This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 07 November 2014, At: 13:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Early Education andDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Children's IndividualExperiences in Early Care andEducation: Relations WithOverall Classroom Quality andChildren's School ReadinessHyun-Joo Jeon a , Carolyn C. Langill b , Carla A.Peterson c , Gayle J. Luze c , Judith J. Carta d &Jane B. Atwater da Department of Human Development and FamilyStudies , The University of Alabamab Department of Child Development and FamilyStudies , Purdue Universityc Department of Human Development and FamilyStudies , Iowa State Universityd Juniper Gardens Children's Project , University ofKansasPublished online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Hyun-Joo Jeon , Carolyn C. Langill , Carla A. Peterson ,Gayle J. Luze , Judith J. Carta & Jane B. Atwater (2010) Children's IndividualExperiences in Early Care and Education: Relations With Overall Classroom Qualityand Children's School Readiness, Early Education and Development, 21:6, 912-939,DOI: 10.1080/10409280903292500

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280903292500

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in 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 the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATIONJEON ET AL.

Children’s Individual Experiencesin Early Care and Education: Relations

With Overall Classroom Qualityand Children’s School Readiness

Hyun-Joo JeonDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies

The University of Alabama

Carolyn C. LangillDepartment of Child Development and Family Studies

Purdue University

Carla A. Peterson and Gayle J. LuzeDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies

Iowa State University

Judith J. Carta and Jane B. AtwaterJuniper Gardens Children’s Project

University of Kansas

This study examined relations among children’s individual experiences, globalclassroom quality, and school readiness. Preschool children from low-income back-grounds (N = 138; M = 62.16 months; SD = 3.93; range = 55–70) were observed intheir early care and education settings, and their language and cognitive skills wereassessed. Research Findings: Individual children in classrooms with small groupsizes had higher quality individual experiences even though global classroom qualitywas not necessarily better. Higher levels of global classroom quality did not ensurethat every child in the classroom was engaged fully in available interactions and ac-tivities. Children with disabilities were generally enrolled in classrooms with higherglobal quality and had higher quality individual experiences than those without dis-

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 21(6), 912–939Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409280903292500

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Hyun-Joo Jeon, 218 Child DevelopmentResearch Center, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0160. E-mail: jeon@ches.ua.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

abilities; however, children without disabilities enrolled in these inclusive class-rooms did not necessarily have a higher level of individual experiences than those innon-inclusive classrooms. Children’s individual experiences and the global qualityof their classrooms were associated with their social skills. Only the quality of chil-dren’s individual experiences was found to be related to the quality of their relation-ships with teachers. Practice or Policy: Ratings of children’s individual experiencesprovide information beyond that provided by global ratings of classroom quality andhave potential for informing efforts to individualize educational programs.

Early care and education quality is especially important considering the ever-increasing numbers of children in nonparental care settings. In a typical week, 11.6million children (63%) under 5 years of age are in some type of regular child carearrangement at least 1 day (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The quality of early careand education environments and children’s experiences while in care are impor-tant contributors to their development (Lamb, 1998; Love, Schochet, & Meck-stroth, 1996; NICHD Early Childhood Research Network, 2003; Vandell &Wolfe, 2000). Furthermore, the quality of preschool experiences predicts chil-dren’s school readiness (Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Clifford, 1993; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986).

Children who enter school not ready for typical learning experiences continue tohave difficulties in later school years. At kindergarten entry, the average cognitivescores of preschool children from the highest socioeconomic families are 60%higher than the average scores of those from the lowest socioeconomic families (Lee& Burkam, 2002). Early care and education programs are expected to close thegaps in children’s school readiness. Researchers have found that the relations be-tween attending high-quality preschool programs and having positive developmen-tal outcomes are especially strong for children from low-income families (Phillips,McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; Ramey et al., 2000; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips,1990). High-quality preschool experiences for children from low-income familiesare more cost efficient than any interventions delivered later in their lives (Heckman& Krueger, 2003). It is, therefore, important to understand how preschool children’sexperiences in early care and education influence their school readiness.

Efforts to understand how early care and education influences children’s devel-opment have prompted researchers to examine global classroom quality and otheraspects of early care and education quality, such as teachers’ behaviors (Hamre &Pianta, 2005; Mashburn et al., 2008), teacher–child relationships (Birch & Ladd,1997; Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006), and parents’ (Hill & Craft,2003; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, Cox, & Bradley, 2003) and children’s (Brock,Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Wiltz & Klein, 2001) percep-tions of early care and education settings. However, relatively little is known aboutpreschool-age children’s individual experiences in early care and education set-tings. For example, how are individual children’s experiences related to their de-

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 913

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

velopmental outcomes and school readiness, and are these relations affected bychildren’s characteristics? Do these relations differ from relations between globalclassroom quality and developmental outcomes? According to Howes and Smith(1995), classroom quality is related to the quality of teacher–child relationshipsand children’s engagement in learning activities and play.

It is important for researchers and early childhood professionals to assess thequality of individual children’s engagement and interactions while in early careand education settings in order to address children’s needs effectively. This is es-pecially important for children at risk for poor developmental outcomes because ofhaving a disability, being of minority status, living in poverty, or being an Englishlanguage learner. For example, Clawson and Luze (2008) found that the quality ofpreschool children’s individual experiences was related to their problem behav-iors. Understanding how the quality of children’s individual experiences affectstheir development will allow early childhood professionals to maximize the posi-tive aspects of children’s experiences. The purpose of this study was to describepreschool children’s individual experiences in early care and education class-rooms and examine the relations among preschool children’s individual experi-ences, the overall global and structural quality of their classrooms, their demo-graphic characteristics, and their school readiness before kindergarten entry.

QUALITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION

Researchers have generally examined the structural and process aspects of quality inearly care and education settings. Structural quality focuses on regulatable aspects ofquality such as group size; staff–child ratios; and staff education, training, and expe-rience (Howes, 1983; Phillips & Howes, 1987; Whitebook et al., 1990). Processquality refers to aspects that affect children’s experiences directly, includingteacher–child interactions, peer interactions, and provision of developmentally ap-propriate activities (Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992). Process quality is oftencaptured by using global classroom quality measures that include multiple aspectsof early care and education settings (e.g., the children’s overall access to materialsand activities in safe environments and their interactions with adults and peers)rather than by examining the actual experiences of a specific child in the setting.

Not surprisingly, structural and process quality are interrelated (Dunn, 1993;Phillips & Howes, 1987; Scarr, Eisenberg, & Deater-Deckard, 1994). Accordingto Vandell and Wolfe (2000), structural quality influences children’s developmentthrough process quality. Lower teacher–child ratios (Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, &Howes, 2002; Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, 2001; Phillip-sen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997) and smaller group sizes (Phillips et al.,2001) are associated with higher scores on measures of global classroom quality.Higher global quality scores are related to more extensive teacher–child interac-tions (Dunn, 1993; Howes et al., 2008), less restrictive and controlling teacher be-

914 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

havior, and more complex language and play (Clarke-Stewart & Gruber, 1994;Dunn, 1993; Howes, 1997; Kontos, Howes, & Galinsky, 1996; Layzer, Goodson,& Moss, 1993). Children in better quality classrooms also tend to display morecomplex play with both peers and objects (Howes, Smith, & Galinsky, 1995;Love, Ryer, & Faddis, 1992). These empirical findings confirm relations amongstructural and global classroom quality, the quality of teacher–child interactions,and children’s learning opportunities.

QUALITY OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION ANDPRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S SCHOOL READINESS

According to the conceptual model that Howes and Smith (1995) proposed, betterclassroom quality encourages more positive teacher–child relationships and helpschildren engage in developmentally appropriate learning activities. These learningexperiences and positive relationships may ultimately influence children’s schoolreadiness and academic success. Links between early care and education qualityand preschool children’s well-being, subsequent development, and school adjust-ment have been documented (Howes et al., 2008; Lamb, 1998; Love et al., 1996;Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Vandell &Wolfe, 2000). For example, early care and education settings that include respon-sive, involved caregivers who support play and learning activities are associatedwith more positive social, cognitive, and literacy skills (Cost Quality and ChildOutcomes Study Team, 1995; Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). Children in better qualityclassrooms also tend to have fewer behavior problems (NICHD Early ChildhoodResearch Network, 2000b; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997).

However, recent studies have failed to confirm links among teacher qualifica-tions, structural and global classroom quality, and preschool children’s outcomes(Early et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008). This controversial finding prompts thefollowing question: How does early care and education quality impact individualchildren’s school readiness? Mashburn et al. (2008) showed that the quality ofteacher–child interaction in pre-kindergarten programs was a better predictor ofchildren’s school readiness than structural or global classroom quality. They spec-ulated that although structural and global classroom quality may provide a floor ofsupport for children’s experiences, this may not be sufficient to predict individualchildren’s school readiness directly.

INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCES IN EARLYCARE AND EDUCATION

Measures currently available to assess global classroom quality do not take into ac-count whether each child enrolled has access to and uses all aspects of the environ-ment or whether each child experiences similar interactions with teachers and peers.

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 915

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The classroom-level examinations used in previous studies provide mixed findingsabout the relations between quality of early care and education settings and children’soutcomes. Another important factor may be children’s individual experiences in earlycare and education settings (Clawson & Luze, 2008) because each child has differentcharacteristics, strengths, and needs that may influence his or her interaction behaviorsin early care and education settings (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Information regarding children’s individual experiences in early care and edu-cation settings provides an important basis for intervention planning and evalua-tion at both the individual child and classroom levels (Aytch, Cryer, Bailey, &Selz, 1999). For example, previous studies have found that inclusive classroomshave better global classroom quality than non-inclusive classrooms (Buysse, Wes-ley, Bryant, & Gardner, 1999; Knoche, Peterson, Edwards, & Jeon, 2006). How-ever, it is unknown whether preschool children with disabilities experience learn-ing environments that support their development properly. Examining quality onlyat the classroom level may be insufficient to guide individualized programming.

Children’s demographic characteristics may influence their individual experiences inearly care and education. Burchinal and Cryer (2003) did not find any interactions amongpreschoolchildren’sethnicity,povertystatus,gender,andoverallclassroomqualitywhenpredicting children’s developmental outcomes. However, Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg,Bryant, and Clifford (2000) found that the effect of classroom quality interacted with sev-eral demographic variables when predicting preschool children’s language skills. For ex-ample, minority children in poor-quality classrooms had substantially lower languagescores than did nonminority children in good-quality classrooms; all children exceptnonminoritygirlstendedtohavehigherlanguagescoresiftheywereingood-qualityratherthan poor-quality classrooms. These mixed findings indicate a need to examine the rela-tions among individual children’s early care and education experiences and demographiccharacteristics when predicting their developmental outcomes.

The primary purposes of this study are to describe children’s individual experi-ences in early care and education classrooms and examine how individual chil-dren’s early care and education experiences relate to global ratings of the quality oftheir classrooms and their school readiness. We hypothesize that (a) children’s in-dividual experiences will be related to measures of global and structural qualityat the classroom level, (b) children’s individual experiences will be related totheir personal characteristics (gender, minority status, and disability status), and(c) children’s individual experiences will be related to their school readiness(teacher–child relationships and social, language, and academic skills).

METHOD

Data were collected at two midwestern sites (one rural and one urban) participat-ing in the Early Head Start (EHS) Research and Evaluation Project (EHSRE). The

916 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

EHSRE was an experimental study designed to investigate the longitudinal im-pacts of EHS programs on children’s development and family well-being (Mathe-matica Policy Research, 2002). Data for this study were collected in the pre-kin-dergarten follow-up phase of the EHSRE. All data collection activities (e.g., directchild assessment, parent interview, teacher interview, and classroom observation)took place during the spring or summer before the study children were age-eligiblefor kindergarten entry.

Participants and Settings

A total of 138 children were included in the study, 83 from the rural site and 55from the urban site. Families were eligible for the EHS program because they hadincomes below the federal poverty guideline and included a pregnant woman or achild younger than 12 months of age at the time of enrollment into the EHSRE.The current study included children from both the EHS program and controlgroups. Differences in longitudinal outcomes between children in the EHS pro-gram and control group at these two sites were not found (Carta, Atwater, & Sum-mers, 2006; Peterson & Luze, 2006); one exception is that in the rural site, childrenwho participated in EHS had better language outcomes. The pre-kindergarten set-tings in which children in the current study participated were not affiliated directlywith the EHS programs, and neither overall quality of the children’s classroomsnor their individual experiences were related to the children’s program or controlgroup membership.

At the time of observation for the current study, participating children were 5years old on average (M = 62.16 months) and were enrolled in pre-kindergartenclassrooms operated by a variety of agencies. Table 1 presents descriptive infor-mation about the participating children, the pre-kindergarten settings observed,and the teachers. The 138 children attended 106 different pre-kindergarten class-rooms: 51% (n = 54) of these were Head Start classrooms enrolling 57% (n = 79)of the children. The rest of the children were enrolled in community-based childcare or preschool settings. All teachers were female.

Measures

Quality of Early Care and Education

Global quality of early care and education classrooms. Observers usedthe Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (ECERS-R; Harms, Clif-ford, & Cryer, 1998) to rate global classroom quality. The ECERS-R consists of 43items organized into the following seven subscales: (a) Space and Furnishings, (b)Personal Care Routines, (c) Language–Reasoning, (d) Activities, (e) Interaction,(f) Program Structure, and (g) Parents and Staff. Each item is rated using a 7-point

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 917

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

918

TABLE 1Characteristics of the Children, Families, Classrooms, and Teachers

Variable N % M SD Range

Child variables (N = 137)a

Gender (female) 69 50Age (months) 137 62.16 3.93 55–70Ethnicity

White 78 57Black 34 24Hispanic 16 12Other 10 7

Type of settingHead Start 79 57

Hours per week in care<10 31 22>10 95 69

Family variables (N = 138)a

Primary language in the homeEnglish 128 93Spanish 6 4

Monthly income ($) 1,890.74 909.57 271–4,600Classroom variables (N = 106)b

Group size 101 16.26 3.84 8–28Type of setting

Head Start 54 51Child care or preschool 52 49

Children with special needs enrolled inthe classroom?Yes 80 76No 24 24

Teacher variables (N = 106)b

Teaching experience (years) 94 10.17 7.21 0.25–30.33Number of trainings 92 3.85 2.23 0–8Number of child development trainings 92 2.59 1.63 0–4Hours per week working 93 36.37 7.37 8–50Hourly wage ($) 55 11.13 3.41 6–22Ethnicity

White 64 60Black 22 21Hispanic 6 6Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2

Level of education (years) 15.18 1.90 12–18

Total Ns for some variables differ from aN = 138 or bN = 106 because of missing data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

scale. An average item score was calculated for each classroom. Subscale internalconsistencies for the current sample ranged from .60 to .86, with a total scale inter-nal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .92. In this study, we used the ECERS-R to-tal and four subscale scores: Activities, Interaction, Program Structure, and Lan-guage–Reasoning.

Individual children’s early care and education experiences. Each par-ticipating child was observed using a subset of items from the ECERS-R (Harms etal., 1998) that had been adapted to focus on an individual child’s experiences. AllECERS-R items were reviewed by local EHSRE site researchers, and those thatcould best reflect individual children’s interactions with adults or peers (e.g., staffshow respect for children) or participation in curricular experiences (e.g., staffread books to children informally) were adapted to focus on the target child’s ac-tual experiences. The same set of items was used in both sites. An additional itemwas developed to provide information about the target child’s literacy experiences,resulting in a total of 16 items. The observer was asked to focus on the target childand rate the individual child’s actual participation or experiences (see the Appen-dix for a sample item). Similar to the ECERS-R, each item was rated using a7-point scale on which scores lower than 3 indicate inadequate quality, scores from3 to 5 indicate mediocre quality, and scores greater than 5 indicate good quality.

Teacher–Child Relationship

Teachers rated their relationships with each target child using the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001). The STRS consists of 28 itemsrated on a 5-point Likert scale. Reliability of the STRS has been established with sta-tistically significant test–retest correlations and high internal consistency (Pianta,2001). Predictive and concurrent validity have been demonstrated with correla-tions between STRS ratings and current and future academic skills (Hamre &Pianta, 2001; Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2002). In the current study, the overallmean was 4.24 (SD = 0.46); Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .84. High scores in-dicate that the teacher feels that her relationship with the child is warm, affection-ate, and positive.

Children’s Social Skills

The teachers rated children’s social skills using the modified Social Skills Rat-ing System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). This scale consists of 12 items ratedon a 3-point-Likert scale designed to capture children’s behavioral and emotionalproblems. The SSRS is commonly used to measure children’s social skills anddemonstrates high internal consistency coefficients, test–retest correlation coeffi-cients, and interrater reliability (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). In the current study, theaverage of the total mean scores was 2.45 (SD = 0.34); higher scores indicate that

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 919

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the child has more positive social skills. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internalconsistency was .85.

Language and Cognitive Skills

Receptive language. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition(PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was used as a measure of children’s receptive vo-cabulary. The PPVT-III has been shown to be related to other measures of lan-guage, literacy, and academic achievement (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Cronbach’s al-pha coefficients of all test items range from .92 to .98, and test–retest reliability hasbeen reported as ranging from .85 to .90. In the current sample, the mean standard-ized score on the PPVT-III was 92.87 (SD = 14.16).

Early math skills. The Applied Problems subtest of the Woodcock–JohnsonRevised Tests of Achievement (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) was used as a mea-sure of children’s skills in analyzing and solving math problems. The reliabilitycoefficients for the 3- to 5-year-old age group ranged from .92 to .94. In the currentsample, the mean standardized score on the Applied Problems subtest was 89.57(SD = 18.46).

Other Variables

We used a teacher questionnaire to collect data to describe classroom structuralquality (e.g., teacher education, training, experience). Children’s disability statuswas determined by teachers’ reports of whether the target child had an individual-ized education program (IEP) or received any special education services.

Data Collection Procedures

Families participating in the EHSRE were contacted in the spring before their chil-dren were eligible for kindergarten as part of data collection procedures for thelarger study. Families were asked to identify early care and education classroomsthat their children were attending and to give permission for researchers to contactthe programs. Trained research assistants observed the children in their classroomsduring a 3-hr observation period and collected data using the adapted ECERS-Ritems and the ECERS-R. The children’s teachers completed the SSRS, the STRS,and the teacher questionnaire.

One observer at each research site was intensively trained to become the “goldstandard” observer who trained all other observers at her site. These gold standardobservers were trained by the research staff in using general classroom observa-tional procedures and the ECERS-R. They observed early care and educationclassrooms similar to those in the study and met the established criterion ofinterrater agreement within one-point on at least 85% of all adapted ECERS-R and

920 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ECERS-R items. The observers obtained interrater agreement rates of 86.66% and93.75% when exact agreement was examined (100% when agreement within 1point on each item was examined) before data collection began in the first and sec-ond years, respectively. The other observers were required to meet the same crite-rion (within 1 point on at least 85% of all items) with the gold standard observer ather site prior to actual data collection. Interrater reliability was monitored through-out the data collection period to maintain high reliability among observers.Interrater agreement for each adapted ECERS-R item ranged from 73% to 95%and averaged 85% within one point across all observations. Interrater agreementfor the entire adapted ECERS-R ranged from 86% to 100% and averaged 92%within one point across all observations.1 Trained assessors administered thePPVT-III and the Applied Problems subtest to the children during visits to theirhomes that were conducted as part of the overall EHSRE data collection efforts.

Analysis Plan

Data were analyzed in several steps. Data from all of the children were used in de-scriptive analyses examining overall classroom quality and children’s individual ex-periences. In order to test the research hypotheses, a sample of 106 children wasused. Twenty-six classrooms enrolled multiple children (n = 58) observed in thestudy (20 classrooms enrolled 2 children and 6 classrooms enrolled 3 children fromthe sample). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is preferred for analyzing datanested within classrooms; however, the number of children in each classroom wasnot large enough to accurately estimate within-classroom variability. According tothe results of unconditional ANOVA models, intraclass correlations for classroomsranged from minimal (p < .10; e.g., social skill score) to moderate (.46 and .21 forlanguage and cognitive scores, respectively), which indicates more than trivialwithin-classroom dependence (Lee, 2000). Ordinary least squares regression analy-ses with the assumption of independent observations was therefore not appropriatefor the full data set (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). To generate a data set thatdid meet the assumption of independent observations, we included only one child(selected at random) from each classroom in our inferential analyses.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses included examination of internal consistencies among theadapted ECERS-R items and an exploratory factor analysis executed to identify

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 921

1Percent interrater agreement came from an unpublished report (Peterson et al., 2001). However,raw data are no longer available to calculate kappa or intraclass correlation for interrater reliability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

conceptual structures of the adapted ECERS-R items for further analysis. Theseconceptual structures were used to examine relations between children’s individ-ual experiences and structural and global ratings of classroom quality and to pre-dict children’s school readiness. Fourteen items from the adapted ECERS-R weresubmitted to internal consistency and factor analyses. The provisions for childrenwith disabilities item was eliminated since only 17% of the children observed haddisabilities (n = 23), and the use of TV/video/computer item was eliminated be-cause of missing data. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .88 for the adaptedECERS-R items. Correlations between the mean scores for each item and the totalitem mean score ranged from .14 to .77.

An exploratory factor analysis using principal components extraction withvarimax rotation was employed to identify possible underlying dimensions and re-duce data for substantive analyses. Based on a scree plot, eigenvalues, andpercents of explained variances, two meaningful factors were suggested. Table 2presents factor loadings for each item on two factors (Interaction/Language andCurriculum) and the squared multiple correlations (communalities) of each item.Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Interaction/Language and Curriculum di-

922 JEON ET AL.

TABLE 2Factor Loadings and Communalities of Factor Analysis for the Adapted

ECERS-R Items and Correlations Between the Factors (N = 133)

Factor

ItemInteraction/Language Curriculum 2

Early literacy .78 .72Informal use of language .77 .76Discipline .67 .61Staff–child interaction .63 .55Peer interaction .60 .51Using language to develop reasoning skills .58 .52Encouraging children to communicate .55 .54Books .45 .36Free play .83 .72Nature/science .77 .63Group time .72 .72Math/number .54 .47Dramatic play .60Promoting diversity .48

Percent of total variance explained 25.90 23.08M (SD) 4.24 (1.30) 4.32 (1.67)

Note. Total N differs from N = 138 because of missing data. Principal components extraction withvarimax rotation. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

mensions were .85 and. 82, respectively. These two factors explained 48.98% ofthe total variance in the adapted ECERS-R item scores. Based on the factor analy-sis, two dimension variables (Interaction/Language and Curriculum) were con-structed for use in the substantive analyses. These two dimensions were similar tothe ECERS-R subscales of Language–Reasoning, Interaction, Activities, and Pro-gram Structure. The correlation between these two dimensions was .65 (p < .001).

The adapted ECERS-R item scores were compared to ECERS-R scores for eachclassroom to describe children’s individual experiences in early care and educationsettings. Mean ECERS-R scores were calculated for each classroom and used toclassify classrooms according to overall global quality. The mean ECERS-R ratingfor the entire sample of classrooms was 4.76 (N = 106; SD = 1.12; range =2.18–6.62). Forty-six percent of the children (64 children in 47 classrooms) were en-rolled in good-quality classrooms (a rating greater than 5 on the ECERS-R), 46%(63 children in 51 classrooms) were enrolled in mediocre-quality classrooms (a rat-ing of 3–5 on the ECERS-R), and only 8% (11 children in 8 classrooms) were en-rolled in inadequate-quality classrooms (a rating of less than 3 on the ECERS-R).

Mean ratings on the adapted ECERS-R items were calculated for the entiresample; the adapted ECERS-R total mean score was 3.93 (N = 138; SD = 1.17). Inorder to compare children’s individual experiences (overall and each item score ofthe adapted ECERS-R) and global classroom quality, scores on the adaptedECERS-R items were divided into three levels (poor, mediocre, and good) basedon the ECERS-R scores. Table 3 presents the mean scores for each adaptedECERS-R item and the adapted ECERS-R total mean score for the total sample aswell as according to the three levels of global classroom quality based on ECERS-R scores. Overall, scores on the adapted ECERS-R items were somewhat lowerthan scores on the ECERS-R. Mean scores on the Interaction/Language and Cur-riculum dimensions of the adapted ECERS-R items were 4.22 and 4.32, respec-tively. Children’s individual experiences with discipline strategies, interactionswith staff, and interactions with child received relatively good quality ratings onaverage. The Early Literacy, Using Language to Develop Reasoning Skills,Books, Nature/Science, Dramatic Play, and Promoting Diversity items were ratedas poor or mediocre quality on average after the first sentence of the third para-graph. Mean ratings on the adapted ECERS-R items were calculated for the entiresample; the adapted ECERS-R total mean score was 3.93 (N = 138, SD = 1.17).

Relations Between Individual Children’s Experiences andGlobal Classroom Quality

A cross-tab examination (N = 106) of three levels of scores on the adaptedECERS-R items by ECERS-R ratings (see Table 4 revealed that overall, only 20%(n = 21) of the children were rated as having good-quality experiences as measured

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 923

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

924

TABLE 3Means (SD) of Individual Experience (Adapted ECERS-R) Items by Level ofGlobal Classroom Quality (ECERS-R) in Early Care and Education Settings

ECERS-R

Adapted ECERS-R Total/Dimension/ItemTotal

(N = 138)Poor

(n = 11)Mediocre(n = 63)

Good(n = 64)

Total 3.93(1.17)

1.81(0.63)

3.38(0.88)

4.80(0.59)

Interaction/Language dimension 4.22(1.30)

1.86(0.92)

3.84(1.08)

4.99(0.82)

Early literacy 3.30(2.20)

2.00(1.73)

3.25(2.30)

3.58(2.11)

Informal use of language 4.34(1.86)

1.45(0.82)

3.73(1.51)

5.44(1.46)

Discipline 5.56(1.61)

3.09(2.17)

5.21(1.48)

6.33(0.96)

Staff–child interaction 5.22(2.14)

1.64(1.80)

4.84(2.12)

6.22(1.28)

Peer interaction 5.12(2.02)

2.55(2.25)

4.56(1.87)

6.11(1.47)

Using language to develop reasoning skills 3.22(1.72)

1.09(0.30)

2.79(1.33)

4.00(1.75)

Encouraging children to communicate 4.09(1.68)

2.09(0.94)

3.54(1.34)

4.97(1.56)

Books 2.88(1.49)

1.00(0.00)

2.79(1.31)

3.28(1.53)

Curriculum dimension 4.32(1.67)

1.82(0.53)

3.43(1.32)

5.64(0.80)

Free play 4.83(2.11)

2.36(0.92)

3.66(1.82)

6.39(1.19)

Group time 5.19(2.19)

1.73(1.01)

4.35(2.20)

6.61(0.81)

Nature/science 3.31(1.99)

1.55(0.69)

2.35(1.53)

4.55(1.79)

Math/number 3.97(1.99)

1.64(0.92)

3.33(2.00)

5.00(1.46)

Other items 2.58(1.09)

1.41(0.57)

2.21(0.88)

3.15(1.04)

Dramatic play 2.07(1.54)

1.36(0.92)

1.82(1.26)

2.43(1.78)

Promoting diversity 1.97(1.26)

1.36(0.67)

1.86(1.12)

2.19(1.41)

Use of TV/video/computers 3.53(1.78)

1.00(0.00)

3.00(1.84)

4.26(1.37)

Disabilitya 6.39(1.27)

3.50(3.54)

6.60(0.55)

6.69(0.48)

Note. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.aThe number of responses for this item differ from those for other items because only children with

disabilities were scored: n = 2, 4, and 17 at the poor, mediocre, and good quality levels, respectively.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

by the adapted ECERS-R items, whereas 47% (n = 47) of the children were inclassrooms rated as having overall good quality. Among the children in good-qual-ity classrooms (n = 47), only 38% (n = 18) were rated as having good-quality indi-vidual experiences on the adapted ECERS-R items, 62% (n = 29) were rated ashaving mediocre-quality individual experiences, but none were rated as havingpoor-quality individual experiences. All the children (n = 8) enrolled in poor-qual-ity classrooms were rated as having poor-quality individual experiences, but 33%(n = 17) of the children enrolled in mediocre-quality classrooms were rated as hav-ing poor-quality individual experiences as well. Three children in mediocre-qual-ity classrooms were rated as having good-quality individual experiences. In thecross-tab examination, the chi-square statistic was statistically significant, but theresult should be interpreted with caution because more than 33% of the cells hadexpected counts less than 5.

Correlations among the mean scores on the total score and two factor dimen-sions of the adapted ECERS-R items and the total score and selected subscale

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 925

TABLE 4Frequencies of Three Levels of Adapted ECERS-R Scores by Three Levels

of the ECERS-R Individual Experiences (Adapted ECERS-R) Scores byThree Levels of the Global Classroom Quality (ECERS-R) Scores (N = 106)

ECERS-R

Adapted ECERS-R Poor Mediocre Good

Poor 8 (100.0) 18 (35.3) 0 (0.0)Mediocre 0 (0.0) 30 (58.8) 29 (61.7)Good 0 (0.0) 3 (5.9) 18 (38.3)

Note. χ2(df = 4) = 52.06, p < .001. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.

TABLE 5Intercorrelations for Individual Experiences (Adapted ECERS-R)

and Global Classroom Quality (ECERS-R) in Early Careand Education Settings (N = 106)

ECERS-R

Adapted ECERS-R Total ActivitiesProgramStructure Interaction

Language–Reasoning

Total .83*** .77*** .74*** .79*** .79***Interaction/Language .72*** .60*** .59*** .76*** .78***Curriculum .82*** .81*** .84*** .68*** .60***

Note. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

scores of the ECERS-R are presented in Table 5. The total and two dimensionscores of the adapted ECERS-R items were positively associated with the totalmean score and subscale scores of the ECERS-R. The shared variance between theadapted ECERS-R Interaction/Language dimension and the ECERS-R total meanscore was 52% (r = .72); the shared variance between the adapted ECERS-R Inter-action/Language dimension and the other ECERS-R subscales ranged from 35%(r = .59) to 61% (r = .78).

Relations Between Individual Children’s Experiencesand Structural Quality

Correlations among the total and dimension scores from the adapted ECERS-Ritems and classroom structural quality variables are presented in Table 6. Overall,higher adapted ECERS-R item scores and ECERS-R scores were related to greaterlevels of teacher education and higher teacher salaries. However, teachers’ yearsof experience and the number of trainings in which teachers had participated werenegatively related to the Curriculum dimension of the adapted ECERS-R items.Even training activities focused on child development were related negatively tothe mean adapted ECERS-R items total score and dimension scores. The ECERS-R total score and Interaction subscale scores were related negatively to teachers’

926 JEON ET AL.

TABLE 6Intercorrelations for Individual Experiences (Adapted ECERS-R), Global

Classroom Quality (ECERS-R), and Structural Quality Variables in Early Careand Education Settings

Structural Quality Variables

Teacher Classroom

VariableExperience(N = 94)

Education(N = 95)

No. ofTrainings(N = 92)

No. of CDTrainings(N = 92)

Salary(N = 55)

GroupSize

(N = 104)

InclusiveSetting

(N = 104)

Adapted ECERS-RTotal –.12 .49*** –.18† –.21* .38** –.29** .17†

Interaction/Language –.07 .52*** –.16 –.22* .36** –.26** .12Curriculum –.21* .30** –.23* –.21* .34* –.21* .17†

ECERS-RTotal –.20* .38*** –.20† –.24* .38** –.16 .27**Activities –.15 .32** –.11 –.13 .27* –.16 .27**Program Structure –.18† .37*** –.24* –.26* .35** –.19† .16Interaction –.23* .29** –.25* –.27* .29* –.12 .15Language–Reasoning –.11 .44*** –.19† –.28** .39** –.17† .28**

Note. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

years of experience, and the ECERS-R Program Structure and Interaction subscalescores were negatively associated with number of trainings attended. It is interestingthat smaller classroom group size was associated with higher adapted ECERS-Ritem scores but was unrelated to the ECERS-R scores. Inclusive classrooms hadhigher scores on the ECERS-R total and several ECERS-R subscales than didnon-inclusive classrooms, but no such relations were found using the adaptedECERS-R item scores.

Relations Between Children’s Characteristics and IndividualExperiences

Table 7 presents t-test results of mean differences in children’s individual experi-ences and global classroom quality by children’s gender, disability, and minoritystatus. There were no statistically significant differences in the adapted ECERS-Ritems total or dimension scores or the ECERS-R total mean score by child gender.ECERS-R scores of classrooms in which children of minority status were ob-served were lower compared to scores of classrooms in which children of majoritystatus were observed; similar comparisons resulted when the adapted ECERS-Ritems were used in this manner. Most children of minority status were from the ur-ban research site, making it impossible to separate this effect from site effects.Children with disabilities were more likely than those who did not have disabilitiesto be enrolled in classrooms with better global quality as rated by the ECERS-R;similarly, children with disabilities had better individual experiences as reflectedby higher scores on the total and Interaction/Language dimension of the adaptedECERS-R items.

Relations Between Children’s Individual Experiencesand Their School Readiness

Correlations among scores on the adapted ECERS-R items, the ECERS-R, teacher–child relationships, and child outcomes are presented in Table 8. Positive teacher–child relationships as measured by the STRS (Pianta, 2001) were associated withadapted ECERS-R items total and Interaction/Language dimension scores, but norelations were found between the STRS and the ECERS-R scores. The adaptedECERS-R items total, Curriculum, and Interaction/Language dimension scoresand the ECERS-R total, Activities, and Program Structure scores were positivelyrelated to children’s social skills, indicating that children with better individual ex-periences were rated by their teachers as having better social skills. Children whowere in classrooms with better global quality were also rated by their teachers ashaving better social skills. PPVT-III scores were significantly correlated withadapted ECERS-R Curriculum dimension scores but not with any of the ECERS-Rscores. Children’s math skills as measured by the Woodcock–Johnson Applied

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 927

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

928

TA

BLE

7M

ean

(SD

)S

core

son

Indi

vidu

alE

xper

ienc

es(A

dapt

edE

CE

RS

-R)

and

Glo

balC

lass

room

Qua

lity

(EC

ER

S-R

)by

Chi

ldre

n’s

Dis

abili

tyan

dM

inor

ityS

tatu

s

Gen

der

Dis

abil

ity

Min

orit

y

Var

iabl

eG

irl

(n=

53)

Boy

(n=

53)

t(df

)Y

es(n

=20

)N

o(n

=82

)t(

df)

Yes

(n=

40)

No

(n=

66)

t(df

)

Ada

pted

EC

ER

S-R

Tot

al3.

76(1

.22)

4.04

(1.1

5)–1

.19

(104

)4.

52(0

.78)

3.71

(1.2

2)3.

67(4

4)**

*3.

54(1

.42)

4.12

(0.9

7)–2

.25

(61)

*In

tera

ctio

n/L

angu

age

3.94

(1.3

1)4.

38(1

.34)

–1.7

2(1

04)†

4.84

(0.9

6)3.

96(1

.35)

2.74

(100

)**

3.86

(1.6

7)4.

35(1

.15)

–1.7

2(6

4)†

Cur

ricu

lum

4.21

(1.8

3)4.

43(1

.50)

–0.6

8(1

04)

4.90

(1.4

4)4.

15(1

.71)

1.81

(100

)†3.

59(1

.73)

4.77

(1.4

8)–3

.70

(104

)***

EC

ER

S-R

Tot

al4.

65(1

.14)

4.76

(1.0

4)–0

.48

(104

)5.

19(0

.75)

4.55

(1.1

2)3.

08(4

3)**

4.35

(1.2

0)4.

92(0

.95)

–2.5

6(6

8)*

Act

iviti

es4.

00(1

.16)

3.93

(0.9

6)0.

32(1

04)

4.41

(0.8

3)3.

83(1

.10)

2.61

(37)

*3.

71(1

.22)

4.12

(0.9

3)–1

.83

(67)

†

Prog

ram

Stru

ctur

e4.

95(1

.96)

5.15

(1.7

5)–0

.54

(104

)5.

66(1

.65)

4.83

(1.8

8)1.

98(3

2)†

4.34

(1.9

6)5.

48(1

.66)

–3.0

6(7

2)**

Inte

ract

ion

5.07

(1.5

9)5.

62(1

.28)

–1.9

8(9

9)†

5.92

(1.2

2)5.

18(1

.49)

2.05

(100

)*4.

92(1

.74)

5.61

(1.2

0)–2

.20

(62)

*L

angu

age–

Rea

soni

ng4.

56(1

.48)

4.99

(1.4

6)–1

.52

(104

)5.

81(0

.82)

4.49

(1.5

1)5.

35(5

5)**

*4.

30(1

.75)

5.06

(1.2

2)–2

.42

(62)

*

Not

e.E

CE

RS-

R=

Ear

lyC

hild

hood

Env

iron

men

tRat

ing

Scal

e–R

evis

ed.

† p<

.10.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

*p<

.001

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Problems subtest were not significantly correlated with either the adapted ECERS-Ritems total or the ECERS-R scores.

Regression analyses were conducted to estimate child outcomes using the totaland two dimension scores from the adapted ECERS-R items after controlling forsite, EHS program or control group status, minority status, and disability status.The adapted ECERS-R items total and Interaction/Language dimension scoresuniquely explained children’s relationships with their teachers (β = .25, t = 2.18, p= .03; â = .27, t = 2.67, p = .02, respectively). The adapted ECERS-R total score,Interaction/Language and Curriculum dimensions, and ECERS-R Activities sub-scale score uniquely explained children’s social skills (β = .30, t = 2.81, p = .006;β = .31, t = 2.94, p = .004; β = .26, t = 2.23, p = .029; β = .24, t = 2.28, p = .025, re-spectively). However, children’s PPVT-III or Woodcock–Johnson Applied Prob-lems subtest scores were not uniquely explained by any of the adapted ECERS-Ritem scores or ECERS-R scores after controlling for site, EHS program group sta-tus, minority status, and disability status.

DISCUSSION

The results of the current study highlight several important aspects of the quality ofchildren’s individual experiences in early care and education. There was greatvariability among the experiences of individual children within classrooms. In gen-

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 929

TABLE 8Intercorrelations for Children’s Relationship With Teacher, Social and

Academic Skills, Individual Experiences (Adapted ECERS-R), and GlobalClassroom Quality (ECERS-R) in Child Care and Education Settings

Variable

Teacher–ChildRelationship

(N = 102)Social Skill(N = 101)

PPVT-III(N = 91)

W-J AppliedProblems(N = 91)

Adapted ECERS-RTotal .22* .27** .20† .07Interaction/Language .23* .24* .18† .09Curriculum .13 .28** .29** .05

ECERS-RTotal .07 .23* .17 .07Activities .06 .28** .16 .06Program Structure .03 .25* .19† .07Interaction .11 .14 .07 .04Language–Reasoning .09 .12 .09 .04

Note. ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised; PPVT = Peabody Pic-ture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition; W-J = Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

eral, estimates of quality based on ratings of individual children’s experiences werelower than those based on the global classroom ratings. It appears that global class-room quality (e.g., ECERS-R scores) provides a base for children’s learning experi-ences. It is not surprising that when global quality ratings were poor, individual chil-dren invariably had poor-quality experiences, but the adapted ECERS-R itemscaptured unique features of individual children’s curricular experiences in theclassrooms. Only about a third of the children enrolled in good-quality classroomshad good-quality individual experiences. Together, these findings highlight thatalthough good classroom quality may be a supportive context for quality individ-ual experiences, it does not ensure quality programming for each child. Even inclassrooms that receive global ratings of good quality, at least some children en-rolled do not necessarily participate in experiences likely to stimulate their optimaldevelopment.

The relations between the quality of individual children’s experiences andstructural quality were similar to those between global classroom quality andstructural quality. For example, greater teacher education and higher salaries wereassociated with better individual children’s experiences as well as with globalclassroom quality, which is consistent with the findings of other researchers(Pianta et al., 2005). Unlike Pianta et al. (2005), the current study found that teach-ers’ training and teaching experiences were negatively associated with individualchildren’s experiences and global classroom quality. We speculate that the differ-ences between these two studies may stem from program differences (state-spon-sored pre-kindergarten vs. Head Start or community-based child care programs).Teacher characteristics are more variable in community-based programs thanin state-sponsored pre-kindergarten programs (Barnett, 2003). Furthermore, wespeculate that teachers who have fewer years of education, and likely teachers whodemonstrate poorer skills, may seek or be directed to more basic child develop-ment–related trainings.

Smaller group sizes were associated with better individual experiences butnot with global classroom quality, indicating that group size may influence thequality of experiences for individual children even more than ratings of globalquality. This result is consistent with other studies that have found no relationbetween overall global classroom quality and group size in center-based pro-grams (Scarr et al., 1994) and family child care homes (Burchinal, Howes, &Kontos, 2002; Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, Burchinal, O’Brien, & McCartney,2002; NICHD Early Childhood Research Network, 2000a). Phillips and her col-leagues (2001) found negative relations between overall classroom quality andgroup size in center-based infant classrooms but not in center-based preschoolclassrooms. This result might be explained by considering that the nature of in-fant care is more oriented toward each individual child, much like the quality ofindividual experiences within a classroom as captured by the adapted ECERS-Ritems.

930 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Inclusive classrooms were more likely to have better global classroom quality,but children’s individual experiences were not necessarily better in inclusiveclassrooms than non-inclusive classrooms. This finding is consistent with previ-ous studies that have indicated that center-based inclusive classrooms are morelikely to provide better global classroom quality than are non-inclusive classrooms(Buysse et al., 1999; Knoche et al., 2006). However, not all children in inclusiveclassroom settings have good-quality individual experiences. The fact that chil-dren with disabilities had better individual experiences is interesting. Our resultsdo not indicate why this may be; it is possible that teachers put more effort into in-dividualizing activities and curricula to meet a child’s needs and encourage thechild to participate in various activities when the child has a disability.

The current study also found that minority children had lower quality individ-ual experiences in early care and education than did nonminority children. How-ever, children’s minority status was confounded by site, so this result needs to betreated with caution. According to Burchinal et al. (2000), children’s school readi-ness was related to quality of child care, child gender, and social risk factors suchas poverty and minority status, as well as interactions among these predictors.Early care and education programs serving minority children from low-incomefamilies have a higher probability of being of poor quality (Burchinal et al., 2000).In spite of that disparity, no relation has been found between children’s ethnicityand their teachers’ interaction quality when predicting children’s school readiness(Burchinal & Cryer, 2003). Further research is needed to investigate how the qual-ity of children’s individual experiences is influenced by their personal characteris-tics and social risk factors.

The current study shows that the quality of children’s individual experiencesbut not global classroom quality is related to children’s relationships with teachers.Children’s relationships with their teachers are important because they predictlater academic and behavioral adjustment (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes, 2000;Mashburn et al., 2006). These findings indicate that children’s relationships withtheir teachers may be more highly related to children’s individual experiences inearly care and education than to a measure of global classroom quality alone. Fur-thermore, Howes and Smith’s (1995) conceptual model suggests that classroomquality affects teacher–child interactions, teacher–child relationships, and chil-dren’s play activities in early care and education settings. These factors in turn pre-dict complex cognitive play behavior, which is a measure of children’s cognitivedevelopmental status. However, Howes and Smith measured teachers’ interactionbehaviors with children as teacher–child interactions. Causal relations betweenteacher–child interactions and children’s individual experiences need to be inves-tigated further.

Both children’s individual experiences and global classroom quality wereassociated with positive social skills. This is consistent with previous studiesshowing relations between global classroom quality and children’s social out-

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 931

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

comes (Howes, 1990; Mashburn et al., 2008). Children’s receptive language skillswere associated with their individual curriculum experiences as measured by theadapted ECERS-R items but not global classroom quality as measured by theECERS-R. However, the relation between children’s language and individual cur-riculum experiences disappeared after controlling for demographic characteristics.These findings are not consistent with those of other researchers who have identifiedrelations between classroom quality or teachers’ behaviors and children’s languageor cognitive outcomes (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al.,2008). One explanation for the differences in our findings is that our sample size wassmaller than those in previous studies; thus, the current study might have failed todetect a small effect size. There may also be interaction effects among child charac-teristics and individual children’s experiences that the current study did not examine(Hamre & Pianta, 2005).

Taken together, empirical studies show that providing a variety of appropriateclassroom play and learning activities is not sufficient to ensure that all children willfully engage in those activities. Teachers’ involvement, support, and interactions withchildren may facilitate children’s engagement and learning in the classroom (Piker &Rex, 2008); previous studies have found that teachers’ support and interaction withchildren predict children’s preacademic skills (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Mashburn etal., 2008). Teachers’ involvement and interaction may facilitate individual children’sexperiences in early care and education settings, which may directly affect schoolreadiness. This may be especially true when teachers engage children in rich dialoguesor literacy activities (Biemiller, 2006; Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995;Whitehurst et al., 1994). The current study found a gap between global classroomquality and children’s individual experiences in early interaction and literacy activityratings. Furthermore, previous studies have found a link between teachers’ behaviorand children’s language and social skills. This study also identified a link betweenchildren’s individual experiences and their relationships with teachers and social andlanguage skills. This suggests the need for continued professional development in thisarea for early childhood educators. Pre- and in-service trainings for early childhoodteachers should focus on behaviors such as involvement, support, and interaction topromote children’s individual experience in the classroom. Teachers also need tomonitor whether all children fully engage in classroom learning and play activities.These research findings highlight the need for further investigation of children’s indi-vidual experiences, which may provide a clearer understanding of the relations be-tween children’s experience in early care and education and their developmental out-comes and thus help teachers plan more effectively for each child.

Limitations

These findings need to be interpreted cautiously. As stated, our sample was lim-ited to a population of families who were eligible for EHS services in two Mid-

932 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

western sites. Overall, the ECERS-R scores indicated higher quality ratings thanhave been found in other studies of early care and education programs (Hegland& Oesterreich, 2005; Hegland, Peterson, Jeon, & Oesterreich, 2003; Raikes etal., 2006) but were similar to those found in the national EHSRE using birth-to-age-3 data (Love et al., 2003) and pre-kindergarten follow-up phase data(Early et al., 2007).

Because of the small number of children per classroom, we were not able toexamine similarities and differences in experiences for several children in thesame classroom. In addition, the stability of the adapted ECERS-R item scores orany measure of individual children’s experiences needs to be examined ingreater detail. The current study is limited by the fact that children were observedin their classroom on a single day only. Although stability has been establishedfor ECERS-R scores, it is possible that the experiences of individual childrenvary more from day to day than does overall classroom quality. This may be es-pecially true for children who are English language learners, are from minoritygroups, have disabilities, or have social and behavior problems. Ideally, data col-lection would include multiple assessments of the children’s experiences to en-sure greater reliability of the scores. Future studies examining individual chil-dren’s experiences in early care and education need to take a wider variety ofchild characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, disability, minority status, age)into account.

Observations of global classroom quality and children’s individual experi-ences were completed by the same observer; therefore, the high correlationsbetween global classroom quality and children’s individual experiences couldbe due in part to observers’ shared variance. Special attention was given to en-suring interobserver reliability, and observers remained reliable throughoutdata collection, increasing confidence that scores were not affected by observerdrift. In future research, data collection for each child needs to be conductedthrough multiple observations by different observers to capture estimates of in-dividual children’s experiences in early care and education settings as accuratelyas possible.

The current study examined children’s individual experiences in early careand education and overall global classroom quality from the perspective of anoutside observer. Another question that should be investigated is how individualchildren perceive their early care and education experiences (Brock et al., 2008;Wiltz & Klein, 2001). Brock et al. found relations between children’s percep-tions of early care and education experiences and their social skills. Wiltz andKlein conducted a qualitative study examining how children perceived their ex-periences in early care and education, comparing children in low- and high-qual-ity classrooms. Unique insight may be gained from investigating children’s per-ceptions of early care and education experiences from both qualitative andquantitative perspectives.

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 933

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Implications for Practice and Research

Given all that is known about the importance of quality environments (Vandell &Wolfe, 2000), it is critical that practitioners working with preschool children cre-ate environments and provide activities supportive of each child’s development.Ratings of overall global quality, as well as ratings of global quality within specificcurricular areas (e.g., as typified in the ECERS-R subscales), can guide classroomquality improvement efforts in a number of ways. Specifically, these ratings canalert early childhood professionals to curricular areas that may need more attentionand planning and help administrators shape staff development and supervision ef-forts. However, the findings presented here suggest that a focus on global qualityalone may not be sufficient to understand the early care and education experiencesof individual children.

Findings from this study indicate that children, even when enrolled in the sameclassrooms, have different experiences that can influence their developmental tra-jectories. Further work is needed to develop instruments that can detect these dif-ferences with sufficient accuracy and sensitivity to inform classroom program-ming. Evaluation of individual experiences may be important in guiding overallprogram planning as well as the individualized planning needed to meet the spe-cific needs presented by individual children. This information can help early child-hood professionals understand how their program is reaching individual children,plan for a child’s individual needs, and develop activity plans to assist childrenwho need individualized programming to promote their development in classroomsettings. These efforts are increasingly important if early care and education pro-grams are to fulfill their promise to prepare children from diverse backgrounds tomeet the challenges of formal schooling at the beginning of the primary grades.

This study suggests that researchers and policymakers should be aware thatglobal quality measures may be masking differences in individual children’s expe-riences when they try to link global quality measures of early care and education toindividual children’s school readiness outcomes. This study indicates that class-room quality can be a supportive context for quality individual experiences butdoes not ensure that all children in the classroom have the same quality experience,possibly accounting for previous studies that failed to find relations between theseglobal measures and children’s school readiness.

REFERENCES

Aytch, L. S., Cryer, D., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Selz, L. (1999). Defining and assessing quality in early in-tervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: Challenges and un-resolved issues. Early Education and Development, 10, 7–23.

Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked with teacherqualifications (Vol. 2). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

934 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. InD. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 41–51). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early school adjust-ment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79.

Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Children’s per-ceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analy-sis of the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2),129–149.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M.Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development(6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Clifford, R. M. (1993). Evaluation of public preschoolprograms in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child DevelopmentCenter.

Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 18, 401–426.

Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroomquality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2–11.

Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (2002). Structural predictors of child care quality in child carehomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 87–105.

Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children’s social andcognitive development and child-care quality: Testing for differential associations related to pov-erty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 149–165.

Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M., & Pellegrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learningto read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Re-search, 65, 1–21.

Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Bryant, D., & Gardner, D. (1999). Quality or early childhood programs in in-clusive and non-inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 65, 301–314.

Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., & Summers, J. A. (2006, July). Early Head Start longitudinal research pro-ject. Kansas City: University of Kansas, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project.

Clarke-Stewart, A., & Gruber, L. (1994). Children in home and in day care. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do

regulatable features of child care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 17, 52–86.

Clawson, C., & Luze, G. (2008). Individual experiences of children with and without disabilities inearly childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(3), 132–147.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation anal-ysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cost Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters: Key findings and recommendations. Young Children, 50(4), 40–44.

Dunn, L. (1993). Proximal and distal features of day care quality and children’s development. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 8, 167–192.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 3rd edition. Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Service.

Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., … Zill, N. (2007).Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from sevenstudies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78, 558–580.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid-ance Service.

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 935

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’sschool outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-gradeclassroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76,949–967.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revisededition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Heckman, J. J., & Krueger, A. B. (2003). Inequality in America: What role for human capital policy?(B. M. Friedman, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hegland, S., & Oesterreich, L. (2005). Observed quality in Iowa classroom serving preschoolers withIEPs: A report to the Iowa Department of Education. Ames: Iowa State University.

Hegland, S., Peterson, C., Jeon, H., & Oesterreich, L. (2003). Iowa child care characteristics and qual-ity: Executive summary, Midwest Child Care Research Consortium. Retrieved from the Iowa StateUniversity Extension website: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/childcare/Executive_Summary_%202.17.doc

Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent–school involvement and school performance: Mediated path-ways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74–83.

Howes, C. (1983). Caregiver behavior in center and family day care. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 4, 99–107.

Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and the quality of child care predict adjustment inkindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 26, 292–303.

Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher back-ground and adult–child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404–425.

Howes, C. (2000). Social–emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships, andchildren’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191–204.

Howes, C., Burchinal, M. R., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D. M., Early, D. M., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O.(2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50.

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

Howes, C., & Smith, E. C. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behavior, children’s playactivities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in child care. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 10, 381–404.

Howes, C., Smith, E., & Galinsky, E. (1995). The Florida child care quality improvement study: In-terim report. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute.

Knoche, L., Peterson, C. A., Edwards, C. E., & Jeon, H. J. (2006). Children with disabilities: What aretheir experiences with child care services? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 93–109.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., & Galinsky, E. (1996). Does training make a difference to quality in familychild care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 351–372.

Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, &K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed.,pp. 73–134). New York, NY: Wiley.

Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Moss, M. (1993). Life in preschool—Volume one of an observationstudy of early childhood programs for disadvantaged four-year-olds: Final report. Cambridge, MA:Abt Associates.

Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school ef-fects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences inachievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

936 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Ross, C., Ungerer, J. A., …Chazan-Cohen, R. (2003). Child care quality matters: How conclusions may vary with context.Child Development, 74, 1021–1033.

Love, J. M., Ryer, P., & Faddis, B. (1992). Caring environments—Program quality in California’spublicly funded child development programs: Report on the legislatively mandated 1990–91 staff/child ratio study. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.

Love, J. M., Schochet, P. A., & Meckstroth, A. L. (1996). Are they in any real danger? What researchdoes—and doesn’t—tell us about child care quality and children’s well-being. Princeton, NJ:Mathematica Policy Research.

Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom character-istics associated with teachers’ ratings of prekindergarteners’ relationships and behaviors. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 24, 367–380.

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., … Howes, C.(2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic,language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732–749.

Mathematica Policy Research. (2002). Making difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and theirfamilies: The impacts of Early Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Administration for Children and Families.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000a). Characteristics and quality of child care for tod-dlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116–135.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000b). The relation of child care to cognitive and lan-guage development. Child Development, 71, 960–980.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does quality of child care affect child outcomesat age 4½? Developmental Psychology, 39, 451–469.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Relations between preschool children’s child-care expe-riences and concurrent development: The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study. Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 43, 451–477.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., & Kagan, S. L.(2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmentaltrajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553.

Peterson, C. A., Atwater, J. B., Clawson, C. L., Carta, J. J., Montagna, D., & Luze, G. J. (2001). My ex-periences: Technical report. Ames: Iowa State University.

Peterson, C. A., & Luze, G. J. (2006). Project HOME (Home Observation to Measure Effectiveness):Longitudinal study final report. Ames: Iowa State University.

Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality child care: Review of research. In D. Phillips(Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (Vol. 1, pp. 1–19). Washington, DC: Na-tional Association for the Education of Young Children.

Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child care quality and children’s social develop-ment. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543.

Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2001). Within and beyond the class-room door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 475–496.

Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process qualityfrom structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281–303.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-logical Assessment Resources.

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Stuhlman, M. (2002). Relationships between teachers and children.New York, NY: Wiley.

Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Fea-tures of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroomquality and child–teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159.

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 937

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Piker, R. A., & Rex, L. A. (2008). Influences of teacher–child social interactions on English languagedevelopment in a Head Start classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 187–193.

Raikes, H. H., Torquati, J. C., Hegland, S., Raikes, H. A., Scott, J., Messner, L., … Scott, S. (2006).Studying the culture of quality of early education and care. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.),Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 111–136). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000).Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied De-velopmental Science, 4(1), 2–14.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Teacher-rated family in-volvement and children’s social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. Early Education & Devel-opment, 14, 179–198.

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

Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart, D. P., & Larner, M. B. (1986). A report on the High/Scope Preschool Com-parison Study: Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 1, 15–45.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Winter 2002. Re-trieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-101.pdf

Vandell, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved?(Institute for Research on Poverty Special Report No. 78). Retrieved from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/sr/pdfs/sr78.pdf

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. A. (1990). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality ofcare in America (Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study). Oakland, CA: Child CareEmployee Project.

Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Out-comes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,542–555.

Wiltz, N. W., & Klein, E. L. (2001). What do you do in child care? Children’s perceptions of high andlow quality classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 65–103.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

938 JEON ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

APPENDIXAn Example Item From the Adapted Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale–Revised

Early Literacy Item

InadequateStaff do not engage in sound-related activities or discuss sounds of words or letterswith Target Child (TC).

MinimalStaff occasionally engage in phonemic awareness activities with TC.

GoodSome materials/games that encourage engagement with letter/word sounds areavailable to TC.

ExcellentStaff frequently talk about sounds or engage TC in a variety of phonemic aware-ness activities.

INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION 939

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:55

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14