This article was downloaded by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine]On: 10 November 2014, At: 00:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Education and DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Children's Temperament and Behavior in Montessoriand Constructivist Early Childhood ProgramsShu-Chen Yen & Jean M. IspaPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Shu-Chen Yen & Jean M. Ispa (2000) Children's Temperament and Behavior in Montessori andConstructivist Early Childhood Programs, Early Education and Development, 11:2, 171-186, DOI: 10.1207/s15566935eed1102_3

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1102_3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Education & Development

Volume 11, Number 2, March 2000

Children’s Temperament and Behavior in Montessori and Constructivist Early Childhood Programs

Shu-Chen Yen and Jean M. Ispa

University of Missouri-Columbia

This study tested the hypothesis that curriculum type (Montessori and constructivist) moderates the impact of temperament (specifically activity level and attention-spdpersistence) on the classroom behavior of 3- to 5-year-old children. Mothers enrolled in Montessori and constructivist preschools filled out the Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory. The children’s teachers filled out the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire and the Preschool Adjustment Questionnaire. A near-significant trend suggested that temperamentally active boys were more likely to be perceived by their teachers as having behavior problems if they were enrolled in Montessori programs than if they were enrolled in constructivist programs. There was no such trend for girls. There was no evidence that temperamental attentiodspan persistence moderated the impact of curriculum type on either boys’ or girls’ behavior. The findings thus give modest support to the notion that parents should be advised to select constructivist early childhood programs especially for boys who are temperamentally predisposed to be highly

modifying their teaching practices to better accommodate the needs of these children.

1 active. In addition, directors and teachers in Montessori programs may consider -- 7

I

j

This research was supported by a grant from the Margaret Mangel Faculty Research Catalyst Fund, College of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Missouri. It is based on the dissertation research of the first author. We wish to thank Nancy Knipping and Larry Ganong for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts, and the mothers and teachers who were participants in the research. Correspondence may be ad- dressed to either author: Shu-Chen Yen, who is now at 2210 Buzzard Building, Dept. Early Childhood, Elementary, and Middle Level Education, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920; email: cfsjy@uxl .cts.eiu.edu. Jean Ispa, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, 314 Gentry Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 6521 1. Email: ispaj@missouri.edu.

!

i \

I

I

I

I ! !

i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

172 Yen & lspa

Children’s Temperament and Behavior in Montessori and Constructivist Early Childhood Programs

Interest in the implications of temperament for child outcomes is growing. While most of the research on temperament is focused on relations among the characteristics of family members (e.g., Belsky, Domitrovich, & Crnic, 1997; Kochanska, 1995), a few researchers have examined links between temperament and behavior in the preschool environment. Several studies have shown that high activity level, lack of persistence, and distractibility are associated with classroom behavior problems and poor adjustment in young children (Fagan, 1990; Klein, 1980,1982,1991; Jewsuwan, Lusler, & Kostelnik, 1993). That teachcrs are sensitive to children’s temperaments is demonstrated by Pullis and Cadwell’s (1982) finding that children’s activity levels, persistence, and distractibility are associated with teachers’ decisions about how much monitoring the children need. In addition, Keogh and Burstein (1988) found that within groups of non-handicapped children, teachers interacted most often with children who had positive temperamental characteristics. However, within groups of handicapped children, they interacted most with those who had negative temperamental Characteristics.

As noted by Prior (1992), adverse temperamental characteristics do not necessarily affect children’s school adjustment negatively. Instead, the outcome for each individual child is likely to depend on the particular school experience. According to the “goodness of fit” model (Thomas & Chess, 1977), when a match occurs between environmental demands or expectations and an individual’s abilities and proclivities, development proceeds satisfactorily. Problems may occur when the individual’s characteristics do not match environmental expectations or demands. Accordingly, Keogh (1989) suggested that when one thinks about the concept of “goodness of fit” in the context of schooling, one needs to consider the fit between children and the content of instruction, and the fit between children and teachers. In keeping with this suggestion, Jewsuwan et al. (1993) found that active children are most likely to evoke negative reactions from their teachers when the curriculum is highly structured.

Further research is needed on children’s behavioral adjustment in early child care settings as it is affected by the interaction of children’s temperament and curriculum type. The current study explored relations between temperament and behavioral adjustment in constructivist and Montessori programs. Constructivist and Montessori educational practices are based on differing teaching principles, and these differences may interact with temperament to influence children’s psychological experiences in the classroom.

Constructivism emphasizes children’s hands-on and collaborative learning as a means of fostering conceptual development and deep understanding (Dolk, Uittenbogaard, & Fosnot, 1996; Fosnot, 1996). A balance between child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities is considered important. Thus, while children are to be encouraged to make choices regarding materials and activities, teachers are to actively guide and support their learning efforts and social development (Stipek, Daniels, Galluzzo, & Milburn, 1992). Cooperation between teachers and children and among children themselves is valued because collaboration is viewed as necessary for children to obtain new information from different perspectives (Ertner, & Newby, 1993; Rodgers, 1998).

i

I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 173

Individual activity for the development of concentration and self-discipline rather than collective activity is emphasized in the Montessori approach. “Work“ rather than “play” is encouraged. Even though Montessori defined “work” as intrinsically motivated, thereby agreeing with most definitions of play, she rejected many play activities, such as fantasy and pretense, as inappropriate for the classroom. She thought these play activities are opposed to truth and reality, and should not be encouraged (Montessori, 1916/1965). Instead, teachers are to plan structured and purposeful activities for developing each child’s concentration and self-discipline (Association Montessori Internationale Web Site, 1997). Compared with constructivist teachers, Montessori teachers are likely to’be more active in providing direct instruction but less active in engaging in activities with children; they are supposed to “teach little and observe much” (Montessori, 1964, p. 173) and to enable children to be “the heroes of their own lives” (Lohman, 1988, p. 23).

Because the Montessori emphasis on working quietly for long periods of time seems contrary to active children’s tendencies to be noisy and physically mobile, we hypothesized that temperamentally active children would show more negative behavior problems and less positive adjustment in Montessori than in constructivist classrooms. Conversely, we hypothesized that temperamentally persistent children would show fewer negative behavioral problems and more positive adjustment in Montessori classrooms than in constructivist classrooms. In Montessori classrooms children have ample opportunities to concentrate on projects whereas in constructivist programs they are more likely to be disturbed by interruptions from other children. Evidence that boys are more likely than girls to show negative behavior in child care settings (Crowther, Bond, & Rolf, 198 1; McGuire & Richman, 1986; Prior, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 1989), and our personal impressions over the years that parents of boys are more likely than parents of girls to complain that their children are having adjustment problems in Montessori programs, led us to run separate analyses for boys and girls.

To assess temperament, we asked mothers to complete the Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). Martin (1996) found that maternal ratings of children’s temperament were strongly related to children’s behavior problems. For the current study, only the activity and attention span-persistence subscales were used. For the reasons indicated above, high activity-level and low persistence seem more likely than other traits to prove problematic for children in Montessori preschools, while high persistence seems more likely than other traits to prove problematic for children in constructivist preschools.

Noting that past studies on relations between children’s temperament and their behavioral adjustment in child care centers focused only on negative behavior, Jewsuwan et al. (1993) argued for the use of instruments that measure both positive and negative adjustment. They maintained that since most children are in the normal range of behavioral adjustment, instruments that measure behavioral problems only may not capture the individual differences in adjustment that do exist. Therefore, in the current study two instruments were used: The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (Behar & Stringfield, 1974) to measure behavior problems, and the Preschool Adjustment Questionnaire (Jewsuwan et al., 1993) to measure positive behavioral adjustment. Teachers completed both questionnaires on each child in the study.

1

1

,

I

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

174 Yen & Ispa

Method

Selection of Preschools

Our aim was to include in the sample only Montessori and constructivist preschools that were of equally high quality so that differences in outcomes would be due to differences in educational philosophy rather than to differences in overall quality. The directors of four constructivist classrooms that were recommended as demonstration classrooms by the Project Construct National Center, and the directors of 10 preschools that claimed to follow Montessori principles were contacted by telephone to invite their participation in the study. All the directors agreed to participate.

The first author went with one of two undergraduate observers to each of the child care centers to evaluate its adherence to the constructivist or Montessori philosophy and to assess its overall quality. Selected subscales from two instruments were used - the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measurement (ECCOM) (Stipek, 1996) and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS).

The ECCOM assesses the extent to which classroom practices reflect a social- constructivist, teacher-dominated, andor child-dominated orientation. A different set of descriptors is applied to the evaluation of each of the three orientations. On a scale ranging from 1 (“practices rarely seen”) to 5 (“practices predominate”), observers rate the extent to which classroom practices match each set of descriptors. For the present study, programs promoted as “constructivist” were rated using only the first set of descriptors and programs promoted as Montessorian were rated using only the second set. The third set (assessing child domination) was not used.

Three of the six subscales that make up the ECCOM were used to evaluate the constructivist classrooms. These three subscales, comprised of a total of 14 items (alpha = .98), focus on classroom social climate, learning climate, and management style. The social climate subscale assesses the extent to which respect for individuals and individual differences is apparent in the classroom (sample item and constructivist descriptor: Support for Communication Skills - “Teacher encourages dramatic play that involves extensive elaborate communication”). The learning climate subscale assesses instructional quality, lesson coherence, and standards of learning (sample item and constructivist descriptor: Learning Standards - “There are clear standards that vary depending on individual skill level”). The management subscale assesses teachers’ management and discipline strategies and the extent to which children are given choices and are held responsible for their actions (sample item and constructivist descriptor: Choice of Activities -”Teachers may make broad choices, within which children have some discretion in when and how to accomplish the task “). Scores were averaged to indicate the degree to which the program showed sensitivity to and focus on children’s needs and interests without allowing them complete authority. Classrooms that received an average score of at least 4 were classified as constructivist because a 4 indicates that best practices predominate from 60% to 80% of the time. Of the four classrooms recommended by the National Center of Project Construct, three received an average score of 4 and one received an average score of 5 on the 5-point scale. The ECCOM assessments thus indicated that all four classrooms had implemented constructivist theory well. Inter- rater reliability was computed for all classrooms and ranged from .78 to .98.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 175

All 10 Montessori classrooms were affiliated with the American Montessori Society (AMs) and all 10 head teachers had Montessori teacher certifications. Eight of the teachers had obtained their teacher certifications from AMs; two had obtained them from AMI. All the Montessori classrooms showed appropriate use of Montessori materials. The ECCOM was specifically developed to assess program implementation of constructivist principles; it is therefore not an appropriate screening tool for Montessori programs. Given that the Montessori philosophy calls for considerable teacher direction, for descriptive purposes only, we used three ECCOM items that tap extent of teacher-direction (alpha for the three = .95). The first two were from the social climate subscale and the third was from the learning climate subscale. The first item assesses support for communication skills (sample teacher-directedness descriptor: “Teacher discourages children from using each other as resources”). The second item evaluates support for interpersonal skills (sample teacher- directedness descriptor: “Children spend a lot of time in seated, silent individual work or in teacher-directed groups”). The third item evaluates instructional conversation (sample descriptor: “Teacher dominates instructional conversation; children’s participation is limited”). Higher scores (on 1-5 rating scales) thus represented greater teacher authority. For the item measuring support for communication skills, two classrooms received a score of 5, five classrooms received a 4, one classroom received a 3, and two classrooms received a 2 (M= 3.5, SD = 1.08). For the item assessing support for interpersonal skills, two classrooms received a score of 5, five classrooms received a 4, two classrooms received a 3, and one received a 2 (M = 3.6, SD = .97). For the instructional conversation item, three classrooms received a score of 5, four classrooms received a 4, three classrooms received a 3 (M= 3.8, SD = .71).

The quality of both constructivist and Montessori classrooms was assessed via the ECERS. The ECERS has been widely used by researchers to assess the overall quality of preschool programs. Several studies have shown that preschool quality significantly influences children’s development. Children who attend good quality schools show more exploratory behavior (Anderson, Nagel, Roberts, &Smith, 1981), are more positive (Clarke- Stewart, 1987; Holloway & Reichart-Erickson, 1988), and have better peer relationships (Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992). There are seven subscales and 37 items in the ECERS. Scores for individual items range from a low of 1 to a high of 7. A rating of 3 on these scales indicates minimally acceptable quality, while a 5 indicates very good quality. For this study, 12 items were chosen that are likely to be related to children’s behavior in preschool and that are appropriate goals for Montessori as well as constructivist curricula. These items included “understanding language,” “informal language,” “fine motor,” “supervision (fine motor),” “gross motor space,” “gross motor equipment,” “art,” “blocks,” “space to be alone,” “free play,” “group time,” and “tone.” According to Scarr, Eisenberg, and Deater-Deckard (1994), a shortened scale consisting of any combination of 12 items shows excellent reliability and validity. Therefore, we chose items that fit the research purposes with the understanding that they capture the overall quality of the environment (12 items, alpha = .88). The range in ECERS scores for all the classrooms was 4.8-6.3, indicating that on the average child-care quality was very good and that it would be legitimate to include all 14 classrooms as research sites.

Participants

Teachers put copies of the temperament inventory and a demographic information sheet in 280 children’s cubbies or drawers. Mothers who were willing to participate were asked to

I i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

176 Yen & Ispa

return the questionnaires to the researchers in self-addressed, stamped envelopes that were provided. A total of 124 mothers returned the questionnaires, a response rate of 44%. Seven of the questionnaires were not useable because they were not completely filled out. Another 15 were from mothers whose children were in Montessori programs only in part-time care; these too were discarded. The final sample thus included 102 mothers. Forty-three had children in constructivist classrooms (22 boys, 21 girls). Fifty-nine had children in Montessori classrooms (32 boys, 27 girls). All children had been in their preschools for at least 2 months and attended 30 to 40 hours per week. The children ranged in age from 37 to 66 months (M= 51.94, SD = 8.37). Eighty-six children (84.3%) came from two-parent households and 10 (9.8%) children came from one-parent households. Six mothers (5.9%) did not answer a question about number of parents in the household.

Eighty-one mothers classified themselves as Caucasian (79.4%), 5 (4.9%) as African American, 6 (5.9%) as Asian-American, and 7 (6.9%) as Asian. Three did not respond to a question about race. The average age of the mothers was 36.23 years (SO = 4.89, range = 19-47). Four (3.9%) had graduated from high school and/or technical college, 7 (6.9%) had attended some college, 29 (28.4%) had graduated from college, 59 (57.8%) had professional training or an advance degree. Three did not respond to a question about educational level.

Teachers of children whose mothers completed the temperament inventory and demographic form were asked to fill out the behavioral adjustment questionnaires on each of these children and a demographic form about themselves. A total of 23 teachers (20 female, 3 male) participated. Eight head teachers and 2 assistant teachers worked in constructivist classrooms, and 10 head teachers and 3 assistant teachers worked in Montessori classrooms. Three (12.5%) teachers were 19 years old or younger, 6 (25%) were 20-24 years old, 1 (4.2%) was 25-29 years old, 6 (25%) were 35-39 years old, and 7 (29.2%) were 40 years old or older. One did not respond to a question about age. Four (16.7%) teachers had attended some college courses, 11 (45.8%) had earned Bachelor degrees, and 7 (29.2%) had earned Master’s degrees. One teacher did not respond to a question about educational level. All teachers indicated they had received some form of child development training, such as workshops or Montessori teacher training. In answer to a question about teaching philosophy, the teachers in constructivist classrooms all described themselves as constructivist and the Montessori teachers all described themselves as Montessorian. Teachers were paid $4.00 for each child they evaluated.

Procedure

Measurement of Temperament. The temperamental characteristics of the children were assessed via mothers’ ratings on the Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory (CCTI) (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). For the present study, we used only two of the six subscales, activity and attention spadpersistence. Each subscale is composed of 5 items Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale labeled from 1 (not at all like the child) to 5 (a lot like the child). In the current study, the internal consistencies for the activity and attention spadpersistence subscales were .79 and .75, respectively.

Measurement of Behavioral Adjustment. The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ; Behar and Stringfield, 1974), as completed by teachers, was used to evaluate children’s behavior problems. The questionnaire consists‘sf 30 items, divided into three factors: Hostile/ Aggressive behavior, AnxiousFearful behavior, and Hyperactive/ Distractible behavior. Each

i I ! i 1 1 i I i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 177

item (e.g., “fidgets a lot,” “destroys property”) is rated on a 3-point scale: 0 = does not apply, 1 = applies sometimes, and 2 = frequently applies. A total score for each subject is obtained by adding the item scores. For the present data, the alpha coefficient for the 30 items was .93.

Teachers also completed the 30-item Preschool Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ) (Jewsuwan et al., 1993). This instrument measures preschoolers’ positive adjustment (sample items: “Takes turns,” “Relaxed,” “Allows other children to play/work with.”) Each item is rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all like the child) to 5 ( a lot like the child). A total score is produced by adding the 30 item scores. For the present data, the internal consistency of the total scale was .96. PAQ and PBQ scores were inversely related, r = -S6, p < .01.

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and ranges for constructivist and Montessori boys’ and girls’ CCTI activity and attention spadpersistence subscale scores, PAQ scale scores, and the PBQ scale scores.

Comparing children in Montessori and constructivist programs on demographic variables

/

Three independent t-tests and one Chi-square test were conducted to determine if there were demographic differences between children and mothers in constructivist and Montessori classrooms. Due to missing data on one or more variables, most of the analyses involved only 99 children (51 boys, 48 girls). The results revealed no differences in maternal educational level, children’s age, or gender in the two types of classrooms. However, there were more children from one-parent households in constructivist classrooms than in Montessori classrooms, t = -2.20, p < .05.

Relations between the demographic variables and behavior

Two sets of correlations were conducted to determine if boys’ and girls’ positive behavior (PAQ) and behavior problems (PBQ) were associated with maternal educational level, marital status, and child age. The results showed that maternal educational level was positively related to boys’ positive adjustment scores, r = .31, p < .05, but not to girls’. Number of parents in the household was not associated with boys’ or girls’ positive adjustment. Age was associated with positive adjustment for girls only, I = .34, p < .05. Neither number of parents nor maternal educational level was associated with boys’ or girls’ PBQ scores. There was a trend for girls’, but not boys’, PBQ scores to be inversely related to age, r = -.26, p <.lo.

Interactions between children’s temperament and classroom curriculum type

A series of four hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted, one for each of the two criterion variables (positive adjustment and behavior problems) for boys and one for each of the criterion variables for girls. In each case, the covariates - the ECERS scores and the demographic variables the earlier correlations had shown to be associated with the criterion variables - were entered in the first step. It was necessary to control for ECERS scores because previous research has shown that preschool quality significantly influences children’s development and behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., 1981; Clarke-Stewart, 1987; Holloway et al., 1988; Howes et al., 1992). Child care type was entered in step 2 to test for the unique

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

178

Q m L

.c 0

I

Yen & Ispa

i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

?

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 179

contribution of curriculum approach above and beyond the contribution of the demographic variables. One of the two temperament dimensions was entered in the third step. The interaction term (a temperament dimension x child care type) was entered fourth. The fourth step thus tested for the moderating effect of child care type on the impact of children’s temperament. Evidence that child care type moderated the effects of temperament would require that the multiplicative products of child care type and temperament make a significant contribution to the prediction of children’s behavior after controlling for the main effects of the demographic variables, child care type, and temperament (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Prediction of positive adjustriienr; Table 2 shows the results of the regressions predjctjnp: ~ O T K :i.iid ?;iris' i insi t ive ad,jusl boys, the covariates entered in the first step were the ECERS score and maternal educational level. With the ECERS scores and the maternal educational level controlled, child care type did not make a significant contribution to the equation. In step three, neither of the two temperament dimensions was associated with boys’ positive adjustment. Finally, there were no significant relations from step 4; thus child care type did not moderate the impact of temperament on boys’ positive adjustment.

gressi :)ns prtdjcti n i!. p i t

For the regressions predicting positive adjustment in girls, the covariates entered in the first step were the ECERS score and age. With the ECERS scores and age controlled, child care type did not make significant contributions to any of the equations. In step three, neither of the two temperament dimensions was associated with girls’ positive adjustment in preschool. Finally, no significant results emerged in step 4; thus child care type did not moderate the impact of temperament on girls’ positive adjustment.

Prediction of behaviorproblems. Table 3 shows the results of the regressions predicting boys’ and girls’ behavioral problems. For the regressions predicting boys’ behavior problems, the covariate entered in the first step was the ECERS score. With the ECERS scores controlled, child care type did not make a significant contribution to the equation. Neither of the temperament dimensions was associated with boys’ negative behavior problems in preschool, either. However, in step 4, school type x activity showed a near-significant interaction (beta = .23, t < .lo). The interaction of curriculum type with attention span/persistence did not reach significance. Thus, there was a trend suggesting that active boys in Montessori classrooms showed more behavior problems than active boys in constructivist classrooms.

For the regressions predicting girls’ behavior problems, the covariates entered in the first step were the ECERS scores and age. With the ECERS scores and age controlled, child care type did not make significant contributions to any of the equations. In step 3, girls’ activity level was associated with their behavior problems in preschool to a near-significant level (beta = .26. t < .lo; beta= .25, t < .lo, respectively); attention span/persistence did not predict negative behavior problems. Finally, there were no significant results from step 4; thus child care type did not moderate the impact of temperament on girls’ behavior problems.

Discussion

This study was undertaken to investigate whether temperament moderates the impact of preschool curriculum type on children’s behavioral adjustment in the classroom. Our findings showed no such pattern for girls. For boys, however, the interaction of activity level and curriculum type approached significance, suggesting that there is a small but noticeable

I

i

f

!

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

180 Yen & Ispa

I 3

I i 1 1

* a D d 0 0 In . h In b rn

7 : q 0 0

c c 0 N o - 2 2 0 . z N r n : a ? 7

d d l o -. T: 7 T:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

i i

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 181

h

e 7

9 N O 0 L n T T

7 7

o c o P o !

0 c u m m m a 2 9 9 9 9 9 9

~

c (D

m

i

!

j

i

i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

182 Yen & Ispa

tendency for active boys to adjust to preschool better if they attend constructivist rather than Montessori programs.

The different educational approaches of the two philosophies may explain the trend for activity level to be associated with more behavior problems in Montessori than in constructivist classrooms. Of the two, the constructivist approach seems likely to be more tolerant of high activity levels. Because the Montessori approach encourages children to quietly focus on their work for long periods of time, it may set up difficult expectations for active boys whose tendencies are to be noisy and mobile. Teachers in Montessori programs might therefore be more likely than teachers in constructivist programs to perceive active boys as having behavior problems. The fact that boys, but noi girls, showed this pattern is consistent with previous research showing that boys exhibit a higher prevalence of behavior problems, such as aggression, over-activity, and impulse control than girls, particularly in child care settings (Crowther, Bond, & Rolf, 1981; McGuire & Richman, 1986; Prior et al., 1989). Whiting and Edwards (1973) found that across six different cultures, 3- to 6-year-old girls demonstrated more “prosocial dominance” than boys. In addition, other studies show that both mothers and teachers expect girls to be more obedient, dependent, self-regulatory, and socially responsible than boys (Higgins, 1991; Huston, 1983). Thus, girls who are temperamentally active may adjust their behavior to meet adults’ expectations even in an environment that is contrary to their temperaments.

While we found only modest evidence that curriculum type moderates the impact of temperament on children’s behavior, we think the question deserves continued examination. For one, for the number of predictor variables we included in our regressions, our sample size was small. A study with a larger sample size may allow more significant relations to emerge. Secondly, the lack of a single Montessori model in our sample may have made it more difficult to detect interactions between temperament and type of curriculum. The instrument (ECCOM) we used to evaluate both constructivist and Montessori classrooms showed greater variability in the Montessori classrooms than in the constructivist classrooms. Every constructivist classroom obtained at least a score of 4 on almost every item. This indicated that the constructivist teachers applied the same principles of implementation as one another. Scores on the ECCOM items chosen to evaluate Montessori classrooms showed greater variability. For example, on the communication skill item, five Montessori classrooms showed strong teacher authority. In these classrooms teachers did not encourage children to engage in conversation or elaborate on their thoughts. However, teachers in the other five Montessori classrooms did encourage two-way communication.

--

I

!

The range in Montessori implementation is understandable. There exist several Montessori associations, such as the Association Montessori Internationale (AMI), the American Montessori Society (AMs), the North American Montessori Teachers Association (NAMTA), and the International Montessori Society (IMS). Montessori teachers get their teacher training from the training centers that affiliate with any one of these associations. Depending on where they took their training, teachers’ educational philosophies and implementation strategies vary. For example, some Montessori teachers emphasize a quiet and orderly classroom atmosphere, whereas others do not mind seeing their classrooms noisy but in order. Moreover, there is no standard guideline describing the “best practice” of Montessori education, and that makes the evaluation of Montessori classrooms very difficult. Inclusion of larger numbers of Montessori programs in future studies may make it possible

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 183

to determine if there are specific features of this philosophy that are more or less suited to highly active boys.

Maternal educational level was a predictor of boys’ positive adjustment. Boys whose mothers had higher educational levels were judged by teachers as showing more positive adjustment than boys whose mothers had lower educational levels. Prior research has shown that socio-economic status and educational level are key predictors of parental childrearing expectations and child outcomes (Ispa, 1995; Kohn, 1963; Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989; Prior et. al., 1989). For example, Prior et al. (1989) found that low SES parents tend to rate their toddlers and preschoolers as having more problematic temperaments and more behavior problems than do middle-class parents.

Our finding of a positive correlation between age and girls’ positive behavioral adjustment is consistent with the findings of other studies showing that children’s externalizing behavior problems, activity level, and attentional problems decrease with age (Crowther, Bond, & Rolf, 1981; Klein, 1980). In keeping with our results, Martin (1996) found more evidence for this pattern among preschool-aged girls than among preschool-aged boys.

Two limitations of our study should be noted. The first involves the use of teacher ratings of behavior and maternal ratings of temperament rather observational data by neutral observers. We do not know to what extent teachers’ perceptions of children’s behavior reflected the children’s actual behavior. Along similar lines, there is debate in the field about the validity of maternal temperament ratings. While some researchers have found that maternal ratings of their children’s temperaments predict concurrent and future behavior (e.g., Martin, 1996; Rothbart & Bates, 1998), others have worried that maternal ratings are based as much or more on characteristics of the mother (such as stress and depression) as on characteristics of the child (e.g., Mangelsdorf, Gunnar, Kestenbaum, Lang, & Andreas, 1990; Mebert, 1991). Future studies should include observational data as well as ratings by parents and teachers. A second limitation stems from the variability we saw in Montessori programs. As discussed above, our results may have been different had the Montessori programs we sampled been more homogeneous.

What are the practical implications of our results? An obvious suggestion might be to advise parents of active boys to seek constructivist programs for them, or to advise Montessori teachers to modify their approaches to make them more suitable for such children. However, especially given the fact that the moderating impact of curriculum type approached, but did not quite reach, conventional criteria for statistical significance, and given the fact that the effect applied to boys only, caution is warranted. More studies on this issue need to be conducted before definitive recommendations are made to people who might put such findings to use. At the same time, it is fair to say that, at the least, our study supports the importance of parent and teacher sensitivity to children’s individual temperamental styles and needs.

Given the potential practical importance of this line of research, it is clear that studies aimed at replicating and refining our results are in order. In addition to the recommendations for future studies that we have made above, we suggest supplementing quantitative analyses with qualitative analysis of interviews with parents and teachers regarding preferred educational philosophies and perceptions of program-child fit. Insights gleaned from teachers and parents would enrich our understanding of the issues related to individual differences in child well-being in selected program types.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

I

184 Yen & Ispa

References

Anderson, C. W., Nagel, R. J., Roberts, W. A, & Smith, J. W. (1981). Attachment to substitute caregivers as a function of center quality and caregiver involvement. Child Development, 52, 53-61.

Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) Web Site (1997). http://www.ami.edu/htmW thejedagogy. html.

Behar, L. & Stringfield, S . (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Pqchologx I O (5), 601-610.

Belsky, J., Domitrovich, C., & Crnic, K. (1997). Temperament and parenting antecedents of individual differences in three-year-old boys’ pride and shame reactions. Child Development, 68(3), 456-466.

Buss, A., & Plomin, R. (1975). Temperament: Early developingpersomlity traits. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1987). In search of consistencies in child care research. In D. A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us? (pp. 21-41). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1983). Applied Multiple RegressiodCorrelation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Crowther, J. H., Bond, L. A., & Rolf, J. E. (1981). The incidence, prevalence, and severity of behavior disorders among preschool-aged children in day care. Journal of Abnormal Child Pqchology, 9, 23-42.

Dolk, M., Uittenbogaard, W., & Fosnot, C. (1996). Teaching to facilitate progressive schematization. The Constructivist, 11, 10-1 1.

Ertner, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6:4, 50-7 1.

Fagan, J. (1990). The interaction between child sex and temperament in predicting problems of preschool-age children in day care. Early Child Development and Care, 59, 1-9.

Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College, Columbia University. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: i ’ kor~

Goldsmith, H., Buss, A., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M.,Thomas,A.,Chess, S. , Hinde, R., &McCall, R. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 58, 505-529.

Higgins, E. T. (199 1). Development of self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: Cost, benefits, and tradeoffs. In M. R. Gunner, & L. A. Sroufe (Ekls.), The Minnesota Symposia on ChildPsychology: Vol. 23. Selfprocesses and Development (pp. 125-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Temperament and Montessori and Constructivist Care 185

Holloway, S . D., & Reichart-Erickson, M. (1989). Child care quality, family structure, and maternal expectations: Relationship to preschool children’s peer relations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 281-198.

Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development for children in center-based child care. Child Development, 63, 449-460.

Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbookof chihipsychology, Val. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 387-467). New York: Wiley.

Jewsuwan, R., Luster, T., Kostelnik, M. (1993). The relation between parents’ perceptions of temperament and children’s adjustment to preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 33-51.

Ispa, J. M. (1995). Ideas about infant and toddler care among Russian child care teachers, mothers, and university students. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, IO, 359-379.

Keogh, B. K., & Burstein, N. D. (1988). The relationship of temperament to preschooler’s interactions with peers and teachers. Exceptional Children, 54,456-461.

Keogh, B. K. (1989). Applying temperament research to school. In Kohnstamm, G. A., Bates, 3. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (Eds.). Temperament in Childhood (pp. 437-450).

Klein, H. A. (1980). Early childhood group care: Predicting adjustment from individual temperament. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137, 125-131.

Klein, H. A. (1982). The relationship between children’s temperament and adjustment to kindergarten and Head Start settings. The Journal of Psychology, 112, 259-268.

Klein, H. A. (1991). Temperament and childhood group care adjustment: A cross-cultural comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6,211-224.

Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66,597-615

Kohn, M. (1963). Social class and parent-child relationships: An interpretation. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 471-480.

Lohman, R. T. (1988). A revision ofMontessori: Connections with Dewey, Piaget, and vgotsky (p.28); National Institute of Education.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 139-147.

Mangelsdorf, S . , Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R., Lang, S. , & Andreas, D. (1990). Infant proneness- to-distress temperament, maternal personality, and mother-infant attachment: Associations and goodness of fit. Child Development, 61,820-83 1.

I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

186 Yen & lspa

Martin, S . R. (1996). The relations between temperament ratings and behavior problems in

McGuire, J. & Richman, N. (1986). The prevalence of behavioral problems in three types of

Mebert, C. J. (1991). Dimensions of subjectivity in parents’ ratings of infant temperament.

preschool children. Unpublished dissertation. University of Georgia.

preschool, Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 27,455-472.

Child Development, 62, 352-361.

Montessori, M. (1956). The child in the family (p.122). New York Avon Books.

Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method (p. 173). New York Shocken Books.

Montessori, M. (1916/1965). Spontaneous activity in education: The advanced Montessori method New York Shocken Books.

Prior, M. (1992). Childhood temperament. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, NO. 1, 49-79.

Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, E (1989). The Australian Temperament Project. In Kohnstamm, G. Bates, J., Rothbart, M. (Eds.), Temperament in Childhood (pp. 540- 554). New York, Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pullis, M. E., & Cadwell, J. (1982). The influence of children’s temperament characteristics on teacher’s decision strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 165-1 8 1.

Rodgers, D. (1998). Supporting autonomy in young children. Young Children, 53,75-81.

Rothbart, M., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional andpersonality development (5th ed., pp. 105- 176). New York: Wiley.

Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 2, 150-156..

Scarr, S . , Eisenberg, M., Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 131-151.

Stipek, D. (1996). Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM). Privately printed.

Stipek, D., Daniels, D., Galluzzo D., & Milburn, S. (1992). Characterizing early childhood education programs for poor and middle-class children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 1-19.

Thomas, A,, & Chess, S . (1977). Temperament and Development. New York Bmnner/Mazel.

Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament andbehaviordisorders in children. New York New York University Press.

Whiting, B., &Edwards, C . P. (1973). A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged three through eleven. Joumal of Social Psychology, 91, 188.

i

1

i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ond

okuz

May

is U

nive

rsite

sine

] at

00:

58 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014