Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Ten: Children's Experiences in the Family Child Care Home
This chapter and the one that follows discuss the family child care experience from the perspective of the children. In this study, the description of the child's experiences in family child care homes was based on data from two measures--the Environment Snapshot and the Child-Focused Observation. The Snapshot measure is a time-sampled record of the types of activities and child groupings in the home at a given moment in time. Over a half day, the Snapshot was administered every twenty minutes. Each time, a record was made of the activities; the number of children and adults involved in each activity; and the presence of critical events that signal stress or distress among children, such as hostile, negative or disaffected behavior among children, or conflict among adults who are present. Data from the Snapshot provide information on the experience of all the children in the child care home: What is the children's day like? What activities do children get involved in? How much of the time are they monitored by an adult? Is the environment calm and psychologically safe for them?
A second pathway to understanding the experiences of children in family child care comes from an observation measure that focuses on individual children. This picture of care from the child's point of view is an important addition to the provider-centered descriptions of care that dominate the literature. To develop this picture of care, a focus child was selected in each of the families in the study. At the start of the study, this child could be any age from one to nine years. The picture of the care experiences of these focus children was derived from two sources. First, for each of the focal children, we developed a picture of the different care settings the child was in over the three years of the study. Second, we observed the focal children in their care settings, to describe what life was like for individual children in care. This included the children's activities while in care, the types and amount of social interaction with other children and adults in the home, and the types and amount of language experiences with other children and adults.
In this chapter, we first describe the experience of all children in the homes, using data from the Snapshot, and then go on to describe the experience of individual children using the more fine-grained information provided by the Child-Focused Observation measure.
Children's Activities in Family Child Care
The Snapshot was adapted and tested for use in family child care homes and across a range of ages as part of the current study. The first question addressed with data from the Snapshot is, “What activities occur in family child care homes and how much of children's experience does each type of activity account for?”
Counting Activities
For the analysis, we combined the data from all of the Snapshots in each family child care home. (The typical number of Snapshots of a single home was 15.) On each Snapshot, children and adults in the home were distributed into one or more of twenty different activities. To represent the proportion of children's experiences accounted for by each of the activities, we computed a total number of “activity units” that were observed across all of the Snapshots. Activity units are defined on each Snapshot as the total number of times a child (with or without an adult) or an adult alone was involved in each activity. To provide an example, let's assume a hypothetical home with one provider and three children present over the entire observation, and that fifteen Snapshots are completed in the observation. For this home, the maximum number of activity units on each Snapshot is four. Let us further assume that on the first Snapshot, two of the children are observed in fine motor play and the third child is reading with the caregiver. Fine motor play thus accounts for two out of three activity units on that Snapshot, and reading accounts for one activity unit. Let's further assume that the three children and the provider are involved in these same activities on ten of the 15 Snapshots, and that on the other five Snapshots, the children and provider are in outdoor play. The total number of activity units for the observation is (3 x 10) + (3 x 5) or 45. (Note that as long as the provider is involved in an activity with children, she is not included in the computation of activity units.) To compute the proportion of time accounted for by an activity over the day, the number of activity units for that activity across all Snapshots is computed and divided by the total number of activity units. In our example, fine motor play accounts for 20 activity units (2 children x 10 Snapshots). This translates into 20/45 or 44.4% of the activities in the home.1 This approach means that the denominator depends on the number of children present in the home. For ease of reporting, results from these analyzes of the Snapshot data are described in terms of the proportion of activities.
The activities described on the Snapshot are assumed to represent the range of activities likely to be observed in an early childhood care setting. Some of the activities are more important than others, from the perspective of promoting children's development. In some conceptualizations of children's activities, learning and creative activities are defined as representing high-level activity, that is, activity that is likely to promote children's development and learning.
Another conceptualization of children's activities focuses on activities that are able to produce “rich play” (play that promotes learning) and that engage children fully. This conceptualization, based on work by Piaget and Vygotsky, groups activities as follows:
The richest activities [for children] in terms of complex activity evoked almost invariably have two characteristics. In the first place, they have a clear goal and some means (not always obvious) available for its attainment. And secondly they almost always have what for lack of a better name can be called “real-world feedback”—the child most often knows how he is doing, whether it is building, drawing, or doing puzzles without advice from another. He may seek praise or approval. But he knows his progress on his own. These are the “high yield” activities. Somewhat behind them are play involving pretending, play with small-scale toys, and manipulating sand or dough. And well behind these come informal and impromptu games, gross motor play, and unstructured social playing about and “horsing around.” These rarely lead to high–level elaboration of play. Much of the latter unelaborated play appears to be serving the function of release of tension–in physical activity or in sheer social contact and “chatting.”
Bruner (1980, p 60)
In our analyses, we used a schema for grouping activities on the Snapshot that parallels Bruner's definitions and was originally developed as part of our previous work on the preschool care environment.2,3 This schema for categorizing activities was adapted to be appropriate for the wider age range we would encounter in family child care. The schema uses five composite categories used to describe children's activities:
In our earlier observational study of preschool children in center-based care, children's activities (described on a parallel Classroom Snapshot developed at that time for center-based care) were grouped into six categories, based in part on the work of Jerome Bruner.4 The categories represent differences in the extent to which the activities are planful, provide feedback on progress, and evoke elaborated play. Bruner named these activities “high-yield,” because they stimulate children's cognitive development. A similar categorization of activities was developed for the activities described on the Environment Snapshot.
The table below presents the composites and their component activities in this study and those used in the earlier study. As the table shows, the groupings of activities are very similar. The exceptions are primarily because new codes have been added to the Snapshot to make the measure fully appropriate for family child care as well as center care, for example, codes that involve real-life chores that could occur only in homes. (Although the Snapshot includes new codes that apply to very young children, these codes would also be applicable for center care for young children.)
Distribution of Activities
More than a third (34%) of children's activities involved daily routines, including naps, toileting, hand washing, mealtimes, etc. Creative activities constituted 22 percent of the activities, with the category dominated by fine motor play. By contrast, learning activities constituted less than 10 percent of activities (Exhibit 10-1).The distribution of activities was related to both the type of home and the ages of children present. In homes with all related children, there were more routine activities and more television-watching (Exhibit 10-1). In homes with more infants, routine activities were more frequent, while increased frequency of television-watching was observed in homes with more school-age children (Exhibit 10-2). These are linked rather than separate findings: homes with related children were more likely to serve infants and school-age children.
| Activities Construct | Observational Study of Center-Based Care for Low-Income Preschoolers | Current Study of Family Child Care Homes |
|---|---|---|
| Learning activities | Language arts | Numeracy, literacy, homework |
| Math activities | ||
| Reading | Reading | |
| Science activities | Science, nature | |
| Table games, puzzles | Fine motor play (including puzzles) | |
| Sewing, cooking, woodwork | ||
| Creative activities | Art | Arts, crafts |
| Music, dance | Music, dance | |
| Exploration activities | Sand, water | |
| Dramatic play | Dramatic play (includes sensory play) | |
| Group activities | Circle time, planning, discuss | Group time |
| Television | Television, videos, computer | Television, videos, computer |
| Informal activities | Active play | Gross motor play |
| Socializing | Socializing | |
| Field trip | Walk, field trip | |
| Non-constructive behavior | Non-constructive behavior | |
| Real-life chores | ||
| Child awake in swing, crib | ||
| Routines | Physical care | Physical care |
| Lunch, snack | Meal/snack | |
| Arrival, departure | Arrival, departure | |
| Transition between activities | Transition between activities | |
| Nap | Sleep, nap |
Occurrence of Critical Activities
There is increasing awareness of the importance of early learning activities and opportunities for children's development and school readiness. We were sensitive to the fact that these activities could occur more informally in homes than in centers and the coding directions reflected that understanding. For this analysis, we focus on a subset of activities considered to be supportive of children's cognitive and language development. The analysis asks about whether these activities ever occurred in a home (instead of the frequency of the activity).
We observed at least one of the four learning activities in 64 percent of homes (Exhibit 10-3). This means that in a third of homes, no learning activity was observed on the half-day of observation. Reading—either the provider reading aloud or children reading on their own—was observed in only 37 percent of homes. Math or other literacy activities (in addition to reading) were observed in only 38 percent of homes. Creative activities were more common—at least one creative activity was observed in 86 percent of homes. The most frequent creative activity was a fine motor activity such as play with toy cars or small figures.
| Children's Activities | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | ||||
| % | % | % | p-valueb | ||
| Routine activities | All routines | 28.7 | 35.8 | 33.9 | B>A*** |
| Arriving, departing | 2.1 | 2.9 | 2.6 | ||
| Meals, snacks | 9.7 | 9.9 | 9.8 | ||
| Sleeping, resting | 8.5 | 10.0 | 9.5 | ||
| Physical care, toileting | 6.1 | 8.5 | 7.9 | ||
| Transition between activities | 2.3 | 4.5 | 4.0 | ||
| Learning activities | All learning activities | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.3 | ns |
| Science, nature | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | ||
| Math, literacy | 5.0 | 3.8 | 4.1 | ||
| Group time | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.6 | ||
| Reading | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.7 | ||
| Creative activities | All creative activities | 15.8 | 20.5 | 19.3 | B>A*** |
| Pretend play, dramatic play | 3.9 | 5.9 | 5.4 | ||
| Music, dance | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.5 | ||
| Arts, crafts | 3.4 | 3.9 | 3.7 | ||
| Fine motor play | 7.7 | 9.0 | 8.7 | ||
| Activities with media | Television, videos, computers | 24.9 | 15.4 | 17.9 | A>B*** |
| Other informal activities | All informal activities | 22.4 | 20.0 | 20.6 | ns |
| Gross motor play | 9.2 | 8.8 | 8.9 | ||
| Walk, field trip | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.6 | ||
| Informal conversations (not in activity) | 5.7 | 2.8 | 3.6 | ||
| Real-life chores | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | ||
| Child awake in crib, swing | 0.8 | 3.6 | 2.8 | ||
| Non-constructive behavior | 3.6 | 2.9 | 3.0 | ||
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 | ||
| a Percentage = A percentage of all child activities observed across all Snapshots for each home. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
| Children's Activities | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Younger | |||
| % | % | % | % | p-valueb | ||
| Routine activities | All routine activities | 33.4 | 38.1 | 23.4 | 12.1 | B>C,D, A>C *** |
| Arriving, departing | 0.5 | 1.6 | 4.6 | 3.5 | ||
| Meals, snacks | 10.4 | 10.7 | 11.3 | 8.6 | ||
| Sleeping, resting | 11.2 | 11.4 | 2.3 | 8.9 | ||
| Physical care, toileting | 9.1 | 9.6 | 2.8 | 7.3 | ||
| Transition between activities | 2.2 | 4.8 | 2.3 | 3.8 | ||
| Learning activities | All learning activities | 5.7 | 6.9 | 14.0 | 8.9 | C>A,B,D *** |
| Science, nature | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.0 | ||
| Math, literacy | 1.0 | 2.4 | 8.9 | 5.3 | ||
| Group time | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | ||
| Reading | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 2.3 | ||
| Creative activities | All creative activities | 21.0 | 21.3 | 15.4 | 18.0 | ns |
| Pretend play, dramatic play | 4.4 | 6.3 | 4.2 | 4.9 | ||
| Music, dance | 1.1 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.4 | ||
| Arts, crafts | 3.3 | 4.0 | 5.3 | 3.3 | ||
| Fine motor play | 12.2 | 9.3 | 4.8 | 8.3 | ||
| Activities with media | Television, videos, computers | 17.5 | 13.6 | 31.0 | 19.3 | C>A,B,D, *** |
| Other informal activities | All informal activities | 22.3 | 20.1 | 16.0 | 21.8 | ns |
| Gross motor play | 7.8 | 9.1 | 7.5 | 9.2 | ||
| Walk, field trip | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.6 | ||
| Informal conversations | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 4.6 | ||
| Real-life chores | 1.3 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 2.3 | ||
| Child awake in crib, swing | 3.8 | 4.0 | 0 | 2.2 | ||
| Non-constructive behavior | 5.7 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9 | ||
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 | ||
| a Percentage = A percentage of all child activities observed across all Snapshots for each home. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
| Children's Activities | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | ||||
| % | % | % | p-valueb | ||
| Learning Activities | All learning activities | 59.5 | 67.2 | 64.6 | ns |
| Science, nature | 8.7 | 14.8 | 13.1 | ||
| Numeracy, literacy | 39.3 | 36.5 | 37.1 | ||
| Group time | 1.7 | 11.2 | 8.5 | ||
| Reading | 24.9 | 38.2 | 34.6 | ||
| Creative Activities | All creative activities | 71.7 | 83.2 | 79.4 | B > A*** |
| Pretend play, dramatic play | 34.1 | 52.1 | 47.1 | ||
| Music, dance | 10.4 | 26.0 | 36.9 | ||
| Arts, crafts | 26.0 | 41.1 | 62.2 | ||
| Fine motor play | 49.1 | 67.6 | 75.2 | ||
| Television | Television, other media | 84.4 | 67.6 | 75.2 | A > B*** |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 637 | ||
| a Percentage = proportion of homes in which activity observed at least one Snapshot. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
Creative activities occurred in fewer of the homes in which all children were related to the provider. Seventy-two percent of these homes had some learning activities, compared with 83 percent of the homes in which some or no children were related to the provider (Exhibit 10-3).
For many of the activities, the likelihood of their occurring was related to the ages of children in the family-care child home. For example, 38 percent of homes that served only infants and toddlers had some learning activity compared with two-thirds or more of homes that served some school-age children (Exhibit 10-4).
Children were observed watching television or videos in three-quarters of the homes, and in a greater proportion of homes with only related children. In almost all observations, at least one child was watching television.
| Children's Activities | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Younger | |||
| % | % | % | % | p-valueb | ||
| Learning activities | All learning activities | 45.2 | 62.9 | 68.5 | 70.3 | D>A*** |
| Science, nature | 9.5 | 12.4 | 9.3 | 15.4 | ||
| Math, literacy | 11.9 | 28.6 | 46.3 | 47.9 | ||
| Group time | 7.1 | 12.0 | 1.9 | 7.0 | ||
| Reading | 26.2 | 39.0 | 37.0 | 32.5 | ||
| Creative activities | All creative activities | 73.8 | 85.7 | 61.1 | 80.4 | B>C, D>C *** |
| Pretend play, dramatic play | 38.1 | 52.6 | 33.3 | 47.6 | ||
| Music, dance | 11.9 | 26.3 | 11.1 | 21.7 | ||
| Arts, crafts | 31.0 | 40.9 | 25.9 | 37.4 | ||
| Fine motor play | 52.4 | 66.0 | 33.3 | 67.5 | ||
| Activities with media | Television, videos, computers | 78.6 | 68.0 | 87.0 | 81.5 | C>B, D>C *** |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 | ||
| a Percentage = percentage of homes in which activity was observed in at least one Snapshot. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
Indications of Stress
On each Snapshot, indications of stress or unhappiness among the children were noted. These include children crying, listless or withdrawn children, children fighting, or children teasing or bullying other children. In addition, conflict among adults was noted as another potential stress on children in the home. In general, distress was rare in the family child care homes (Exhibit 10-5). Even the most commonly-observed type of distress—children crying—was observed less than 10 percent of the time.
Two indicators of stress occurred significantly more often in homes where there was at least one unrelated child: crying children and listless, uninvolved children both were observed more often in these homes (Exhibit 10-5). The only significant difference in signs of stress related to ages of children present in the home was that homes with infants had significantly more crying, as might be expected (Exhibit 10-6).
| Indicators of Stress | A | B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
| % | % | % | p-valueb | |
| Any child crying | 3.6 | 10.0 | 8.4 | B>A*** |
| 2 or more children crying | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | B>A* |
| Any listless child | 1.3 | 4.8 | 3.9 | B>A***; |
| 2 or more listless children | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | ns |
| Any children fighting | 2.5 | 4.5 | 4.1 | B>A* |
| Any children teasing other children | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.7 | ns |
| Sample size | 172 | 463 | 639 |
| a Percentage = percent of Snapshots in which evidence of stress observed. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
| Indicators of Stress | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Younger | ||
| % | % | % | % | p-valueb | |
| All child crying | 9.1 | 10.0 | 0.3 | 8.3 | A,B,D>C *** |
| 2 or more children crying | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0 | 0.4 | ns |
| Any listless child | 4.4 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 4.2 | ns |
| 2 or more listless children | 0 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | ns |
| All children fighting | 2.0 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 4.5 | ns |
| All children teasing others | 0.8 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 1.9 | ns |
| All conflict among adults | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | ns |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Percentage = percent of Snapshots in which evidence of stress observed. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
Provider Involvement
The Snapshot allows us to assess the extent to which providers are involved in activities with children in contrast to being engaged in activities not involving children, such as doing chores away from the children, talking on the phone, etc. Chapter 10 described observer ratings of levels of provider involvement across the sample of homes. The Snapshot offers objective data on two aspects of provider involvement. First, on each Snapshot, it was noted if the provider was not involved in any activity with children. If the provider was in an activity with children, her activity was coded as engaged with the children or only monitoring them.
Providers spent most of their time with children, although their level of involvement varied. Over half the time (54%), providers were engaged with children in some activity (Exhibit 10-7). By comparison, in an earlier study of center-based programs, staff were actively engaged with children about two-thirds of the time.5 Provider involvement in children's activities was higher in homes with related children (Exhibit 10-7). Also, homes in which there were infants and toddlers had the highest level of provider involvement with children (Exhibit 10-8), perhaps because children this age require more physical care and more adult attention.
| Provider Involvement with Children | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes | Significant Difference by Type of Home |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | |||
| % | % | % | p-valuec | |
| Provider monitors activitya | 91.8 | 86.4 | 87.9 | A > B*** |
| Provider involved in activityb | 59.5 | 52.5 | 54.4 | A > B*** |
| Sample size | 173 | 464 | 641 |
| a Proportion of activities monitored by an adult b Proportion = average proportion of Snapshots in which provider is involved in any activity with children. c Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
| Provider Involvement with Children | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Younger | ||
| % | % | % | % | p-valuec | |
| Provider monitors activitya | 93.4 | 89.3 | 93.2 | 84.8 | A, C>D, ** |
| Provider involved in activityb | 74.3 | 68.4 | 65.2 | 69.7 | A, B > D*** |
| Sample size | 42 | 256 | 53 | 286 |
| a Proportion of activities monitored by an adult b Proportion = average proportion of Snapshots in which provider is involved in any activity with children. c Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
Experiences of Individual Children
The information on the experiences of the focus children in their care settings comes from annual observations of the children. An initial observation was conducted of each focal child in a family child care home. Additional observations were conducted in later waves of data collection if the child changed care settings. Observations were conducted in any new family child care settings; and, for children not yet in school, observations also were conducted of the child in a child care center or other early childhood center-based setting. Observations were not conducted of children in after-school programs.The observations were conducted using the Child-Focused Observation. This measure provides detailed information on the child in six intensive five-minute observation periods,6 distributed over the half day of observation. By scattering the observations, we hoped to capture a more representative picture of the child's life in care. The observation provides information on six aspects of the child's experiences:
-
The kind of object play that the child engages in. The level of his or her object play is an accepted indicator of the child's developmental level.
-
The child's play with peers. These data tell us something about the quality of the child's social life in care. In addition, the level of complexity of the child's level of social interactions provides another indicator of the child's development.
-
The child's language with peers and adults is an important indicator of the child's language learning and overall cognitive development.
-
The prosocial and antisocial behavior that the child exhibits and experiences from peers are critical in the eyes of many parents and early childhood educators. The development of empathy is an important part of our long-term socialization goals for our children, and the expression of prosocial behavior is an indicator of the beginning of this social learning. At the same time, antisocial behavior suggests a child who is not developing and perhaps not being taught about the importance of accommodation and trying to understand the needs and feelings of other people. The observation describes the behavior of the focus child, as well as what the focus child experiences from other children in the setting in terms of antisocial and prosocial behavior.
-
The intensity of the child's contact with the adult(s) in the care environment—this part of the observation tells us whether the child experiences a high level of contact with the adult(s) in the environment, whether he or she experiences any visual or physical contact.
-
The language of adults with the child—again, this information tells us about the language input that the child receives from the adult(s) in the care environment, not only the amount but its qualities—is it in the service of teaching or managing the child, is it positive or negative? The adult in family child care is a major determinant of the quality of the child's experience, and adult language is a good indicator of the relationship between the adult and the child.
It is important to add here that, while there may be some disagreement about the extent to which, for example, the health and safety criteria discussed earlier are reasonably applied to relative care, there is probably more consensus of opinion on the importance of the quality of the child's experiences in the areas described above in any care setting, including the child's own home.
Because the observation is conducted across the half-day of care and because the observations are time-sampled, i.e., carried out on a systematic and consistent schedule during the observations, we present the findings in terms of percentage of time.
Children's Play with Objects
A large part of the child's experiences in care involves activities with objects, play materials, art materials, and/or materials from the natural world. In the child development literature, the level of the child's play with objects has been identified as a mirror into the child's cognitive development. As children develop, their play with objects becomes more complex and abstract, less tied to the actual characteristics of the objects themselves. They use objects imaginatively, as props in their make-believe worlds. This type of object play denotes a level of cognitive development in which the child plans and enacts play behaviors that involve abstract thinking. Good child care environments encourage and support cognitive development by providing materials and by giving children time, space and psychological support for object play.
In the observations, the child was engaged in object play just over half of the time (51%). This amount of object play is, in fact, relatively low, but not unexpected, given the findings from the Environment Snapshot that much of children's time is spent in routine activities or watching television, neither of which involves object play. Six levels of object play are distinguished on the observation measure, ranging from the most simple (carrying objects, mouthing them), which are typical of very young children, to the most complex, where children use objects as something other than what they are originally intended for (i.e., using a block as a telephone). In addition, a variable labeled “high level” object play was created by combining the two most complex types of object play--creative play and dramatic play with objects.
Object play was observed in about half of the observations of children (Exhibit 10-9). Overall, the most frequent type of object play observed was functional object play, in which objects are used just as they are intended to be used. High-level play (creative or dramatic play) was relatively rare--it occurred only 10 percent of the time. We might expect to see the frequency of this type of play increase with age, but, as Exhibit 10-9 shows, this was not true for our sample. Although the amount of high-level object play increased in frequency from infants and toddlers to preschoolers (e.g., increasing from 6 percent to 14 percent), among school-age children it was again quite low (9 percent).
Although the frequency of high-level object play was low in all homes, it was lowest in homes with all related children. The amount of high-level object play was more than 50 percent higher in homes with some or no related children (Exhibit 10-10). This finding could be explained by the difference in ages of children in the homes, since homes with all related children had fewer preschoolers and more infants and school-age children.
| Type of Object Play | Infant/ Toddler |
Preschool | School-Age | All Ages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||
| Carry, mouth objects | 11.8 | 7.4 | 8.1 | 8.6 | |
| Manipulate objects | 8.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 5.2 | |
| Functional use of objects | 19.7 | 24.0 | 29.9 | 25.7 | |
| Creative play with objects | 3.3 | 8.0 | 5.1 | 5.7 | |
| Dramatic play with objects | 2.8 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 4.3 | |
| Summary Variable | Any object play | 46.2 | 50.8 | 50.0 | 49.6 |
| High-level object playb | 6.1 | 14.1 | 8.9 | 10.1 | |
| Sample size | 136 | 210 | 282 | 628 | |
| a Percentage = percent of observations in which child engages in each type of object play. b High-level object play includes creative or dramatic use of objects. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
The amount of high-level object play was related to the age mix of children in the home. Although there was no difference across homes with different age mixes in the amount of object play, there was a different in the amount of high-level play. Homes with only young children present had significantly less high-level play than homes with some older children present, as might be expected (Exhibit 10-10). Homes with only school-age children, however, also had very little high-level object play. One possible explanation is that these homes may not offer opportunities for or encourage the kind of play with objects that represents more advanced developmental levels. This interpretation would be consistent with the trend toward a higher frequency of television-watching in homes caring for older children.
Homes with and without unrelated children also differed in the amount of high-level object play (Exhibit 10-11). High-level play was significantly less frequent in homes in which all children were related to the provider.
| Type of Object Play | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Under 3 Years | All Children Under 5 Years | School-Age Only | School-age and Younger | |||
| % | % | % | % | p-valueb | ||
| Carry, mouth objects | 12.5 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 10.0 | ns | |
| Manipulate objects | 10.2 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.3 | ||
| Functional use of objects | 19.1 | 24.1 | 28.5 | 27.6 | ||
| Creative play with objects | 1.4 | 7.1 | 4.0 | 5.5 | ||
| Dramatic play with objects | 1.8 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 4.6 | ||
| Summary Variables | Any object play | 45.0 | 48.6 | 44.5 | 52.0 | ns |
| High-level object playb | 3.2 | 11.9 | 6.9 | 10.1 | B,D>A** | |
| Sample size | 42 | 247 | 53 | 285 | ||
| a Percentage = percent of Snapshots in which evidence of stress observed. b Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Environment Snapshot |
| Type of Object Play | A | B | All Family Child Care Homes |
Significant Difference by Type of Home | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Children Related to Provider | Some/No Children Related to Provider | ||||
| % | % | % | p-valuec | ||
| Carry, mouth objects | 14.3 | 6.5 | 8.6 | ns | |
| Manipulate objects | 5.7 | 5.0 | 5.2 | ||
| Functional use of objects | 25.1 | 25.9 | 25.7 | ||
| Creative play with objects | 3.1 | 6.7 | 5.7 | ||
| Dramatic play with objects | 3.0 | 4.9 | 4.3 | ||
| Summary Variables | Any object play | 51.2 | 48.9 | 49.6 | ns |
| High-level object playb | 6.1 | 11.6 | 10.1 | B > A*** | |
| Sample size | 173 | 455 | 628 | ||
| a Percentage = percent of observations in which child engages in each type of object play. b High-level object play defined as creative or dramatic uses of objects. c Significance levels: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001; ns=not statistically significant Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Children's Play with Peers
In the same way that the child's play with objects offers a window into his or her development, the child's social play with peers is a measure of his or her stage of thinking and social development. A developmental sequence of six types of social play was defined, moving from the earliest type of social activity, parallel play, to social pretend play that involves children in planning a social activity, and allocating and taking on social roles. In addition, two summary variables were created. The first variable represents “high level” social play, which combined three of the levels of social play—play that requires the child to take another child's perspective (reciprocal play) or to collaborate (social pretend play) or take turns (games with rules).A second variable, play with goals, describes play that is goal-directed or “planful,” that is, in which the child has an objective towards which play is organized and directed. This is defined on the basis of both object play and social play. Planful play is exhibited through (a) types of object play that clearly involve “planned” uses of objects, as shown in functional, creative or dramatic object play, or (b) higher-level play with reciprocity, role-playing or rules. Play with goals comprises high level play because it is based on and requires the child to employ a plan for his/her play, which is a higher order cognitive activity.
The overall level of social play did not vary much with age (Exhibit 10-12).7 Infants and toddlers spent 65 percent of their time in peer play, while children age 3 years and older spent about 70 percent of their time playing with other children. The frequency of different types of social play did vary with age, however. The simpler forms of social play (simple socializing and parallel play) accounted for more than a third of the social interactions among infants and toddlers but less than 3 percent of the interactions among older children. Conversely, high level social play was much less frequent among the youngest children. The amount of high level play increased with age of child. Preschool children engaged in high-level play with peers about three times as often as the youngest children, and school-age children engaged in high-level play with peers more than four times as often. Older children would be expected to engage in more high-level social interactions, since these types of social interactions require cognitive skills such as perspective-taking and planning that typically do not develop until children are at least age 3 or 4 years.
Across all age groups, play with goals occurred about 40 percent of the time (Exhibit 10-12). This varied substantially with the age of child, however. Children under 3 years of age engaged in play with goals 27 percent of their time, compared with over 40 percent of the time for preschool and school-age children.
| Type of Play with Peers | Infant/ Toddler |
Preschool | School-Age | All Ages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | ||
| Solitary play | 40.9 | 33.4 | 36.6 | 36.3 | |
| Parallel play | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.5 | |
| Simple social play | 35.1 | 1.8 | 0 | 8.8 | |
| Reciprocal play | 20.4 | 49.5 | 46.0 | 40.9 | |
| Games with rules | 2.1 | 8.4 | 10.4 | 7.9 | |
| Social pretend play | 0 | 5.6 | 4.1 | 3.7 | |
| Summary Variables | Any play with peers | 59.1 | 66.6 | 63.4 | 63.7 |
| High-level play with peersb | 4.0 | 14.7 | 17.3 | 13.5 | |
| Peer play with goalsc | 27.3 | 43.2 | 44.8 | 40.5 | |
| Sample size | 136 | 210 | 282 | 628 | |
| a Percentage = percent of observations in which child engages in each type of peer play. b High-level peer play defined as reciprocal play, social pretend play, or games with rules. c Play with goals defined as functional, creative or dramatic play with objects, or any high-level peer play. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Since we know that the distribution of types of social play varies by the age of child, it is not unexpected that the patterns of play were related to the age mix of children in the homes. The overall amount of social play was highest in homes with preschool children, as compared with homes with only infants and toddlers or only school-age children. (Exhibit 10-13). High-level social play and play with goals both occurred significantly more frequently in homes with only school-age children, and occurred significantly less frequently in homes with only children younger than 3 years of age.
The pattern of play among children was also related to the type of home (Exhibit 10-14). The overall level of social play was significantly lower in homes with only related children. The two types of high level play also were significantly less frequent in these same homes. High level social play was nearly twice as frequent in homes with some or all unrelated children, compared with homes with all related children.
| Type of Play with Peers | A | B | C | D | Significant Difference by Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|