grade; the mothers were now reading at an 8th-gradelevel. A quarter of the mothers were reading at a 10th-grade level or higher. At Time 3, mothers’ aver-age receptive language ability as indexed by theirPeabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT–R) score

was very low (74.63; SD = 16.21), similar to the low reading ability. This standardized receptive languagescore was more than one standard deviation below the normative mean for the test (M = 100, SD = 15for the PPVT–R). Even though only 25% of themothers had scores above 85 or within the averagerange for this test, these receptive vocabulary scoresobserved in this study are in accordance with otherstudies of teenage urban single mothers (Brooks-Gunn & Chase-Lansdale, 1995; Pope, Casey,Bradley, & Brooks-Gunn, 1993; Quint, Bos, & Polit,1997).

In terms of family composition and marital sta-

tus, at Time 1, most mothers had never been married(98%) and a majority (65%) lived with one or bothof their parents. At Time 2, a majority of the mothers

were still unmarried (93%) and about half (54%)lived with their parents or grandparents. The otherhalf lived either alone with their child(ren), with oth-er relatives, or with a partner or husband. In addi-tion, one third of the mothers had borne a secondchild and approximately 10% had three children.

Measures

Maternal reading patternMaternal reading pattern was identified by the

following characteristics: language use, cognitive de-mand placed on the child, timing of conversation, andpositive feedback. All these aspects have been associat-ed with child language and literacy outcomes. Training in transcription and coding was conducted under thesupervision of the developer of the system (De Temple,1993; the procedure is described in Appendix A.)

The Home School Coding System (De Temple,1993), used to code the transcripts, is an individualutterance coding system organized around two main

themes: functionality and nature of talk.Functionality distinguishes requests for a responsefrom giving a response or from making a sponta-neous comment (i.e., asking a question versus mak-ing a comment). Nature distinguishes talk that isimmediate or contextual (i.e., which uses informa-tion that is readily available from the illustrations orthe text) from talk that is nonimmediate or decon-textual (i.e., which requires going beyond the text orthe illustrations to make predictions, draw infer-ences, analyze or make connections to the real world,





give meanings for words, provide explanations, andso forth). Text words read aloud were not coded.Codes relevant to the present study are described indetail in Table 1.

Maternal teaching with puzzles A previously developed coding system was used

(Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1994; Spiker etal., 1993), with the following six behaviors each cod-ed on a three-point scale: verbal stimulation, clarity of hints, flexibility in changing directions, anticipat-ing the child’s needs, encouragement, and motiva-tion. Higher scores on the scales indicate a higherfrequency or intensity of maternal behavior charac-terized by that scale. The intercoder agreement with-

in one point for the scales was 100%. Training forcoding the data followed a structured training proto-col conducted over a four-week period in whichcoders observed training tapes and became reliable

with a gold standard coder. One fifth of each coder’s

tapes was reviewed during coding to ensure thatcoders remained reliable. Definitions and examplesof the six behaviors are described in Appendix B.

Maternal mental healthPoor parental mental health has been associat-

ed with fewer learning experiences in the home andpoor parent–child interactions (Bornstein, 1995;Bradley, 1995; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, & Duncan,1994). In the present study, maternal mental health

Label and description Example Intercoder reliability Descriptive information

TABLE 1

DESCRIPTION OF THE VERBAL INTERACTIONS CODED DURING THE SHARED BOOK

READING ACTIVITY

Timing of maternal talk . When didmaternal conversation occur in rela-tion to the reading of the text? Did themothers talk about the book only during their reading of the text, did they talk to their children about the book before they began reading the text, ordid they discuss the book after finish-ing the text?

Before*Mother: Would you like to turn the pages? *Mother: “Sounds I Hear” During *Mother: “Sounds I Hear” *Mother: This is the title of the book.

After*Mother: The end.*Mother: Did you like the book?

100% During 31% (N = 39)Before & During 27% (N = 33)During & After 19% (N = 23)Before, During, & After 23%(N = 29)

Decontextual language use . Going be-yond the text or the illustrations tomake predictions, make inferences, orestablish a link between the child andthe text

Inference:*Child: Why is she cryin(g) ?Text-reader link:*Mother: Remember when we went in

gran(d)ma’s car? (while showing the child thepicture of the car in the book)

80% M = 2.38; SD = 4.70; range0–15.

Expressive language use . Diversity of ut-terances (represents a range in thecontent and function of the utter-ances)

*Mother: What is that? *Mother: Good! *Mother: Point to the picture.*Mother: This is the dog’s nose.

a M = 11.34; SD = 6.82; range1–32

Labeling questions . Utterances in which the mother requests informa-tion that requires the child to name,label, or point to a picture or word inthe book

*Mother: What is that? 100% M = 5.4; SD = 6.7; range 0–42

Positive feedback . Given by mothers,including an approving reaction to a previous utterance made by the child

*Mother : Good. 98% M = 3.54; SD = 5.10; range0–48.

Note . a This measure was estimated by running a frequency analysis in the Computerized Language Analysis program (CLAN; MacWhinney,2000). This program is designed to specifically analyze data that is transcribed in the Codes for Human Analysis Transcripts system.



was measured at Time 3 with the Center forEpidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (20 itemsand four-point Likert scale; CES-D; Radloff, 1977).The CES-D is an extensively used, highly internally consistent, epidemiologic measure of the presence

and severity of depressive symptoms (higher scoresindicate more depression). The average score for thisscale was 15.9 (SD = 10.3; range 1–54). The CES-Dscores were not associated with maternal reading orteaching or with child outcomes.

Home environmentThe Home Observation for Measurement of

the Environment (HOME) Inventory measures stim-ulation and support available to a child, via a semi-structured interview and direct observation. The 55items of the measure are binary coded (present = 1 or

absent = 0), with higher scores indicating more itemspassed for a particular scale (Bradley, 1994; Linver,Brooks-Gunn, & Cabrera, 2004). Training was con-ducted with videotapes prepared by the developer of the test, which included practice and feedback con-ducted over a three-day period. The three subscalesused in the present study are: Academic Stimulation;

Warmth; and Presence of Learning Materials.The Academic Stimulation Scale consists of sev-

en items focusing on parental teaching of schoolreadiness skills (i.e., child is encouraged to learn col-ors, rhymes, words, numbers; = 0.71). Most

mothers indicated that they were teaching school-readiness skills, as the average score was 6.71(SD =1.54: range 0–7). The Warmth Scale also con-sists of seven items, such as “mother converses withchild at least once during the visit,” “uses a term of endearment,” “hugs or cuddles the child” ( = 0.72).The average rating on this scale was high (5.65; SD =.50; range 1–8). The Presence of Learning Materials Scale has 12 items, which include child has at leastone toy that teaches color and one toy that teachesnumbers ( = 0.73). The average rating on this scale

was 7.22 (SD = 2.78; range 0–12).

Child language and school readiness The three child outcomes selected for the study

were expressive language use, receptive vocabulary,and school readiness. All three are recognized as partof a continuum of skills that have been defined asprecursors to conventional forms of reading and

writing (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).Expressive language use is a measure of the di-

versity in child utterances during the shared book-reading session at Time 3. The expressive language

score was obtained by running the “FREQ” analysesfrom the CLAN program (MacWhinney, 1991,2000; M = 10, SD = 5.88; range 0–30). Past researchon child language has focused primarily on totalnumber of words spoken as opposed to the total

number of different types of words spoken during the book-reading activity. In our sample the averagenumber of total words spoken by the children was30 (min = 0; max = 149) similar to other work withlow-income young mothers and preschool-age chil-dren, where the average was 32.32 (min = 0; max =154; De Temple & Tabors, 1994).

Receptive vocabulary was assessed by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised (PPVT–R) at Time3. The test requires the child to correctly identify oneof four pictures that matches the stimulus word. Thisstandardized test has a mean of 100 and a standarddeviation of 15, with higher scores indicating a larger

receptive vocabulary (M = 82.69, SD = 12.85; range56–121). These scores are similar to those from stud-ies of poor young children in primarily single-parentfamilies (Burchinal, Campbell, Bryant, Wasik, &Ramey, 1997; Lee, Brooks-Gunn, Schnur, & Liaw,1990; Pellegrini, Galda, Jones, & Perlmutter, 1995).The correlation between receptive vocabulary and ex-pressive language was 0.13 (ns ). Eleven children whoscored below 55 were omitted from the analyses be-cause we could not get an adequate baseline on them.It was not clear if they were just being uncooperativeor had weak verbal comprehension and were therefore

severely developmentally delayed. Because the goal of the study was to examine links between shared book reading and language in a sample of children withoutsevere handicapping conditions, we decided to omitthese children from the analyses.

School readiness was assessed by the CaldwellPreschool Inventory–Revised, which includes 48items in a yes or no format and taps children’s knowl-edge of colors, shapes, and general information. Theaverage score for the children was 28.49 (SD = 8.72;range 10–45; 2 children with anomalous scores wereomitted from the analyses, and data on 27 children

were missing from the original data set), similar to

other studies (i.e., M = 28.72 in a sample of poorpreschool children in three inner-city communities;Schnur, Brooks-Gunn, & Shipman, 1992). Schoolreadiness was correlated with receptive vocabulary (r = 0.22; p < .05) but not expressive language use.

Analytic strategy To address the first question about reading and

teaching patterns, hierarchical cluster analyses wereused. For book reading, timing of maternal talk, ex-





pressive language use, number of decontextualizedutterances, number of labeling questions, and posi-tive feedback given by the mothers were entered asthe variables of interest. Using Ward’s method of hi-erarchical cluster analysis, we determined the num-

ber of clusters to be identified with the AverageLinkage Method and Euclidean distance. The num-ber of clusters was determined by examining thedendogram and the value of the fusion coefficients(which is the value at which various cases merge toform a cluster; per this procedure, the “jumps” in thefusion coefficients are examined). A significant jumpimplies that two dissimilar clusters have been mergedand suggests that the number of clusters prior to themerge is the appropriate number of clusters for thedata (Aldernderfer & Blashfield, 1984). The sameprocedure was used to identify teaching patterns,

with the six parent behaviors described in Appendix

B entered into the hierarchical cluster. Post-hoc in-ternal and external validation was conducted, as rec-ommended for cluster analyses.

The second question, congruence between read-ing and teaching patterns, was assessed via chi-squareanalyses. Using the Discriminant Function Analyticaltechnique, we tested the validity of the groupings. Thethird question, whether reading and teaching patternsare associated with child outcomes, was tested via sep-arate hierarchical Ordinary Least Squares regressionmodels. Child age, mother’s age at the birth of thechild, treatment status, and number of children in the

home were entered as controls for all the models fol-lowed by either the maternal reading pattern variableor the maternal teaching pattern variable, depending on the research questions. Maternal educational char-acteristics—high school completion and receptive vo-

cabulary (PPVT–R scores)—were entered in the finalmodel.

Results

Maternal reading and teaching patterns Ward’s Cluster Analytic technique was used to

distinguish patterns of book reading. Examining the“jumps” of the fusion coefficient from the currentcluster analyses indicated a big jump at the third clus-ter, implying a two-cluster solution would be the most

probable solution. Ninety mothers were classified intothe first cluster (Story-readers), and 27 mothers wereclassified in the second cluster (Story-tellers). Of the 7mothers who did not fit into either cluster, 2 had noextratextual comments. Internal validation was con-ducted by examining the mean scores for the twogroups on the five reading behaviors. Story-readers,compared to Story-tellers, did not talk much to theirchildren during the book-reading activity with mostof their comments occurring during reading the book and a few comments before they began reading thebook. The mothers in the Story-teller group used

Variables Story-readers (N = 90) Story-tellers (N = 27) F / 2 StatisticsM (SD )/ % M (SD )/ %

When comments occurredDuring 40 15 15.04**Before & During 30 18.5

After & During 13.3 18.5Before, After, & During 15.6 48

Number of decontextualized commentsa 0.67 (1.27) 4.0 (4.19) 6.62***Number of different wordsb 8.2 (4.01) 17.9 (5.21) 10.25***Labeling questions (What, show me)c 2.4 (2.4) 12.11 (4.18) 14.93***Positive feedback d 1.14 (1.94) 7.40 (3.54) 11.33***

Maternal education Receptive language 73.45 (14.67) 81.04 (20.80) 4.27*

Notes . * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001a M = 2.38 (SD = 4.70)b M = 11.34 (SD = 6.82)c M = 5.46 (SD = 6.70)d M = 3.54 (SD = 5.10)

TABLE 2

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON THE COMPONENT VARIABLES FOR THE BOOK-READING

CLUSTERS AND MATERNAL EDUCATION



more decontextualized language, asked more labeling questions, gave their children more positive feedback,and demonstrated greater expressive language usecompared to the Story-readers (Table 2). The twogroups of mothers were also compared on an external

variable of interest, maternal receptive vocabulary (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). The mothers iden-tified as Story-tellers scored significantly higher thanthe mothers identified as Story-readers (Table 2).

For discerning teaching patterns, using thesame cluster analytical technique, the largest “jump”of the fusion coefficient was found at the fourthcluster, suggesting a three-cluster solution. Thirty-five mothers fell into the first cluster (Low Supportand Low Teaching), 51 mothers were classified in thesecond cluster (Support and Low Teaching); and 30mothers fell into the third cluster (Support andTeaching; 8 mothers are missing from the final clus-ter solution, due to missing data). When the scoresfor the six parenting behaviors were compared acrossthe three clusters, mothers in the Low Support andLow Teaching group did not provide their children

with much assistance, support, or direct teaching

during the problem-solving task. Mothers in theSupport and Low Teaching group did not providetheir children with much direct teaching or guidedassistance but gave them support and encourage-ment to solve the puzzle, while mothers in the

Support and Teaching group gave their children sup-port and encouragement and guided their efforts tosolve the puzzle with verbal cues, and guided assis-tance (Table 3). Results of the external validationanalyses indicate that mothers identified in the Low Support and Low Teaching group had lower recep-tive language and grade equivalency scores than theSupport and Teaching group. The Support and Low Teaching group of mothers had lower receptive lan-guage and were less likely to have graduated fromhigh school than the Support and Teaching groupsof mothers (Table 3).

Congruence between maternal reading and teaching patterns

Given the two identified reading patterns andthree teaching patterns, six combinations of reading


Teaching patterns

Low Support & Low Teaching Support & Low Teaching Support and TeachingN = 35 N = 51 N = 30M (SD ) M (SD ) M (SD )

Clarity of hintsd 1.25 (0.43)ac 1.60 (0.5)ab 2.8 (0.37)bc

Flexibility e 1.33 (0.48)ac 1.68 (0.55)ab 2.6 (0.49)bc

Verbal stimulationf 1.11 (0.32)ac 1.82 (0.38)ab 2.9 (0.3)bc

Anticipating child needsg 1.8 (0.67)ac 2.3 (0.5)ab 2.7 (0.43)bc

Encouragementh 1.11 (0.31)ac 2.37 (0.46)ab 2.5 (0.57)bc

Motivationi 1.05 (0.23)ac 2.0 (0.20)ab 2.3 (0.46)bc

Maternal education Receptive language 70.20 (15.87) j 71.60 (15.02)k 86.10 (11.04)kj

Total grade levell 6.89 (2.35) j 7.75 (2.90) 8.54 (2.81) j

High school completionm 17.9 13.7k 30k

Notes . a ANOVA comparisons between Low Support and Low Teaching and Support and Low Teaching Patterns significant, p < .05b ANOVA comparisons between Support and Low Teaching and Support and Teaching Patterns significant, p < .05c ANOVA comparisons between Low Support and Low Teaching and Support and Teaching Patterns significant, p < .05d M = 1.78 (SD = 0.76)e M = 1.79 (SD = 0.70)f M = 1.89 (SD = 0.76)g M = 2.26 (SD = 0.65)h M = 1.98 (SD = 0.77)i M = 1.79 (SD = 0.66)k ANOVA/χ2 comparisons between Support and Low Teaching and Support and Teaching patterns significant, p <.1

j ANOVA/χ2 comparisons between Low Support and Low Teaching and Support and Teaching patterns significant, p < .1l TABE scores at Time 2m at Time 2

TABLE 3

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON COMPONENT VARIABLES IN THE TEACHING PATTERN

CLUSTERS AND MATERNAL EDUCATION




and teaching patterns were possible: Story-readers/Low Support and Low Teaching (30%; N =32); Story-readers/Support and Low Teaching (30%;N = 32); Story-readers/Support and Teaching (16%;N = 17); Story-tellers/Low Support and Low

Teaching (3%; N = 3); Story-tellers/Support andLow Teaching (12%; N = 13); and Story-tellers/Support and Teaching group (9%; N = 10).The Story-tellers/Low Support and Low Teaching group of mothers are not included in further analy-ses, as there were too few mothers in that cell.

In order to test the validity of the groupings,Discriminant Function Analysis was used to distin-guish statistically between the five groups of moth-ers. The discriminating variables entered in theanalyses were selected based on the theoretical un-derpinnings of the reading and teaching patterns:Support (Warmth Scale from HOME and depressiveaffect from CES-D) and teaching (maternal recep-tive vocabulary from PPVT–R, presence of learning materials from HOME, and academic stimulationfrom HOME.

Results of the Discriminant Function Analysesshow that four functions were derived from the 5variables (the Wilks’s after the fourth function de-rived was 0.68, p <.05; Klecka, 1980). An examina-tion of the discriminant function coefficients of theindependent variables (>.50) on each function indi-cates that maternal receptive vocabulary and thepresence of materials in the home (0.82 and 0.55, re-

spectively) contributed positively to the first func-tion Verbal Stimulation, if other variables were heldconstant. For the second function, Mental Health,maternal depressive affect (0.66) was the only con-tributor. Warmth in the home (0.84) contributedpositively to the third function, Affect. The finalfunction, Exposure to Learning opportunities, was

characterized by academic stimulation in the home(0.96). The five groups can be distinguished by twoout of the four functions: Verbal Stimulation and

Affect, the two identifying dimensions of the reading and teaching patterns.

Table 4 presents the group means for the fivegroups on the two discriminating functions—VerbalStimulation and Affect. The Story-tellers/Supportand Teaching mothers and Story-readers/Supportand Teaching mothers were highest on VerbalStimulation. The Story-tellers/Support and Low Teaching mothers were highest on Affect and low onall the other functions. The results indicate that thediscriminating aspect of the Support and Teaching pattern—in combination with both the reading pat-terns—is Verbal Stimulation, and the discriminating function of the Support and Low Teaching pat-tern—in combination with the Story-telling pat-tern—is Affect.

Associations between maternal patterns and their children’s school readiness

The average expressive language score for thechildren of the Story-readers was M = 7.41 (SD =3.90) and for the children of the Story-tellers was M = 13.81 (SD = 5.29); F (1) 6.75; p < .0001, thus in-dicating that the children of the Story-tellers spokemore words during book reading than the childrenof the Story-readers.

The OLS regression model testing the associa-tion between maternal reading pattern and children’sexpressive language use was significant, F (5,98) =7.08; p < 0001. Children of Story-tellers demon-strated higher expressive language use skills com-pared to the children of Story-readers ( = 0.45; p <.0001; d = 1.49), even after controlling for child age,

Functions

Verbal stimulation Affect

Reading and teaching patterns

Story-readers/Low Support & Low Teaching -.50 -.10Story-readers/Support & Low Teaching -.24 .001Story-readers/Support & Teaching .84 .001Story-tellers/Support & Low Teaching -.003 .31

Story-tellers/Support & Teaching 1.26 -.12

TABLE 4

SIGNIFICANT DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS FOR THE FIVE GROUPS OF MOTHERS BASED ON

READING AND TEACHING PATTERNS




mother’s age at birth of child, treatment status, andnumber of children in the home. The unusually strong effect size indicates large differences in the ex-pressive language use of children of the two groupsof mothers (Cohen, 1988).

No mean differences were found between ma-ternal reading patterns and children’s school readi-ness scores in the bivariate or multivariate analyses.Similarly for children’s receptive vocabulary, no sig-nificant results were obtained either in the bivariateor multivariate analyses.

With regard to teaching patterns, analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques were used to examinedifferences between the children of the three groupsof mothers for the three child outcomes: expressivelanguage use, receptive vocabulary, and school readi-ness. Pair-wise multiple comparisons and post-hoctests were used to determine which means differed.

Bivariate analyses indicated differences in chil-dren’s expressive language use and receptive vocabu-lary for the three groups of mothers identified in thepuzzle task. The average expressive language usescore for the children of the Low Support and Low Teaching mothers, M = 7.05; SD = 4.62, was signifi-cantly lower than for the children of the Support andLow Teaching mothers, M = 10.78; SD = 6.39; F (1)= 8.74; p < .01. This difference was also noted be-tween the Support and Teaching group, M = 11.46;SD = 5.43, and Low Support and Low Teaching group, F (1) 12.49; p < .001. The multivariate OLS

regression model testing the association between ma-ternal teaching patterns and children’s expressive lan-guage use approached significance, F (6,98) = 2.07; p = .06. Children of the Support and Teaching groupof mothers demonstrated higher expressive languageuse compared to the children of Support and Low Teaching group of mothers, = 0.30; p < .01; d =0.11. Even after the addition of maternal educationalcharacteristics in the final model, maternal teaching pattern remained a significant correlate, at a trendlevel, of children’s expressive language use. No othervariables were significant.

Based on bivariate analyses, children’s receptive

vocabulary scores of the Support and Low Teaching group of mothers, M = 80.76; SD = 10.51, was signif-icantly lower than those of the children of the Supportand Teaching group of mothers (M = 87.92; SD =14.38; F (1) = 4.21; p < .05. However, no significantdifferences were obtained in the multivariate analyses.No mean differences for school readiness scores basedon maternal teaching patterns were obtained either inthe bivariate or in the multivariate analyses.

Separate hierarchical OLS regression models were conducted in order to examine the association

between the combined maternal reading and teach-ing patterns and children’s school readiness. Parallelto the prior analyses, a similar set of controls was en-tered for all the models. Dummy codes were used tocompare the five patterns of reading and teaching

(the Story-readers/Low Support and Low Teaching group was the omitted group and the Story tellers/Low Support and Low Teaching mothers werenot included in these analyses because of the smallcell size). Separate models were run for children’s re-ceptive vocabulary, school readiness, and expressivelanguage use. Significant findings emerged for chil-dren’s expressive language skills and school readiness.

The model testing the association between ma-ternal teaching and reading patterns and children’sexpressive language use was significant, F (8,85) =4.82; p < .0001. Children of Story-tellers/Supportand Teaching group, = 0.43; p < .0001, and Story-

tellers/Support and Low Teaching group, = 0.39; p < .0001, demonstrated greater expressive languageuse compared with the children of the other groupsof mothers. The model testing the association be-tween maternal teaching and reading patterns andchildren’s school readiness was also significant,F (8,65) = 6.19; p < .0001). The children of theStory-readers/Support and Teaching group had high-er school readiness skills, = 0.23; p <. 05, com-pared with children of the other groups of mothers.No significant results were obtained for children’s re-ceptive vocabulary.

Discussion A major theme of Vygotsky’s theory

(1934/1978) is that the social interactions betweenadults and children lay the foundation for young children’s development and learning. Parent–childinteractions in the home have typically been studiedaround a single activity, such as shared book reading,verbal engagement, or problem solving. Yet eventhough links have been established between some of these interactions and children’s school readiness

outcomes, what remains unknown is the degree of congruence in parental teaching patterns across theseinteractions.

In terms of reading patterns, contrary to ourexpectations, only two distinct groups emerged,based on language use and timing of maternal con-versation. Of the three groups hypothesized, thegroup that focused on supporting and encouraging children’s participation in the book reading was notfound. The two-pattern result could be an artifact of the structure of the coding system, which does not




have a major emphasis on supportive reading behav-iors. In other work where the affective quality of theinteraction was coded in addition to the nature of maternal talk, results demonstrated an associationbetween the affective quality of reading and child

outcomes (Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002).The other two aspects of the reading patterns, lan-guage use and timing of conversation, parallel find-ings from prior work with samples with a similardemographic profile (Beals, De Temple, &Dickinson, 1994; Hammer, 2001). In the presentstudy, not only did the Story-readers talk less and usefewer forms of decontextualized language, but they also focused most of their conversation during thereading of the text. In contrast, the Story-tellersdemonstrated a more interactive pattern, interspers-ing their discussion around the book, before, during,and after reading the text. The timing of conversa-

tion is a relatively nascent aspect of book-reading in-teractions. This finding is important in that itsuggests taking timing of maternal conversation intoconsideration in how mothers construct the book-reading activity as an important characteristic of their reading pattern. Mothers who treated the book-reading interaction as an opportunity to engage inconversation with their children beyond the pages of the book tended to use language and extend theirchild’s participation in the activity, compared tomothers who construed the activity as limited to thepages of the book.

For teaching behaviors, three groups of moth-ers emerged based on the amount of teaching andsupport they provided their children during the puz-zle solving—those who demonstrated a Low Supportand Low Teaching pattern, a Support and Low Teaching pattern, and a Support and Teaching pat-tern. The fourth hypothesized group, characterizedby teaching with low support, was not found, de-spite the comprehension coding system used.

An innovative aspect of the study was an exam-ination of the concordance in maternal interactionalpatterns across activities. The Support and Teaching and Support and Low Teaching mothers were the

most likely to be Story-tellers (using an interactivediscussion-oriented pattern of reading) compared tothe Low Support and Low Teaching group of moth-ers. A larger proportion of the latter group, on theother hand, was classified as Story-readers.

Children’s vocabulary appears to be associated with a more interactive maternal book-reading pat-tern (encouraging the child to participate in the ac-tivity, asking more questions, and extending children’s knowledge beyond the pages of the book)and with a teaching pattern that combines both sup-

port and instruction. Merely providing support withlow teaching did not appear to be linked with childoutcomes. Salient aspects of maternal teaching ap-pear to be guided assistance, flexibility in giving in-structions to match the child’s need, and clear verbal

cues that the child understands, while at the sametime providing information to help the child learnand solve the task.

When the results from the combined reading and teaching patterns are examined, as indicated inTable 5, verbal guidance and language use emerge assalient aspects of maternal interaction strongly linked with child outcomes. The results suggest thatpreschoolers whose mothers provided them withhigh levels of support and guided participationdemonstrated greater school readiness and expressivelanguage use when compared with children who re-ceived low levels of maternal engagement in thestudied activities.

LimitationsNotwithstanding the consistency of findings

obtained in the study, two areas of limitations arenoted. The first limitation was in the choice of thebook for the shared book-reading interaction and thesecond was the ecological validity of specific mea-surement aspects of the study.

Sounds I Hear is a concept book developed by the HIPPY program (Baker et al., 1999) as part of its

preschool curriculum. Narrative texts or storybookshave been most commonly used in exploratory andintervention research on emergent literacy (Payne,

Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Reese & Cox, 1999).The concept book genre is not so commonly used inresearch, as it may not afford the opportunity forparents and children to engage in verbal interactions,such as predictions, bridging and recalling of text,discussion around a story line, and decontextualizedforms of language use. This could be a reason why

we observed such low levels of decontextualized talk.However, in the New Chance Study of mother and

child book-reading interactions (Reichman &McLanahan, 2001), even though a book with moreelements characteristic of narrative texts was used(The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle), similarlow levels of decontextual language use were noted.

A related area of limitation of this study is that wedo not have data regarding the children’s conceptsabout print (Clay, 1993). Information regarding children’s concepts about book orientation, direc-tionality, letters, and words would have offered moreinformation related to school readiness.



The second area of limitation is related to theecological validity of some of the methods and mea-

sures used in the study. The ratings of mothers’ read-ing patterns were based on a one-time (albeit long)observation in the home. The data collection strate-gy used in this study is in keeping with the traditionof large-scale and national evaluations of preschoolinterventions (Brooks-Gunn, Berlin, & Fuligni,2000; Brooks-Gunn, Fuligni, & Berlin, 2004),

which is among one several traditions used to ex-plore and understand the home environment. Othertraditions include intensive repeated observations of literacy interactions between parents and children,

most often occurring in the home (Hart & Risley,1995; Heath, 1983, 1986; Purcell-Gates, 1996), or

primary reliance on maternal interview or survey data (Britto et al., 2002). There are merits to each of these different methodological traditions. Clearly thetradition of intensive repeated observations is themost ecologically valid and perhaps the best for de-signing coding systems and refining hypotheses. Thetradition adhered to in the present study typically follows from the more intensive approach, using in-formation from that tradition and applying it instudies such as the present one, which are large-scaleand often multisite initiatives.


Child OutcomesMean (SD )

Estimated meana

Expressive language use Receptive vocabulary School readiness

Reading patterns Story-readers 7.41 (3.9) 82.24 (12.82) 28.41 (8.62)

7.54 82.59 29.18

Story-tellers 13.81 (5.29) 85.75 (13.45) 28.83 (9.65)12.66 81.01 28.88

Teaching patterns Low Support & Low Teaching 7.05 (4.62) 82.37 (13.44) 27.29 (8.92)

7.23 82.06 28.39

Support & Low Teaching 10.78 (6.39) 80.76 (10.51) 28.33 (8.81)10.37 80.61 28.43

Support & Teaching 11.46 (5.43) 87.92 (12.75) 31.56 (7.92)10.81 85.14 31.84

Combined reading and teaching patterns Story-readers/Low Support & Low Teaching 6.81 (4.25) 82.84 (13.47) 26.96 (9.02)

6.92 83.10 28.01

Story-readers/Support & Low Teaching 7.87 (4.03) 80.48 (10.83) 28.64 (8.86)7.85 81.23 27.72

Story-readers/Support & Teaching 8.29 (2.95) 86.93 (13.94) 32.02 (7.45)8.55 86.89 33.07

Story-tellers/Low Support & Low Teaching 9.66 (8.50) 78.33 (15.30) 31.38 (9.20)9.51 73.77 31.04

Story-tellers/Support & Low Teaching 13.46 (5.14) 83.25 (10.08) 28.83 (9.48)12.29 82.24 30.43

Story-tellers/Support & Teaching 15.50 (4.55) 91.55 (15.93) 30.14 (10.05)14.47 82.96 30.05

Note . a Estimated means controlling for child age, maternal age at birth of child, maternal language ability, and high school graduation. No standarddeviations reported with estimated means.

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR CHILD OUTCOMES BY MATERNAL READING

AND TEACHING PATTERNS




Nonetheless, large-scale evaluations suffer fromecological limitations in that the sample of the be-havior observed may not be representative of the dai-ly behavioral patterns of interaction. At the sametime, these one-time behavior samples, including

videotaped observations of maternal behavior, havebeen associated with later child outcomes, even aftercontrolling for sociodemographic factors (Berlin,Brady-Smith, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002; Collins et al.,2000; Leventhal, Selner-O’Hagan, Brooks-Gunn,Bingenheimer, & Earls, 2004; Maccoby & Martin,1983). As with any single assessment of parent andchild interactions, the findings obtained in this study should be interpreted with caution.

Related to the issue of ecological validity of data collection traditions is the issue of the relevanceof measures for population subgroups, especially interms of socioeconomic and racial and ethnic diver-

sity. In the present study, we used a combination of several naturalistic and structured observational mea-sures. Some of these measures, such as the problem-solving coding system, were developed for use with a similar sociodemographic population in Baltimore,namely young, economically disadvantaged, primari-ly African American mothers (Brooks-Gunn &Chase-Lansdale, 1995). However other measures,such as the HOME inventory, were developed with a different sample. Analyses of the relevance and ap-plicability of the HOME inventory across racial andethnic groups indicate a similar scale structure for

black and white families, with lower levels noted forblack than white families (Bradley, 2004; Bradley,Casey, & Caldwell, 1997; Bradley, Mundform,

Whiteside, Casey, & Barrett, 1994; Brooks-Gunn &Markman, 2005; Sugland et al., 1995). For instance,for the parental Warmth subscale, racial/ethnic dif-ferences were observed with African American par-ents obtaining lower ratings than European

American parents (Bingenheimer, Leventhal,Raudenbush, & Brooks-Gunn, in press).

The relevance of another measure used in thepresent study, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test(PPVT–R), has been questioned when used with

specific population subgroups (Washington & Craig,1992). In particular, the PPVT–R has been associat-ed with disproportionately lower scores for African

American children. In the present study, the childrenon average scored one standard deviation below thenormative mean of this test. Even though the recep-tive vocabulary scores are in accordance with othersamples of young low-income children, they stillcluster around the lower end of the distribution. It ispossible that maternal reading and teaching patterns

were not associated with children’s receptive vocabu-

lary due to the truncated scores on this test.Therefore, it is possible that the speculated limitedapplicability of the measure for the present study sample could be implicated in the lack of associationnoted between maternal reading and teaching pat-

terns and child outcomes.

Strengths Even though the literature is replete with stud-

ies implicating storybook reading in children’s acade-mic achievement, most studies have relied onfrequency counts to establish these links(Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). More nuancedanalyses of specific aspects of language use are rarer, asis an examination of maternal interaction patterns ingeneral. In the present study, we attempted to fill thegap in the literature by examining maternal and child

interactions across two commonly occurring activitiesin the home. Book reading is considered a fairly com-mon activity based on two sets of criteria, availability of printed matter in the home and frequency of daily reading. National data sets indicate that a majority of preschool-age children have access to 10 or morebooks in the home, in addition to a newspaper ormagazine subscription (Leventhal, Martin, &Brooks-Gunn, 2004). In the present study, based onthe HOME inventory, 52% of families had morethan 10 children’s books, and 48% had more than 10adult books in the home. Indicators of frequency of

shared book reading from national data suggest that just short of 50% of low-income, or single-parent, orblack families report daily book reading to their 3- to5-year-old children (Britto et al., 2002).

Most work on parent and child book reading thus far has been conducted with small sample sizes(e.g., Reese & Cox, 1999). In the present study, weobserved, transcribed, and coded book-reading inter-actions between 126 mother-and-child dyads, whichis one of the largest sample sizes in the present litera-ture. Additionally, all of these findings are particular-ly strong given that maternal verbal ability wascontrolled for in the regression models. Previous

work has not done so, even though language use andability have strong links. By not controlling for ma-ternal language ability, prior work could be suscepti-ble to problems of selection bias.

Implications for research and practice We do not know much about why parents

choose the reading and teaching strategies that they use. For example, it has been noted that mothers withhigher educational expectations for their children




BROOKS-GUNN, J., KLEBANOV, P.K., & DUNCAN, G.(1996). Ethnic differences in children’s intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics.Child Development , 67 , 396–408.

BROOKS-GUNN, J., & MARKMAN, L. (2005). The contributionof parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children , 15 , 139–168.

BURCHINAL, M.R., CAMPBELL, F.A., BRYANT, D.M., WASIK,B.A., & RAMEY, C.T. (1997). Early intervention and mediating process-es in cognitive performance of children of low-income African-Americanfamilies. Child Development , 68 , 935–954.

BUS, A.G. (2001). Joint caregiver-child storybook reading: A route toliteracy development. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.),Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 179–192). New York: Guilford.

BUS, A.G., VAN IJZENDOORN, M.H., & PELLEGRINI, A.D.(1995). Joint book reading makes success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research , 65 , 1–21.

CHASE-LANSDALE, P.L., & BROOKS-GUNN, J. (1994).Correlates of adolescent pregnancy & parenthood. In C.B. Fisher & R.M.Lerner (Eds.), Applied developmental psychology (pp. 207–236).Cambridge, MA: McGraw-Hill.

CLAY, M.M. (1993). An observational survey of ear ly literacy assessment . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

COHEN, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences .

New York: Wiley.COLLINS, W.A., MACCOBY, E.F., STEINBERG, L., HETHER-

INGTON, E.M., & BORNSTEIN, M.H. (2000). Contemporary re-search on parenting: A case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist ,55 , 218–232.

CRAIN-THORESON, C., DAHLIN, M.P., & POWELL, T.A.(2001). Parent-child interaction in three conversational contexts:Variations in style and strategy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 92 , 23–38.

DE TEMPLE, J. (1993). Coding system for home book reading .Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education.

DE TEMPLE, J.M., & TABORS, P.O. (1994, December). Styles of interaction during a book reading task: Implications for literacy intervention with low-income families . Paper presented at the National Reading Conference annual meeting, San Diego, CA.

DICKINSON, D.K., & BEALS, D.E. (1994). Not by print alone:Oral language supports for early literacy development. In D.F. Lancy

(Ed.), Children’s emergent literacy: From research to practice (pp. 29–40). Westport, CT: Praeger.DICKINSON, D.K., DE TEMPLE, J.M., & HIRSCHLER, J.A .

(1992). Book reading with preschoolers: Co- construction of text at homeand school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 7 , 323–346.

DICKINSON, D.K., & TABORS, P.O. (2001). Beginning with literacy and language: Young children learning at home and at school .Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

DUNCAN, G., & BROOKS-GUNN, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor . New York: Russell Sage.

DUNCAN, G.J., BROOKS-GUNN, J., & KLEBANOV, P.K.(1994). Economic deprivation and early-childhood development. Child Development , 65 , 296–318.

EWERS, C.A., & BROWNSON, S.M. (1999). Kindergarteners’ vo-cabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading,prior vocabulary, and working memory. Reading Psychology , 20 , 11–20.

GADSDEN, V.L. (1995). Literacy and poverty: Intergenerational is-sues within African-American families. In H.E. Fitzgerald, B.M. Lester, &

B. Zuckerman (Eds.), Children of poverty: Research, health, and policy issues (pp. 85–124). New York: Garland.

GELBART, O. (1983). Sounds I hear (D. Kriss, Trans.). Jerusalem:HIPPY USA.

HADEN, C.A., REESE, E., & FIVUSH, R. (1996). Mothers’ extra-textual comments during storybook reading: Stylistic differences over timeand across texts. Discourse Processes , 21, 135–169.

HAMMER, C.S. (2001). “Come sit down and let mama read”: Book reading interactions between African-American mothers and their infants.In J.L. Harris, A.G. Kamhi, & K.E. Pollock (Eds.), Literacy in African-

American communities (pp. 21–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.HAMMETT, L.A., VAN KLEECK, A., & HUBERTY, C.J. (2003).

Patterns of parents’ extratextual interactions during book sharing withpreschool children: A cluster analysis study. Reading Research Quarterly ,38 , 444–467.

HART, B., & RISLEY, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children . Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

HART, B., & RISLEY, T.R. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

HAVEMAN, R., & WOLFE, B. (1995). The determinants of chil-dren’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature , 23 , 1829–1878.

HEATH, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms . New York: Cambridge University Press.

HEATH, S.B. (1986). Taking a cross-cultural look at narratives.Topics in Language Disorders , 7 , 84–94.

HOFF, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differ-ences in parent-to-child speech. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp.145–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

HOFF-GINSBERG, E., & TARDIFF, T. (1995). Socioeconomicstatus and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

JENCKS, C., & PHILLIPS, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black-white test score gap . Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

KISKER, E., RANGARAJAN, A., & BOLLER, K. (1998). Moving into adulthood: Were the impacts of mandatory programs for welfare-dependent teenage parents sustained after the programs ended? Princeton, NJ:Mathematica Policy Research.

KLEBANOV, P.K., BROOKS-GUNN, J., & DUNCAN, G.J.(1994). Does neighborhood and family poverty affect mothers’ parenting,mental health, and social support? Journa l of Marr iage and the Family ,56 , 441–455.

KLECKA, W.R. (1980). Discriminant analysis . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.LANDRY, S.H., SMITH, K.E., MILLER-LONCAR, C.L., &

SWANK, P.R. (1997). Predicting cognitive-linguistic and social growthcurves from early maternal behaviors in children at varying degrees of bi-ologic risk. Developmental Psychology , 33 , 1–14.

LEE, V., BROOKS-GUNN, J., SCHNUR, E., & LIAW, T. (1990). Are Head Start effects sustained? A longitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and otherpreschool programs. Child Development , 61, 495–507.

LEVENTHAL, T., MARTIN, A., & BROOKS-GUNN, J. (2004).The EC-HOME across five national datasets in the third to fifth year of life Parenting: Science and Practice , 4 , 161–188.

LEVENTHAL, T., SELNER-O’HAGAN, M.B., BROOKS-

GUNN, J., BINGENHEIMER, J.B., & EARLS, F. (2004). TheHomelife Interview from the Project on Human Development in ChicagoNeighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environment for 3to 15 year olds. Parenting: Science and Practice , 4 , 211–241.

LINVER, M.R., BROOKS-GUNN, J., & CABRERA, N. (2004).The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME)inventory: The derivation of conceptually designed subscales. Parenting , 4,99–114.

LUTHAR, S. (1999). Poverty and children’s adjustment . ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

MACCOBY, E.E., & MARTIN, J.A. (1983). Socialization in thecontext of family: Parent-child interaction. In P.H. Mussen & E.M.Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, person- ality, and social development (pp. 1–102). New York: John Wiley.

MACWHINNEY, B. (1991). The CHILDES project: Tools for ana- lyzing talk . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

MACWHINNEY, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for ana- lyzing talk (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

MAYNARD, R. (1995). Teenage childbearing and welfare reform:Lessons from a decade of demonstration and evaluation research. Children and Youth Services Review , 17 , 309–332.

NICHD EARLY CHILD CARE RESEARCH NETWORK. (2001).Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Applied Developmental Psychology ,22 , 457–492.

OGBU, J.U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-eco-logical perspective. Child Development , 52 , 413–429.

PAYNE, A.C., WHITEHURST, G.J., & ANGELL, A.L. (1994).The role of home literacy environment in the development of languageability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 9 , 427–444.

PELLEGRINI, A.D., GALDA, L., JONES, I., & PERLMUTTER, J.(1995). Joint reading between mothers and their Head-Start children:




Vocabulary development in two text formats. Discourse Processes , 19 ,441–463.

PHILLIPS, M., BROOKS-GUNN, J., DUNCAN, G.J., KLE-BANOV, P.K., & JENCKS, C. (1998). Family background, parenting practices, and the black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips(Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 103–145). Washington, DC:Brookings Institute.

POPE, S., CASEY, P., BRADLEY, R., & BROOKS-GUNN, J.(1993). The effect of intergenerational factors on the development of low birth weight infants born to adolescent mothers. Journal of the American Medical Association , 269 , 1396–1400.

PURCELL-GATES, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide :Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent knowl-edge. Reading Research Quarterly , 31, 406–428.

QUINT, J., BOS, J., & POLIT, D. (1997). New chance: Final report on a comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children .New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

RADLOFF, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depressionscale for research in the general population. Applied Psychologi cal Measurement , 1, 385–401.

RAIKES, H., PAN, B., TAMIS-LEMONDA, C., BROOKS-GUNN, J., ET. AL. (2005). Parent child book reading in infants and tod- dlers . Manuscript submitted for publication.

REESE, E., & COX, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading af-fects children’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology , 20 , 20–28.

REICHMAN, N.E., & MCLANAHAN, S.S. (2001). Self-sufficiency programs and parenting interventions: Lessons from New Chance and theTeenage Parent Demonstration. SRCD: Social Policy Report , 15 .

SARACHO, O.N. (1997). Perspectives on family literacy. Early Child Development and Care , 127–128 , 3–11.

SCARBOROUGH, H.S., & DOBRICH, W. (1994). On the effica-cy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review , 14 , 245–302.

SCHNUR, E. S., BROOKS-GUNN, J., & SHIPMAN, V. (1992). Whoattends programs serving poor children?: The case of Head Start attendees andnonattendees. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 13 , 405–421.

SENECHAL, M., & LEFEVRE, J. (2001). Storybook reading andparent teaching: Links to language and literacy development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 92 , 39–52.

SENECHAL, M., THOMAS, E., & MONKER, J. (1995).Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology , 87 , 218–229.

SNOW, C.E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships betweenlanguage and literacy in development. Journal o f Research in Childhood

Education , 6 , 5–10.SNOW, C.E., BURNS, M.S., & GRIFFIN, P. (Eds.). (1998).

Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

SONNENSCHEIN, S., & MUNSTERMAN, K. (2002). The influ-ences of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-old’s reading motiva-tions and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,17 , 318–337.

SPIKER, D., FERGUSON, J., & BROOKS-GUNN, J. (1993).Enhancing maternal interactive behavior and child social competence in

low birth weight, premature infants. Child Development , 64 , 754–768.SPRACHMAN, S., CARCAGNO, G.J., & GOODMAN, G.

(1994). Conducting non-traditional data collection: Taking video-taped child development instruments out of the lab and into the field . Princeton, NJ:Mathematica Policy Research.

SUGLAND, B.W., ZASLOW, M., SMITH, J.R., BROOKS-GUNN, J., COATES, D., BLUMENTHAL, C., ET AL. (1995). TheEarly Childhood HOME inventory and HOME-Short Form in differ-ing racial/ethnic groups: Are there differences in underlying structure, in-ternal consistency of subscales, and patterns of prediction? Journal o f Family Issues , 16 , 632–663.

VERNON-FEAGANS, L., HAMMER, C.S., MICCIO, A.,MANLOVE, E. (2001). Early language and literacy skills in low-income

African-American and Hispanic children. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson,(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (pp. 192–210). New York: Guilford.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologi cal processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(Original work published 1934)

WASHINGTON, J.A., & CRAIG, H.K. (1992). Performances of low-income, African American preschool and kindergarten children onthe Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 23 , 329–333.

WHITEHURST, G.J., & LONIGAN, C.J. (1998). Child develop-ment and emergent literacy. Child Development , 69 , 848–872.

A U T H O R S ’ N O T E S

This study is based on a demonstration program and evaluation fund-ed by the Administration for Children, Youth and Families, and the

Assis tant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department forHealth and Human Services (DHHS). The primary evaluation was con-ducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under the direction of Rebecca Maynard. Supplementary data collection and analyses were fund-ed by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Foundation for Child Development(conducted in collaboration with Columbia University and Mathematica Policy Research Inc.), The Spencer Foundation, and the Marx Family Foundation. We would like to acknowledge the central role played by

J.L. Aber and George Carcagno. We would also like to thank theNational Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)Research Network on Child and Family Well-Being for their advice and

assistance on this study. We would like to acknowledge the tremendous ef-forts of Sue Hee Chung and So-Yun Lee, who painstakingly helped intranscribing and coding the mother and child verbal interactions. We

would also like to thank Jeanne De Temple for sharing her expertise andtraining us in the transcription and coding systems. Finally, we wouldlike to acknowledge Susan Recchia’s invaluable comments.

Received May 16, 2003Final revision received February 14, 2005

Accepted February 18, 2005



87

PROCEDURE FOR TRANSCRIPTION AND CODING OF MATERNAL AND CHILD VERBAL INTERACTIONS

• Step 1. Transcription : The verbal interaction between each mother-and-child dyad wastranscribed using the Codes for Human Analysis of Transcripts (CHAT) transcriptionsystem (MacWhinney, 1991; 2000) from the videotaped observations. The CHATsystem provides a standardized format for producing computerized transcripts of

face-to-face conversational interactions (MacWhinney, 2000). Transcribers weretrained to reliability by trainers of the system (J. De Temple and T. Griffin, personalcommunication, February 10, 1994).

• Step 2. Verification of the spoken word : All transcripts after being created were verifiedby an independent transcriber who viewed the videotape while checking the tran-

script to ensure 100% accuracy of the spoken word.

• Step 3. Verification of the transcribing conventions : A third independent transcriberthen checked the transcripts to ensure that they had been formatted as per the tran-scribing conventions of the CHAT system.

• Step 4. Coding the transcripts : Maternal reading patterns are derived from the follow-ing set of five codes (see Table 1): timing of maternal talk; decontextualized languageuse; expressive language use; labeling questions; and positive feedback using theHome-School Coding System (De Temple, 1993; Snow, 1991). Two independentcoders were trained to reliability with the developer of the coding system (J. DeTemple, personal communication, October 15, 1994). Each coder coded all the tran-scripts.

• Step 5. Reliability for coding : The coders then compared each transcript and resolvedall disagreements. The final set of codes for each transcript is based on a 100% agree-ment between both coders.

APPENDIX A



88

DESCRIPTION OF MATERNAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS

Verbal stimulation measures the quality and amount of verbal guidance and cueing themother gave to the child. It also measures the variety and complexity of maternal vo-cabulary during puzzle solving (M = 1.88; SD = 0.76).

Example :Minimal (1 point): Pointing to a puzzle piece, the mother says, “Put it there.”Extremely verbal (3 points): Mother says, “Are these pieces in backward? You need to convert

them.”

Clarity of hints measures the degree to which the mother gave understandable hints in a sensible manner. The mother’s hints had to be simple, age appropriate, and structured

in a succinct manner so the child could follow easily (M = 1.78; SD = 0.75).

Example :Minimal (1 point): Mother does not break down the task, just says, “Fix it.”Extremely (3 points): Mother breaks down the task into small steps in the context of the

hints.

Flexibility in changing directions measures the degree to which the mother was able tobe flexible in her approach in aiding her child to solve the puzzle task. The mothers

were coded on their sensitivity to the child’s ability to understand and their own ability to adjust and change their assistance technique (M = 1.79; SD = 0.69).

Example :

Few instances (1 point): Mother does not adjust her problem-solving strategy to child level;keeps giving the same direction, “Put it there.”Extremely (3 points): Mother combines verbal hints with demonstration depending on child’s

level of understanding, “ Try it this way” then turns the piece and gives it to child and asks childto place it in correct position.

Anticipating the child’s needs includes the mother’s ability to determine when the childloses interest in the task, becomes frustrated, or needs assistance. The mother thenshould have been able to redirect the child immediately and effectively in regenerating

interest in the task by turning the child’s attention to a more profitable action (M =2.25; SD = 0.64).

Example :Virtually absent (1 point): Mother lets child work for a long time on nonproductive aspects

of the puzzle, like just looking at the puzzle pieces, without redirecting the child to more con-structive aspects, like putting the pieces together.

Constantly (3 points): Mother allows child enough time to manipulate the pieces withoutgetting frustrated or disinterested.

Encouragement measures the degree to which the mother encourages the child through-

out the task to participate and to be involved in the solution process. To receive pointson this scale the mother should verbally praise the child, make positive comments, andgive positive feedback (M = 1.97; SD = 0.70).

APPENDIX B



DESCRIPTION OF MATERNAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS (CONTINUED)

Example :Virtually absent (1 point): Mother offers virtually no praise or encouragement.Constantly (3 points): There are at least 5 or more encouraging statements such as “You did

it!” “I know you can do it, go ahead.”

Motivation measures the degree to which the mother positively motivates the child tocomplete the task. This involves focusing the child’s attention on the task in an inter-

esting and enthusiastic manner and creating an active role for the child (M = 1.79; SD

= 0.60).

Example :

Virtually no enthusiasm (1 point): Mother focuses on external factors, such as “[Data collec-tor] wants you to do this puzzle.”

Extremely (3 points): Mother sets the mood, interested and excited, “Let’s finish the puzzleso we can see what it is!”

APPENDIX B

maternal reading and teaching

Documents