Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Chapter Twelve: The Focus Child's Experiences in the Family Child Care Home
Descriptions of the family child care environment in terms of provider behavior and physical characteristics of the home can give us a sense of what life is like for children being cared for in the home, but this information cannot really tell us what an individual child might be experiencing. For that, we undertook an observation that focused on one child in the child care home to understand what that child does while in care, the type and amount of interactions with other children and adults in the home, and the type and amount of the child’s language experiences with other children and adults. This picture of care from the child’s point of view is a valuable addition to the provider-centered descriptions of care that dominate the literature. In addition, in this study, we are focusing on specific families and a selected child in each family—the focus child. We talk with parents about their choice of care for that particular child and how it fits with their job schedule. By developing a picture of the focus child’s experiences in care, we will be able, in subsequent analyses, to link the parent’s needs and attitudes to the child’s experiences.
The information on the focus child comes from the Child-Focused Observation. This measure provides detailed information on the child in six intensive five-minute observation periods,31 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 a relative’s home, there is probably a consensus of opinion on the importance of the experiences described above, in any care setting, including the child’s own home.
Below we describe the results from the Child-Focused Observation, organized around these seven aspects of the child’s experiences in care. 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 talk about the findings in terms of percent of time.
Child Object Play
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 reported in Chapter 11 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 measure, ranging from the most simple (carrying objects, mouthing them), which are typical for very young children, to the most complex, using the object as a prop in dramatic play, as something other than what the object was originally intended for (i.e., using a block as a telephone). The most frequent type of object play was functional object play, which represents using objects just as they are intended to be used (Exhibit 12-1). Creative and dramatic play were both relatively rare.
High-level object play involves creative use of objects (in this scheme, creative and dramatic play with objects). This high-level use of objects occurred only 9 percent of the time. We would expect to see the frequency of this type of play increase with the child’s age, but, as Exhibit 12-1 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 7 percent to 13% ), among school-age children it was again quite low (8%).
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Preschool % |
School-Age % |
All Focus Children % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No object play | 52.4 | 46.6 | 47.1 | 48.7 |
| Carry, mouth objects | 10.5 | 7.1 | 6.0 | 7.8 |
| Manipulate objects | 9.9 | 6.7 | 5.4 | 7.3 |
| Functional use of objects | 20.3 | 26.4 | 33.9 | 27.1 |
| Creative play with objects | 4.1 | 7.7 | 3.5 | 4.9 |
| Dramatic play with objects | 2.9 | 5.5 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| Any object play | 47.6 | 53.4 | 52.9 | 51.3 |
| High-level object play b | 6.9 | 13.2 | 7.6 | 9.1 |
| Sample size | 180 | 162 | 200 | 542 |
|
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 |
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 12-2). 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.
The amount of high-level object play was related to the age mix of children in the home. Homes with only young children tended to have very little high-level play, as would be expected (Exhibit 12-3). Homes with only older children, however, also had very little high-level object play, which suggests that these homes may not encourage the kind of play with objects that represents more advanced developmental levels. This finding is consistent with the trend toward a higher frequency of television-watching in homes caring for older children.
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No object play | 48.1 | 49.5 | 48.6 | 48.7 |
| Carry, mouth objects | 8.8 | 7.6 | 7.4 | 7.8 |
| Manipulate objects | 8.1 | 7.7 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
| Functional use of objects | 28.9 | 25.7 | 26.9 | 27.1 |
| Creative play with objects | 2.6 | 4.8 | 6.3 | 4.9 |
| Dramatic play with objects | 3.5 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| Any object play | 51.9 | 50.5 | 51.4 | 51.3 |
| High-level object play b | 6.1 | 9.5 | 10.5 | 9.1 |
| Sample size | 146 | 142 | 254 | 542 |
|
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. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Infant/ Toddler/ Preschl % |
Infant/ School-Age % |
Preschl/ School-Age % |
School-Age Only % |
All Age Groups % |
All Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No object play | 49.2 | 51.0 | 48.2 | 47.8 | 47.9 | 48.1 | 48.7 |
| Carry, mouth objects | 14.0 | 8.7 | 9.8 | 7.3 | 5.6 | 6.5 | 7.8 |
| Manipulate objects | 11.3 | 7.2 | 9.4 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Functional use of objects | 21.4 | 24.4 | 28.1 | 30.3 | 39.2 | 26.0 | 27.1 |
| Creative play with objects | 2.1 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 7.1 | 4.9 |
| Dramatic play with objects | 2.0 | 4.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 4.8 | 4.1 |
| Any object play | 50.8 | 49.0 | 51.8 | 52.2 | 52.1 | 51.9 | 51.3 |
| High-level object play b | 4.1 | 8.6 | 4.5 | 11.0 | 3.9 | 11.9 | 9.1 |
| Sample size | 37 | 103 | 68 | 39 | 48 | 247 | 542 |
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.
Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Focus Child’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. The observation system categorizes children’s social play into six types that form a sequence from the earliest social activity, parallel play, to social pretend play that involves planning a social activity, allocating and taking on social roles, and pretending to be someone you are not.
Children age 3 and older spent around 70 percent of their time playing with other children; similarly infants and toddlers spent 65 percent of their time in peer play (Exhibit 12-4).32 Simpler forms of social play (simple socializing and parallel play) accounted for the majority of the interactions among children regardless of their age—together they represented nearly half of the social interactions among children. High-level forms of social play—those that require the child to take another child’s perspective, to collaborate, to take turns—are defined as including reciprocal interactions, social pretend play, and games with rules. On average, children engaged in these kinds of high-level play about 13 percent of the time. The amount of higher-level play increased with age of child (Exhibit 12-4). Both preschool and school-age children engaged in higher-level play with peers about three times as often as the youngest children. This pattern is what we would expect, since higher-level social interactions require the development of cognitive skills such as perspective-taking and planning that typically do not emerge until children are at least age 3 or 4 years.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Preschool % |
School-Age % |
All Focus Children % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solitary play | 35.2 | 28.8 | 30.3 | 31.5 |
| Parallel/parallel aware play | 36.5 | 0 | 0 | 12.2 |
| Simple social play | 22.7 | 55.3 | 53.3 | 43.7 |
| Reciprocal play | 3.0 | 8.9 | 8.8 | 6.9 |
| Games with rules | 0.8 | 1.2 | 2.3 | 1.5 |
| Social pretend play | 1.8 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 4.3 |
| Any play with peers | 64.8 | 71.2 | 69.7 | 68.5 |
| High-level play with peers b | 5.6 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 12.6 |
| Play with goals c | 28.9 | 44.4 | 47.1 | 40.3 |
| Sample size | 168 | 150 | 187 | 505 |
|
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 |
The pattern of play among children was related to the type of home (Exhibit 12-5). Homes with no or some related children had more peer play overall and more higher-level play, compared with homes with all related children.
Another way of thinking about children’s play is the extent to which it is goal-directed or “planful,” that is, whether the child has an objective towards which they organize and direct their play. 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. Across all ages, children engaged in play with goals about 40 percent of the time (Exhibit 12-4). This varied substantially with the age of child, however. Children under 3 years of age engaged in goal-directed play 29 percent of their time, compared with over 40 percent of the time for preschool and school-age children (Exhibit 12-4). The amount of planful behavior varied somewhat by type of home (Exhibit 12-5). Homes in which no children were related to the provider, had play with goals occurred 43 percent of the time, compared with 38 percent in homes with some related children and 36 percent in homes with all related children.
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solitary play | 50.2 | 31.5 | 22.7 | 31.5 |
| Parallel/parallel aware play | 4.1 | 12.2 | 15.9 | 12.2 |
| Simple social play | 36.1 | 43.9 | 47.1 | 43.7 |
| Reciprocal play | 6.1 | 6.2 | 7.7 | 6.9 |
| Social pretend play | 3.3 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| Games with rules | 0.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| Any play with peers | 49.8 | 68.5 | 77.3 | 68.5 |
| High-level play with peers b | 9.6 | 12.5 | 14.1 | 12.6 |
| Play with goals c | 36.3 | 38.4 | 43.2 | 40.3 |
| Sample size | 116 | 139 | 250 | 505 |
|
a Percentage = percent of observations in which child engages in each type of peer play b High-level peer play defined as a 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. As would be predicted, the overall amount of social play was lowest in homes with infants and toddlers (Exhibit 12-6). High-level social play varied widely across homes, ranging from 1 percent in homes with only children less than 3 years of age, up to 23 percent in homes with preschool and school-age children but no younger children.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Infant/ Toddler/ Preschl % |
Infant/ School-Age % |
Preschl/ School-Age % |
School-Age Only % |
All Age Groups % |
All Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solitary play | 47.4 | 33.4 | 43.0 | 24.5 | 36.3 | 26.3 | 31.5 |
| Parallel/parallel aware play | 29.5 | 19.8 | 10.3 | 0 | 0 | 11.9 | 12.2 |
| Simple social play | 22.1 | 35.8 | 40.9 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 47.7 | 43.7 |
| Reciprocal play | 0.3 | 5.5 | 3.2 | 13.1 | 10.6 | 7.6 | 6.9 |
| Social pretend play | 0.0 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 4.9 | 4.3 |
| Games with rules | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| Any social play | 52.5 | 66.6 | 57.0 | 75.5 | 63.7 | 73.7 | 68.5 |
| High-level play with peers b | 1.0 | 11.1 | 5.8 | 22.7 | 16.5 | 14.0 | 12.6 |
| Play with goals c | 22.5 | 35.5 | 33.2 | 51.3 | 49.9 | 42.5 | 40.3 |
| Sample size | 25 | 93 | 65 | 38 | 40 | 244 | 505 |
a Percentage = percent of observations in which child exhibits each type of language.
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 |
Child’s Use of Language
Whatever form of care the young child is in, the environment should encourage the child to use language to communicate his or her thoughts and feelings, exposing the child to increasingly complex language as the child gets older. The observation of the focus child describes the frequency with which the focus child uses language with peers or adults, and whether the language content expresses positive or negative emotions.
In the observations of family child care homes, the focus children, on average, used language about 40 percent of the time (Exhibit 12-7). The amount of language increased substantially with age, from 29 percent for children who are infants and toddlers to 41 percent among preschoolers. However, the average amount of language was only slightly higher among school-age children (47%). Virtually all of this talk was positive or neutral; there was almost no negative language on the part of the focus child, regardless of age. Children directed their language to both peers and adults in the environment. For the youngest children, language was evenly split between communication to peers and to adults. With preschool children, more of the child’s language was directed to peers, and by the time children are school-age, twice as much language was directed toward peers as toward adults.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Preschool % |
School-Age % |
All Focus Children % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any language by focus child | 29.2 | 41.5 | 47.2 | 39.5 |
| Positive/neutral talk to peer(s) | 11.1 | 20.2 | 28.7 | 20.3 |
| Positive/neutral talk to adult | 12.0 | 14.9 | 9.9 | 12.1 |
| Positive/neutral talk to peer(s) & adult(s) | 5.2 | 5.7 | 8.3 | 6.5 |
| Negative talk to peer(s) | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Negative talk to adult | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Negative talk to peer(s) & adult(s) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Any positive/neutral talk b | 28.2 | 40.8 | 46.9 | 38.9 |
| Any negative talk c | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to peer(s) d | 16.2 | 25.9 | 37.0 | 26.8 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to adult(s) e | 17.2 | 20.5 | 18.2 | 18.5 |
| Sample size | 180 | 162 | 200 | 542 |
|
a Percentage = percent of observations in which child exhibits each type of language. b Includes positive/neutral talk to peers or adults. c Includes negative talks to peers or adults. d Includes postive/neutral talk to peers only or to peers and adults. e Includes positive/neutral talk to adults only or to adults and peers. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any language by focus child | 38.3 | 40.5 | 39.7 | 39.5 |
| Positive/neutral talk to peer(s) | 15.7 | 21.8 | 22.1 | 20.3 |
| Positive/neutral talk to adult(s) | 17.3 | 10.5 | 10.0 | 12.1 |
| Positive/neutral talk to peer(s) & adult(s) | 4.7 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 6.5 |
| Negative talk to peer(s) | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Negative talk to adult(s) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Negative talk to peer(s) & adult(s) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Any positive/neutral talk b | 37.7 | 39.7 | 39.0 | 38.9 |
| Any negative talk c | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to peer(s) d | 20.4 | 29.3 | 29.0 | 26.8 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to adult(s) e | 22.0 | 17.9 | 16.9 | 18.5 |
| Sample size | 146 | 142 | 254 | 542 |
a Percentage = percent of observations in which child exhibits each type of language.
b Includes positive/neutral talk to peers or adults.
c Includes negative talks to peers or adults.
d Includes postive/neutral talk to peers only or to peers and adults.
e Includes positive/neutral talk to adults only or to adults and peers.
Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
The child’s use of language is remarkably constant across types of homes: Children in all three types of homes used language around 40 percent of the time (Exhibit 12-8). The one difference was the amount of language directed to an adult. In homes where all children were related to the provider, children directed about the same amount of language to adults and to peers whereas, in the other homes, focus children directed nearly two-thirds of their language to peers. The ratio of children to provider in relative care was about half the size of the ratio in other types of homes, and this may explain why children in relative care spent more time talking to an adult.
Since the results show that the pattern of children’s language varies by the age of the child, it is not a surprise that the pattern of children’s language with others was related to the age mix of children in the home (Exhibit 12-9). In homes with all young children, the overall amount of language was lowest (22%). The amount of language varied narrowly between 40 percent and 44 percent, depending on the mix of young and older children. Also, in the homes with only children under 3 years of age, more of the children’s language was directed to adults.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Infant/ Toddler/ Preschl % |
Infant/ School-Age % |
Preschl/ School-Age % |
School-Age Only % |
All Age Groups % |
All Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any language | 22.3 | 39.7 | 41.0 | 42.7 | 44.3 | 40.2 | 39.5 |
| Positive/neutral talk: peers | 4.4 | 15.6 | 18.9 | 25.0 | 25.3 | 23.1 | 20.3 |
| Positive/neutral talk: adults | 12.7 | 17.0 | 12.1 | 10.6 | 11.5 | 10.3 | 12.1 |
| Positive/neutral talk: peers & adults | 4.6 | 6.0 | 9.4 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.5 |
| Negative talk: peer(s) | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Negative talk: adult(s) | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Negative talk: peers & adults | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Any positive/neutral talk b | 21.8 | 39.0 | 40.5 | 42.3 | 43.8 | 39.4 | 38.9 |
| Any negative talk c | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to peer(s) d | 9.0 | 22.0 | 28.4 | 31.7 | 32.3 | 29.1 | 26.8 |
| Any positive/neutral talk to adult(s) e | 17.3 | 23.0 | 21.5 | 17.3 | 18.5 | 16.2 | 18.5 |
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Number of children/provider | 1.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 2.8 |
| Sample size | 37 | 103 | 68 | 39 | 48 | 247 | 542 |
|
a Percentage = percent of observations in which child exhibits each type of language. b Includes positive/neutral talk to peers or adults. c Includes negative talk to peers or adults. d Includes positive/neutral talk to peers only or to peers and adults. e Includes positive/neutral talk to adults only or to adults and peers. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior Among Children
Understanding the needs and feelings of other children and acting on this understanding through prosocial behavior such as sharing, comforting or providing affection is an important part of social learning. In addition, learning not to express antisocial feelings through hostile, angry, or physical behavior is an important aspect of children’s social development. In the observation, instances of prosocial and antisocial behavior among children are recorded, both instances instigated by the target child and instances directed to the child from other children in the home.
Children rarely acted in an antisocial way, whereas prosocial behavior occurred almost 10 percent of the time (Exhibit 12-10). Prosocial behavior is based on empathy, or the ability to take the part of the other. The abstract cognitive operations such as perspective taking, which typically do not begin to develop until the child is nearing age five, are necessary (if not sufficient) underpinnings for prosocial understanding. Therefore, it is no surprise that the frequency of prosocial behavior increased with the age of the child. It also is not surprising that the frequency of antisocial behavior, although low, decreased for older children, who are learning how to control their antisocial impulses.
As with prosocial and antisocial behavior by the child, there was a low frequency of such behaviors directed to the child (Exhibit 12-10). Also, there was an increased amount of prosocial behavior and less antisocial behavior directed to older focus children. This is not surprising, assuming that children tend to play with other children near their age and we know that, typically, prosocial behavior increases with age while antisocial behavior decreases.
There are not strong differences in the overall amount of the child’s prosocial or antisocial behavior across types of homes (Exhibit 12-11). There was, however, more prosocial behavior by the child towards the provider in homes with only relative care (although it still was relatively rare, occurring only 4 percent of the time). As suggested above, this may be related to the fact that these homes tend to be smaller, with half as many children per provider, on average. There was more prosocial behavior among children in homes with no related children, taking into account behavior initiated by the child to peers and by peers to the child.
Since the results by age of focus child show that amount of prosocial behavior increased with age, it is predictable that amount of prosocial behavior was related to the age mix of children in the home (Exhibit 12-12). Homes with only children under 3 years of age had the least prosocial behavior among children, but the most prosocial and antisocial behavior directed to the adult in the home. Although the overall amount of prosocial behavior was low across all age mixes, homes with only older children had four to five times as much prosocial behavior as homes with only children under 3 years of age.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Preschool % |
School-Age % |
All
Homes % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child to Peer(s), Adult(s) | No prosocial or antisocial behavior | 92.8 | 91.9 | 87.8 | 90.7 |
| Prosocial to peer(s) | 2.8 | 4.6 | 7.6 | 5.1 | |
| Prosocial to adult | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | |
| Prosocial to peer(s) & adult | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 1.5 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
| Antisocial to adult | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) & adult | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Any prosocial behavior to peer(s) | 4.3 | 5.5 | 9.7 | 6.6 | |
| Any antisocial behavior to peer(s) | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
| Any prosocial behavior b | 6.5 | 7.7 | 12.0 | 8.9 | |
| Any antisocial behavior c | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | |
| Peer(s) to Child | No prosocial or antisocial behavior | 95.4 | 95.0 | 91.7 | 93.9 |
| Prosocial behavior to focus child | 4.0 | 4.8 | 8.1 | 5.8 | |
| Antisocial behavior to focus child | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | |
| Sample size | 180 | 162 | 200 | 542 | |
|
a Percentage = percent of observations in which focus child or peer exhibits behavior. b Includes prosocial behavior to peers or adults in home. c Includes antisocial behavior to peers or adults in home. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child to Peer(s), Adult(s) | No prosocial or antisocial behavior | 88.9 | 90.9 | 91.6 | 90.7 |
| Prosocial to peer(s) | 5.4 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.1 | |
| Prosocial to adult(s) | 4.2 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 2.2 | |
| Prosocial to peer(s) & adult (s) | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.5 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
| Antisocial to adult(s) | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) & adult | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Any prosocial behavior to peer(s) | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.8 | 6.6 | |
| Any antisocial behavior to peer(s) | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
| Any prosocial behavior b | 10.6 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 8.9 | |
| Any antisocial behavior c | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | |
| Peer(s) to Focus Child | No prosocial or antisocial behavior | 94.6 | 94.2 | 93.5 | 93.9 |
| Prosocial behavior to focus child | 5.3 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 5.8 | |
| Antisocial behavior to focus child | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| Sample size | 180 | 162 | 200 | 542 | |
a Percentage = percent of observations in which focus child or peer exhibits behavior.
b Includes prosocial behavior to peers or adults in home.
c Includes antisocial behavior to peers or adults in home.
Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Infant/ Toddler/ Preschl % |
Infant/ School-Age % |
Preschl/ School-Age % |
School-Age Only % |
All Age Groups % |
All Homes % |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child to Peer(s)/Adult(s) | No prosocial or antisocial behavior | 91.9 | 92.2 | 87.7 | 86.9 | 88.4 | 91.8 | 90.7 |
| Prosocial to peer(s) | 0.6 | 4.0 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 5.4 | 5.1 | |
| Prosocial to adult(s) | 5.9 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 2.2 | |
| Prosocial to peer(s) & adult (s) | 0.9 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | |
| Antisocial to adult(s) | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Antisocial to peer(s) & adult | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Any prosocial behavior to peer(s) | 1.5 | 5.3 | 8.6 | 9.4 | 8.7 | 6.6 | 6.6 | |
| Any antisocial behavior to peer(s) | 0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |
| Any prosocial behavior b | 7.4 | 7.5 | 12.1 | 12.8 | 11.4 | 7.7 | 8.9 | |
| Any antisocial behavior c | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | |
| Peer(s) to Focus Child | No prosocial/antisocial | 97.9 | 94.9 | 91.8 | 91.2 | 93.8 | 94.0 | 93.9 |
| Prosocial behavior to child | 1.5 | 4.8 | 8.0 | 8.7 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 5.8 | |
| Antisocial behavior to child | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| Sample size | 37 | 103 | 68 | 39 | 48 | 247 | 542 | |
|
a Percentage = percent of observations in which focus child or peer exhibits each type of behavior with focus child. b Includes prosocial behavior to peers or adults in home. c Includes antisocial behavior to peers or adults in home. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Adult Contact with the Focus Child
One of the possible advantages of family child care homes is that the smaller number of children means that each child can receive more individual attention from the provider. In the observations, both the extent of adult monitoring of the child and the amount and intensity of physical contact with the child are recorded.33
On average, there was a high level of contact between adults and focus children in family child care homes—the adults were in visual, verbal or physical contact with the children 88 percent of the time (Exhibit 12-13).34 The most common type of monitoring involved the adult being in the same room as the children, in visual and/or verbal contact but not physically involved. About 18 percent of the time, the caregiver went beyond monitoring and established physical contact with the child; and half of that time, the physical contact involved active play or expressions of affection.
As might be expected, the amount of adult monitoring decreased somewhat with the age of the focus child. School-age children spent more time without adult monitoring (18%, versus 7% for children under 3 years of age and 10% for preschool children). Also, the proportion of adult monitoring that involved physical contact with the child was lower for school-age children than for younger children.
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Preschool % |
School-Age % |
All Focus Children % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No contact with/monitoring of children | 7.1 | 10.3 | 18.2 | 12.2 |
| Visual contact from another room | 4.3 | 9.2 | 10.2 | 8.0 |
| In same room but no contact | 4.4 | 4.8 | 6.4 | 5.2 |
| In same room, visual/verbal contact | 59.5 | 57.3 | 54.1 | 56.9 |
| Low-level physical contact b | 11.5 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 7.4 |
| Moderate physical contact c | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 1.5 |
| High-level physical contact d | 11.2 | 10.7 | 5.5 | 8.9 |
| Any adult contact/monitoring | 92.9 | 89.7 | 81.8 | 87.8 |
| Any adult physical contact | 24.7 | 18.4 | 11.0 | 17.8 |
| Sample size | 180 | 162 | 200 | 542 |
a Percentage = percent of observations in which adult exhibits type of behavior with focus child. b Low-level physical contact: touching child only for necessary discipline, redirection, and physical care. c Moderate physical contact: warm or helpful physical contact. d High-level physical contact: hugging, holding, interactive play. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
The level of adult monitoring of children did not vary much by type of homes (Exhibit 12-14). The pattern of adult monitoring did however vary by age mix in the home. Homes with only children under 3 years had a higher level of adult monitoring, as well as more physical contact between the adult and the children (Exhibit 12-15).
| All Children Related to Provider % |
Some Children Related to Provider % |
No Children Related to Provider % |
All Family Child Care Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No contact with/monitoring of children | 10.4 | 15.4 | 11.4 | 12.2 |
| Visual contact from another room | 8.4 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 8.0 |
| In same room but no contact | 1.4 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 5.2 |
| In same room, visual/verbal contact | 62.5 | 53.0 | 55.8 | 56.9 |
| Low-level physical contact b | 10.4 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 7.4 |
| Moderate physical contact c | 1.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| High-level physical contact d | 6.0 | 9.3 | 10.4 | 8.9 |
| Any adult contact/monitoring | 89.6 | 84.6 | 88.6 | 87.8 |
| Any adult physical contact | 17.4 | 17.1 | 18.4 | 17.8 |
| Sample size | 146 | 142 | 254 | 542 |
a Percentage = percent of observations in which adult exhibits type of behavior with focus child.
b Low-level physical contact: touching child only for necessary discipline, redirection, and physical care.
c Moderate physical contact: warm or helpful physical contact.
d High-level physical contact: hugging, holding, interactive play.
Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
| Infant/ Toddler % |
Infant/ Toddler/ PreSchl % |
Infant/ School-Age % |
Preschl/ School-Age % |
School-Age Only % |
All Age Groups % |
All Homes % |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No contact/monitoring | 5.1 | 8.4 | 13.6 | 15.6 | 14.9 | 13.4 | 12.2 |
| Visual contact--another room | 1.9 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.2 | 11.2 | 9.5 | 8.0 |
| Same room but no contact | 2.1 | 1.9 | 5.4 | 7.1 | 1.7 | 7.4 | 5.2 |
| Same room, visual/ verbal | 60.3 | 61.8 | 54.9 | 56.1 | 58.7 | 54.6 | 56.9 |
| Low-level physical contact b | 19.9 | 8.1 | 8.8 | 7.1 | 6.3 | 5.1 | 7.4 |
| Moderate physical contact c | 1.5 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| High-level physical contact d | 9.2 | 11.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 6.1 | 8.8 | 8.9 |
| Any adult contact | 94.9 | 91.6 | 86.4 | 84.4 | 85.0 | 86.6 | 87.8 |
| Any adult physical contact | 30.6 | 21.9 | 18.1 | 16.0 | 13.4 | 15.2 | 17.8 |
| Sample size | 37 | 103 | 68 | 39 | 48 | 247 | 542 |
a Percentage = percent of combination in which adult exhibits each level of contact with focus child. b Low-level physical contact-touching child only for necessary discipline, redirection, and physical care. c Moderate physical contact: warm or helpful physical contact. d High-level physical contact: hugging, holding, interactive play. Source: Family Child Care Home Observation: Child-focused Observation |
Adult Language to the Child
One of the most important aspects of the provider’s behavior with children is the language that she directs to them, the amount and the content. Adult language can be a powerful learning tool for children’s own language development, especially if the adult language encourages the child to express his or her own thoughts in increasingly complex ways. In the observation, adult language is described in terms of the extent to which it elicits complex language from the child and the extent to which it c