AiASabcaARR2AKPTC.docx

A
i
A
S
a
b
c
a
A
R
R
2
A
K
P
T
C
I
S
l
i
o
c
o
w

t
r
c
m
f
S
H
p
e
S
U
0
d
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
ctivity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms:
Diverse experiences
n early learning settings for low-income children�
llison Sidle Fuligni a,∗ , Carollee Howes b, Yiching Huang
b, Sandra Soliday Hong b,
andraluz Lara-Cinisomo c
California State University, Los Angeles, USA
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA
r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:
eceived 28 April 2010
eceived in revised form
7 September 2011
ccepted 8 October 2011
eywords:
reschool quality
eacher-directed activity
hild-directed activity
a b s t r a c t
This paper examines activity settings and daily classroom
routines experienced by 3- and 4-year-old low-
income children in public center-based preschool programs,
private center-based programs, and family
child care homes. Two daily routine profiles were
identified using a time-sampling coding procedure:
a High Free-Choice pattern in which children spent a
majority of their day engaged in child-directed
free-choice activity settings combined with relatively low
amounts of teacher-directed activity, and a
Structured-Balanced pattern in which children spent
relatively equal proportions of their day engaged in
child-directed free-choice activity settings and teacher-
directed small- and whole-group activities. Daily
routine profiles were associated with program type and
curriculum use but not with measures of process
quality. Children in Structured-Balanced classrooms had
more opportunities to engage in language and
nstructional quality
chool readiness
literacy and math activities, whereas children in High Free-
Choice classrooms had more opportunities for

gross motor and fantasy play. Being in a Structured-
Balanced classroom was associated with children’s
language scores but profiles were not associated with
measures of children’s math reasoning or socio-
emotional behavior. Consideration of teachers’ structuring
of daily routines represents a valuable way to
understand nuances in the provision of learning experiences
for young children in the context of current
views about developmentally appropriate practice and
school readiness.
Children from low-income families attend a variety of early
earning programs prior to kindergarten. Some programs are
specif-
cally designed to provide pre-kindergarten readiness
development
pportunities. Others are primarily concerned with meeting the
hild care needs of working parents. Many programs focus on
both
f these goals. As a result, early learning settings may vary
greatly
ith respect to the services provided, the structure and size of
he program, and the setting itself (home- or center-based). Past
esearch has shown that participation in early learning programs
an help to alleviate socioeconomic disparities in school achieve-
ent by increasing children’s academic and social readiness for
ormal schooling. Importantly, higher-quality programs produce
� The research reported in this paper was supported through
the Interagency
chool Readiness Consortium (NICHD, ACF, ASPE; Grant
Number: 5-R01-
D046063). However, the contents do not necessarily represent

the positions or
olicies of the U.S. Department of Education and endorsement by
the Federal gov-
rnment should not be assumed.
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Child and Family
Studies, California
tate University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los
Angeles, CA 90032,
SA. Tel.: +1 323 343 4593.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S. Fuligni).
885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved.
oi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.001
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
greater gains (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002; Gormley,
Gayer,
Phillips, & Dawson, 2005; Howes et al., 2008). Decades of
research
investigating children’s early learning settings have advanced
our
conceptualizations of quality, identifying the environments,
inter-
actions, and activities likely to support young children’s
learning.
This prior body of research has focused on structural and pro-
cess quality and other features of children’s experiences, such
as
the type of program they attend, the number of hours they spend
in care, or the age at which they enter care. The recent focus
on children’s school readiness has also led to research on the
efficacy of specific academically-oriented preschool curricula

for
children’s learning. Less attention has been paid to the ways
that
children’s daily experiences in early education and care are
struc-
tured. The amount of time that children are expected to engage
in
activity settings of different group sizes, and the extent to
which
those activities are teacher-directed or child-initiated may also
be
important features of children’s learning experiences in early
edu-
cation programs. This study builds on the growing body of
research
exploring time use in preschool programs. Using a diverse
sample of
early learning programs serving low-income families, we
identify
patterns in the ways teachers organize time in different group
sizes
and settings (i.e. free choice, whole group, small group) into
daily
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08852006
mailto:[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.10.001
Resea
c
r

q
c
r
1
d
a
S
p
i
e
a
s
a
2
t
t
r
o
a
a
T
h
t
s
S
d
m
l
p
t
a
c
e

3
&
&
m
t
p
A
t
w
e
2
p
p
r
(
k
o
2
t
d
s
e
t
A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood
lassroom routines. We also relate differences in daily
classroom
outine to structural program characteristics, measures of process
uality, children’s engagement in activities of various academic
ontents, teachers’ instructional strategies, and children’s school
eadiness skills.
. Conceptualizing quality in early learning programs

Prior studies have typically conceptualized and assessed chil-
ren’s experiences in early learning settings by exploring various
spects of structural and process quality (Phillips & Howes,
1987).
ome studies focus on structural quality, which concerns features
of
rogram infrastructure or design. In these studies, program
quality
s assessed in terms of adherence to standards involving teacher
ducation, teacher–child ratio, class size, and other regulatable
spects of care (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2005).
Other
tudies focus on process quality, which relates to more
qualitative
spects of children’s direct experiences in classrooms (Pianta et
al.,
005). In these studies, observational measures are used to gauge
he emotional and instructional quality of teacher–child interac-
ions and the extent to which appropriate materials, activities,
and
outines are provided for children.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift in the field
f early childhood education. Debates about how children learn
nd how best to teach them have taken a back seat to debates
bout what children should be learning during the preschool
years.
he school readiness movement has challenged the early child-
ood field to consider what knowledge and skills children need
o learn in order to be adequately equipped for a successful tran-
ition into kindergarten (Barbarin & Wasik, 2009; Pianta, Cox, &
now, 2007). Conceptually, “school readiness” encompasses aca-
emic content area learning, especially in the areas of literacy
and
ath, as well as self-regulatory behaviors, such as sitting still,

fol-
owing directions, and taking turns in conversation and play. The
ush to clearly define what children should be learning during
he preschool years has become stronger as the standards-based
ccountability movement has gained momentum in the K-12 edu-
ational system (Brown, 2007; Kagan & Kauerz, 2007). Today,
nearly
very state has developed early learning standards for children
ages
–5 in language, literacy, and mathematics (Burns, Midgette,
Leong,
Bodrova, 2003; Neuman & Roskos, 2005; Scott-Little, Kagan,
Frelow, 2003). The increased focus on content knowledge has
et with a variety of responses, ranging from strong resistance
o cautious enthusiasm, among early childhood researchers and
ractitioners. Many practitioners struggle to balance the National
ssociation for the Education of Young Children’s Developmen-
ally Appropriate Practice guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple,
2009)
ith demands to focus on academic content in their early care and
ducation programs.
. Research on children’s experiences in early learning
rograms
Some recent research has begun to document time use in
reschool programs along with other measures of children’s
expe-
iences. The National Center for Early Development and
Learning
NCEDL) conducted two large studies of publicly funded pre-

indergarten programs and employed a large battery of measures
f structural and process quality in these programs (Early et al.,
005). Early et al. (2010) used time sampling observational data
o describe the amount of time that children spent in child-
irected (i.e., free play) versus teacher-assigned (i.e., whole
group,
mall group, individual time) activity settings. Furthermore, they
xamined associations between time spent in various activity set-
ings, child demographics, structural program characteristics,
and
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209 199
measures of process quality. They found that, on average, chil-
dren spent almost 30% of their pre-kindergarten day in free-
choice
and 37% in whole-group, small-group, or individual time. Pro-
grams meeting for more hours per week had higher proportions
of
time spent in the free-choice activity settings, and classrooms
with
higher proportions of Latino or African-American children
spent
smaller proportions of the day in free-choice and more time in
teacher-assigned activity settings. Furthermore, the amount of
time
spent in whole-group activity settings was negatively correlated
with classroom process quality.
Using the same data set, Chien et al. (2010) classified indi-
vidual children into profiles of classroom engagement. To
create
the profiles, they used aggregated data on children’s time spent
in activity settings (i.e., free play, whole group, small group,
indi-

vidual instruction), children’s engagement in activities of
various
pre-academic contents (i.e., letter-sound, fine-motor, math,
etc.),
and teacher–child interactions (i.e., scaffolding, didactic
instruc-
tion, etc.). Four profiles of children’s classroom engagement
were
identified: a “free play” category of children who spent the
highest
proportion of time in free-choice and gross-motor activities and
the lowest amount of time in academic engagement; “individual
instruction” children who experienced high levels of teacher-
assigned individual time and who also engaged in the most
fine-motor and letter-sound activities; “group instruction” chil-
dren who experienced the highest levels of both whole-group
and
small-group activity settings; and a “scaffolded learning”
category
in which children experienced high levels of teacher scaffold-
ing and elaborated teacher–child interactions along with more
time in academic activities. Chien et al. (2010) found that class-
room engagement profiles were associated with classroom
quality
and child outcomes. Process quality scores for the classrooms of
children in the free play and scaffolded learning groups were
sig-
nificantly higher than those in the more didactic group
instruction
and individual instruction groups. Children in the “free play”
profile
exhibited smaller gains across the pre-kindergarten year on
indi-
cators of language, literacy, mathematics, and social
competence
compared to children in other profiles. Children in the

“individual
instruction” profile showed greater gains in their scores on stan-
dardized early math assessments.
Some preschool curricula consider the configuration of chil-
dren’s activities in preschool settings. For instance, the Literacy
Express Preschool Curriculum (LEPC; Lonigan, Clancy-
Menchetti,
Phillips, McDowell, & Farver, 2005) employs small group
instruc-
tion in various specific components of pre-literacy skills as well
as activity suggestions for child-directed activity in independent
play centers. This curriculum suggests a balance of teacher-
initiated
instruction and opportunities for child-initiated activity, and
emphasizes the role of modeling and scaffolding during teacher-
directed small-group activities. Randomized evaluation of this
curriculum has shown positive effects of the LEPC on
development
of literacy skills for low-income preschoolers (Lonigan, Farver,
Phillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2011) and for Spanish-speaking
English-language learners (Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009).
Small-group instruction has been shown to promote specific
literacy skills in the preschool setting (Piasta & Wagner, 2010;
Roberts & Neal, 2004). A meta-analysis of 161 studies of early
education interventions categorized programs by their “primary
instructional grouping” (whole group, small group, individual
instruction, or mixed) and their “primary pedagogical approach”
(direct [teacher-led] instruction, inquiry based [hands-on, stu-
dent directed] instruction, or mixed). When programs utilizing a
variety of curricula were categorized in these ways, the analysis
revealed that use of a direct instruction approach was associated
with more impacts on children’s cognitive development, as was
the use of smaller or individualized instruction (Camilli,

Vargas,
Ryan, & Barnett, 2010). Although such findings lend support to
the
2 Resea
i
m
w
s
s
t
e
a
p
&
(
c
o
t
s
t
a
t
a
c
g
(
g
o
i

i
s
g
d
c
a
w
i
t
r
f
a
i
s
s
t
i
a
t
i
h
c
3
d
c
t
h
s
y
r
p
h
a

00 A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood
mportance of specific formats for instruction and activities to
pro-
ote learning in the early education setting, they do not indicate
hat might be appropriate amounts of time for children to spend
in
mall groups or in teacher-directed versus child-initiated activity
ettings.
To explicitly study the importance of groupings and activities
hat children experience in different early learning settings, an
co-behavioral analysis can be useful. The goal of eco-behavioral
nalysis is to determine the ecological factors that ‘set the stage’
for
articular child behaviors (Carta & Greenwood, 1985;
Greenwood
Carta, 1987). Kontos, Burchinal, Howes, Wisseh, and Galinsky
2002) employed eco-behavioral analysis and found that
children’s
omplex interactions with objects and peers were most likely to
ccur during their engagement in “creative” activities, such as
fan-
asy play, block play, and open-ended art activities. In another
tudy, Powell, Burchinal, File, and Kontos (2008) found that,
within
he context of academic activities, children were more likely to
be
ctively engaged during involvement with a peer group and when
eachers provided monitoring and verbal affirmations. In
contrast,
ctive engagement during academic activities was least likely
when
hildren were involved in a whole group setting and when

teachers
ave direct verbal instructions.
The studies described above by Early et al. (2010) and Chien et
al.
2010) suggest that more time in free play and less time in whole
roup activity settings is associated with higher scores on
measures
f process quality. However, complicating the picture is the find-
ng by Chien et al. (2010) that children who spend the most time
n free-choice activities exhibit smaller gains on a wide range of
chool readiness skills. One interpretation of these findings is
that,
enerally speaking, teachers should set aside plenty of time for
chil-
ren to engage in free-choice activities, but too much time in free
hoice precludes other important learning opportunities that are
fforded by activity settings such as whole group and small
group,
hich are more teacher-directed in nature. Child-directed
learning
n free-choice activity settings may be the hallmark of
developmen-
ally appropriate early childhood curriculum, but there is
growing
ecognition that children can experience important opportunities
or learning across a range of participation structures, including
ctivity settings such as whole group and small group which typ-
cally involve varying levels of didactic instruction and teacher
caffolding.
Although it is useful to examine time spent in various activity
ettings separately, there are limitations to this approach because
he amount of time that children spend in each activity setting is
nfluenced by the amount of time that they spend in every other

ctivity setting. For example, more time in free choice means
less
ime for whole-group activities, and vice versa. An analysis of
activ-
ty settings across the entire day would provide information
about
ow teachers allocate time to the range of activity settings that
ollectively make up their daily classroom routine.
. The current study
The current study builds on the existing body of literature by
rawing from a unique sample of early learning programs that
aptures more of the diversity of early learning settings available
o low-income families. In the extant literature, many
researchers
ave limited the focus of their investigations by restricting their
ample to public center-based pre-kindergarten programs for 4-
ear-old. In this study, we cast a wider net by drawing from a
ich sample that includes center-based programs from both the
ublic and private sectors, as well as licensed family child care
omes, and programs serving 3- and 4-year-old and often other
ges as well. Our sample reflects the wide range of early learning
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209
programs serving low-income families with preschool-aged
children.
This study extends the line of research investigating time spent
in preschool activity settings in several ways. First, it uses a
unique
data set incorporating observations in a diverse sample of early
education programs. Second, rather than focusing on discrete
activ-

ities or activity settings in isolation, in the current study, we
focus
on understanding how activity settings are distributed relative
to
each other over the course of a program day. Although this
study
shares some similarity with the work of Chien et al. (2010),
there
are several important conceptual and analytical distinctions.
This
study identifies patterns in the organization of activity settings
at
the classroom level (unlike Chien et al., 2010, who used a child-
level approach), which affords an opportunity to explore how
daily
classroom routines influence individual children’s experiences.
Furthermore, unlike Chien et al. (2010), this investigation
considers
activity settings separately from measures of instructional
strate-
gies (such as didactic and scaffolding instructional interactions)
and
time spent in activities of various academic contents (i.e. letter-
sound, fine-motor, math, etc.) that were included in that study’s
classifications. In this analysis, child-level data on engagement
in
academic activities and types of instructional interactions with
teachers are considered outcomes that may be partially
influenced
by the daily classroom routine.
Specifically, we address three research questions. First, how can
early education programs be characterized in terms of the
patterns
of time spent in different activity settings? Second, do settings
with

different patterns of activity routines vary with respect to
structure
or process quality? And finally, after accounting for potential
dif-
ferences in structure or process quality, do children
experiencing
different patterns of activity routines show different outcomes?
4. Method
4.1. Sample
This analysis uses data from a larger longitudinal study of
school
readiness among low-income children. A variety of early
childhood
education programs serving low-income children in Los Angeles
County, California was selected to represent a range of diverse
learning settings available to low-income children. In the larger
study, the sampling procedure involved recruiting programs
serv-
ing 3-year-old in the first year of the study as well as recruiting
a
comparison group of children not attending a licensed early
learn-
ing program at age three. Family income was not used as a
sampling
characteristic, but rather programs and agencies were included
if
they served low-income families exclusively or made spaces
avail-
able for families qualifying for subsidies. Children were
recruited
for the comparison group through several methods that were
likely
to yield low-income families, including waiting lists for

subsidized
child care and targeted flyers in community health care and
WIC
clinics.
Target children from the study classrooms and comparison
group children were all followed into any early learning
program
they attended the next year. These procedures resulted in two
dif-
ferent samples of child care programs and classrooms-one set of
57
classrooms in year 1 representing the programs in which a set of
3-year-old children were initially sampled, and another set in
year
2 representing the 106 classrooms where the study children
ended
up the following year. In some cases, children stayed in the
same
program, but other children changed programs, and some of the
children who were not in a program in year 1 entered a program
in
year 2.
This analysis of 125 classroom settings uses data from all pro-
grams that were observed, with only the first year of
observation
Resea
i
r

a
o
o
s
T
a
y
p
v
f
t
l
o
d
F
i
w
c
e
r
f
r
i
1
t
p
p
m
r
c
o
o
t
s

1
(
w
f
m
c
s
(
m
d
a
M
i
m
p
p
f
i
t
o
a
w
t
u
C
I
n any particular classroom included in the data set. Thus, all
class-
ooms and programs observed in the first year are included, as
well
s any new classrooms that target children entered into in the
sec-

nd year. Thus the observations are of each classroom the first
year
ne of the study children attended that classroom. Children them-
elves had varying child care histories prior to entering our
study.
he resulting sample is comprised the 57 classrooms from year 1
nd 68 additional classrooms attended by our target children in
ear 2. The sample includes 53 public preschool classrooms, 47
rivate preschool classrooms, and 25 family child care homes.
Early learning settings included public preschool programs, pri-
ate preschools or community child care, and licensed home-
based
amily child care programs. In this study, we conceptualize any
of
hese types of out-of-home early education experiences as early
earning settings. We use the term “classroom” to refer to units
f children with their adult caregivers whether they are in a tra-
itional center-based classroom or a family child care program.
urthermore, the adults in these settings are professionals provid-
ng child development services to the children in their care and
e use the term “teachers” or “early educators” to refer to the
lassroom teachers and family child care providers in the study.
Up to four target children were randomly selected from those
ligible in each participating classroom in year 1. In some class-
ooms, particularly the family child care programs, there were
ewer than four children meeting age and parental permission
equirements. In these cases, all eligible children were included
n the study. The number of target child participants in each
year-
classroom therefore ranged from one to four children (one to
hree children in family child care homes). The average number
of

articipants was 2.8 in public preschool classrooms, 2.9 in
private
reschool classrooms, and 1.6 in family child care programs (the
odal number of children was four in both public and private
class-
ooms and one in family child care). In the second year, when
many
hildren entered new or different classrooms, the level of nesting
f children within classrooms was decreased, while the number
f classrooms observed increased. In public preschool
classrooms,
he number of target children per classroom ranged from one to
even (only one classroom with over four children) and averaged
.7. In private preschool classrooms, the range was also one to
seven
two classrooms with over four target children), and the average
as 2.0. For family child care programs, the range was
unchanged
rom year 1 (one to three) and the average was 1.4 children. The
odal number of target children per classroom in year 2 was one
hild for all three program types. The 206 target children repre-
ented in this analysis come from primarily low-income families
median income-to-needs ratio of 1.21, SD = 2.60), with diverse
aternal education levels (ranging from 2nd grade to graduate
egree; median = high school graduate).
Structural characteristics (program length, number of children
nd adults, child–adult ratio) varied according to program type.
ost classrooms were full-day programs (66% full day, 14%
morn-
ng only, 20% afternoon only), but public preschool classrooms

were
ost likely to be part-day (56% part-day in public preschools,
24% in
rivate centers, and 9% in family child care programs; X2[4] =
18.20,
< .001). On average, family child care providers cared for the
ewest children (10.0, compared with 20.7 in public and 21.1
n private center-based classrooms, F(2,113) = 21.6, p < .001)
and
eachers in center-based programs had the highest average
number
f children per adult (8.1 in private centers, 7.1 in public centers,
nd 6.3 in family child care homes, F(2,114) = 4.3, p < .05).
Teachers indicated via a self-administered questionnaire
hether or not they used a formal curriculum, and if so, indicated
he name of the curriculum from a list of the 10 most-commonly
sed curricula in early childhood classrooms (High/Scope,
Creative
urriculum, Montessori, High Reach, Curiosity Corner, and
others).
f the curriculum was not listed, the teacher could write in the
name
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209 201
of the main curriculum used. Teachers could indicate using
multiple
curricula, but were asked to specify one primary curriculum.
Across
all teachers in this sample who returned questionnaires (N =
87),
only four reported that they did not use some form of
curriculum
(two family child care providers, one public and one private

center-
based teacher). High/Scope and Creative Curriculum were the
most
commonly reported curricula in use (30% and 35%,
respectively,
across all three program types). A third curriculum was reported
only by teachers of 4-year-old in public centers: Developmental
Learning Method (DLM) Express. Several other curricula were
men-
tioned by only one or two teachers, including Montessori,
Reggio
Emilia, and responses such as “locally developed curriculum” or
“we draw from many sources.” Because of such small cell
sizes,
all other responses were grouped into a single “Other” category
(n = 16). Family child care providers were significantly more
likely
to report an “Other” curriculum (60%) than teachers in public or
private centers (10% and 9% respectively). Creative Curriculum
was
the only curriculum among the three main reported curricula
that
was used by family child care providers (28%).
4.2. Procedure and measures
For each early learning program, highly trained research staff
conducted observations on two different days to measure global
quality of the interactions and academic experiences provided;
emotional and instructional support; and time spent in various
activity settings, academic activities, and interactions. In
addition,
teachers and child care providers completed questionnaires pro-
viding information about their own education background and
experience, and the characteristics of their classrooms and child
care programs. Target children were assessed in several school-

readiness domains at the beginning and end of the academic
year.
All programs, whether publicly- or privately funded centers
or family child care homes, were observed using the same set of
tools. These observational tools were selected in order to
measure
a wide variety of instructional practices and features of the
child
care environment for the purpose of providing rich but quantita-
tive documentation of children’s daily experiences. Although
there
have been observational measures designed specifically for use
in
family child care programs (e.g. Family Child Care
Environment Rat-
ing Scale Revised; FCCERS-R, Harms, Cryer, & Clifford,
2007), these
measures do not provide analogous variables that could be
directly
compared with measures used in center-based programs. The
focus
of this investigation is on children’s experiences in different
set-
tings, and therefore it was important to use the same objective
measurement of children’s experiences, regardless of the type of
program they were attending. Therefore, the observed domains
were specifically selected to represent experiences that would
be
positive for children in any setting.
4.2.1. Snapshot observations-Emergent Academics Snapshot
scale
(Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2001)
The Emergent Academics Snapshot (EAS) is a time-sampling

procedure used to capture aspects of adult–child interaction,
teach-
ing style, and the activities in which children are engaged. Over
the course of a program morning, a minimum of 30 and up to 50
observations are collected for each child. Up to four target
children
are observed in sequence throughout the morning. To complete
a
Snapshot, the observer locates the first target child and spends a
1-min period observing and coding the child’s activities and
inter-
actions. The observer then moves on to the next child on the
list.
This process is repeated in 4-min blocks of time throughout the
morning. Domains coded using this system include: (1) activity
set-
ting: a forced-choice category indicating the general structure
of
the time period, including Free Choice, Basics, Meals/Snacks,
Whole
Group, Small Group, Individual Time, Outside Time or
Unengaged;
2 Resea
(
a
i
i
t
o
b

l
s
b
e
i
f
i
a
v
d
l
e
T
s
s
d
a
t
h
1
d
p
a
w
a
o
u
t
e
i
a
d
t

m
4
v
P
i
o
fi
i
i
o
T
m
C
d
o
d
o
(
f
i
2) child engagement: a non-mutually exclusive rating of the pre-
cademic content area addressed by the observed child’s activity,
ncluding Pre-Reading, Letter-Sound, Math/Number, Social
Stud-
es, Oral Language Development, Gross Motor, and others; and
(3)
eacher instructional interactions: a non-mutually exclusive
rating
f the teaching style experienced by the target child (as applica-
le), including scaffolding (supporting and enhancing children’s

earning in developmentally appropriate ways) and didactic (pre-
enting information and instructions) interactions with the child
eing observed.
Each of the observational tools used in this study required
xtensive observer training and assessment of reliability. Train-
ng included initial group introductions and background readings
or each measure, videotaped observations for practice purposes,
n-the-field practice including debriefing with a certified trainer,
nd reliability testing done either in the field or via master-coded
ideotapes. The trainers were individuals with MAs or PhDs in
child
evelopment or psychology who had been trained by and estab-
ished interobserver reliability with the PIs and/or the developers
of
ach measure and also had skills in training others on the
measure.
hese trainers were considered to have achieved “gold standard’
tatus on the measures. Training for the EAS was conducted in
the
ummer, several weeks prior to its fall administration in the
study.
Requirements for certification of observers before collecting
ata included successful completion of the training course as
well
s achievement of item-level scores of at least kappa (�) greater
han or equal to .65 with gold-standard trainers. Kappas of .65 or
igher are viewed as indicating good agreement (Landis & Koch,
977).
Data from each individual observation are aggregated to pro-
uce summary scores, at both the child and classroom level, of
the
ercentage of the observation time spent in various activity

settings
nd interaction types. For this analysis, classroom aggregate
scores
ere used to describe the proportion of time children experienced
ctivity settings, and child-level aggregates were used in
analyses
f the associations between classroom characteristics and
individ-
al children’s engagement in academic activities and experiences
of
eacher instructional interactions. Child-level scores for
academic
ngagement represent the proportion of the observed day that an
ndividual target child was engaged in oral language
development
ctivities, or science activities, for example. Scores for scaffolds
and
idactic represent the proportion of the total observation in
which
he teacher was engaged in each of these instructional interaction
odes with the target child.
.2.2. Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) – Pre-K
ersion (LaParo, Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2001; LaParo,
ianta, & Stuhlman, 2004)
The CLASS is an observational instrument developed to assess
nstructional quality. Data collection in the pre-kindergarten
years
f this study was done before the 2004 version of the CLASS was
nalized, so the 2001 version was used in this study. Individual
tems were summarized to closely resemble the current version
nto two scales: emotional climate and instructional climate.

Each
f the individual constructs in the scale is rated on a 7-point
rubric.
he constructs are rated multiple times throughout the program
orning, after each 20-min EAS cycle is completed. The EAS and
LASS observations were conducted during a single observation
ay at each site by the same observer.
Training on the CLASS was done concurrently with training
n the EAS, since these observations were conducted in concert
uring classroom observations in the field. Training included use
f mastercoded video clips to provide examples of various levels
high, low, and moderate) of the CLASS dimensions.
Requirements
or certification on the CLASS were to code five reliability clips
ndependently and score within one point on the master-coded
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209
videotapes on 80% of their scores averaged across the segments,
and within one point on each dimension for over 50% of the
dimen-
sions. This is a standardized set of reliability tests developed by
the
publishers of the CLASS.
The CLASS observation yields individual ratings in emotional
and instructional domains, ranging from 1 to 7 possible points.
In
this analysis, we used the Emotional Climate composite score
and
the Instructional Climate subscales. The Emotional Climate
com-
posite is an average of the individual scores on positive climate,

negative climate, teacher sensitivity, over-control, and behavior
management ( ̨ = .89). Positive and respectful child–teacher
and
child–child interactions rather than hostility, anger, and aggres-
sion characterize classrooms with high Emotional Climate
scores.
The Instructional Climate score is an average of individual
scores
for concept development and quality of feedback ( ̨ = .48).
4.2.3. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised
(ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998) and Early
Childhood
Environment Rating Scale – Extended (ECERS-E; Sylva,
Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003)
The ECERS and ECERS-R have been widely used in child
devel-
opment research (Helburn, 1995; Phillips & Howes, 1987). This
observational scale comprehensively assesses the overall day-
to-
day quality of care provided for children after a detailed 4–5-h
observation of the classroom and activities when children are
present. ECERS-R items are rated on 7-point scales with a 3
indicat-
ing minimal quality, a 5 indicating good quality, and a 7
indicating
excellent quality. The ECERS-E is a relative newcomer to the
field
of environmental rating scales, and uses the same scoring rubric
to
observationally evaluate the quality of curricular features in
various
academic domains. In the present study, a reduced set of
ECERS-R
and ECERS-E items was used in a modified approach to

assessing
observational quality. Perlman, Zellman, and Le (2004) have
shown
that reduced numbers of ECERS-R items may reliably measure
program quality, and a set of 10 items was identified to ade-
quately capture quality. We chose to use this modified
approach,
but to include some additional items to capture specific content
areas which may reflect use of curriculum or programs’
philosophy
toward enhancing school readiness. In this study, we
considered
that family child care homes that are both licensed and
profession-
ally attached to supporting agencies should be observed through
the same lens as center-based programs, and therefore we
admin-
istered the same set of ECERS-R and ECERS-E items when
observing
child care homes and child care centers.
The modified set of ECERS items was rated during a second
day of observation in each classroom, conducted a few months
after the EAS and CLASS observation, in the winter of the
program
year. The observer spent the entire morning (until program end
for half-day programs or nap time for full-day programs)
conduct-
ing a naturalistic observation and coding the ECERS items
based
on the whole observation. Training was done in the weeks prior
to data collection, and included lecture-based introduction to
the
background and scoring procedure for ECERS items. This
training
was followed by in-the-field practice and debriefing with the

group
and a certified trainer. Reliability testing was done in the field
with
gold-standard trainers. Observers were certified to administer
the
ECERS in the field when they achieved scores of at least kappa
(�)
greater than or equal to .65 with gold-standard trainers.
The reduced set of ECERS-R and ECERS-E items was combined
into a scale reflecting global quality of the academic materials
and experiences of children (ECERS Academic Environment
Scale),
reflecting an average of five ECERS-R items (22-Blocks, 24-
Dramatic
Play, 25-Nature/Science, 26-Math/Number, and 20-Art) along
with
six ECERS-E items (Language items 1–5: Environmental print,
Books and literacy, Adult reading with children, Sounds in
words,
Emergent writing/mark making, and Math item 1: Counting).
Each
Resea
o
d
l
4
i

o
s
m
P
i
c
i
t
p
t
M
o
M
q
p
q
a
A
1
i
i
t
W
a
R
a
o
a
c
0
3
g
(
c
s

–
w
p
s
c
c
a
r
3
s
“
“
f
t
t
u
i
r
d
t
3
a
r
f the items had possible scores ranging from 1 to 7 points. This
Aca-
emic Environment scale had a mean of 3.42 (SD = .71)
reflecting
ow to adequate quality, and good internal consistency ( ̨ = .73).
.2.4. Child school readiness outcomes
As part of the larger longitudinal study, children participated in
ndividually administered assessments at the beginning and end

f the academic year. The focus of analyses of children’s
academic
kills for this paper is children’s English vocabulary
development,
ath reasoning skills, and socio-emotional behaviors. The
Peabody
icture Vocabulary Test, 3rd edition (PPVT-3; Dunn & Dunn,
1997)
s a receptive language test that can be reliably administered to
hildren as young as 21/2 years, and is used extensively in stud-
es of young children’s development. For each vocabulary item,
he child is asked to point to the picture in an array of four
ictures which represents the word spoken by the test adminis-
rator. Scores are standardized with respect to norms for child
age.
ath reasoning was assessed using the Woodcock–Johnson Tests
f Achievement Applied Problems subtest (Woodcock, McGrew,
&
ather, 2001). This assessment incorporates increasingly difficult
uestions involving reasoning about numbers, beginning with
sim-
le counting of pictures of items and advancing to reasoning
about
uantity and arithmetic transformations. Applied Problems scores
re also standardized relative to age norms. Standardized PPVT
and
pplied Problems scores in the general population have a mean of
00 and a standard deviation of 15 points.
At the end of the assessment battery, assessors rated the behav-
or of children during the assessment on a series of dimensions,
ncluding positive and negative emotionality, frustration, persis-
ence, and self-regulation. These ratings include items from the

oodcock–Johnson assessment and a subset of items used by
Raver
nd colleagues in their self-regulation battery (Smith-Donald,
aver, Hayes, & Richardson, 2007). Principal components factor
nalysis of these assessor ratings guided our conceptual grouping
f the items into three composite measures of happy, less
anxious,
nd regulated (total variance = 60.19%). The happy composite is
omposed of three items: intense positive emotions (ranging from
= child does not show positive emotions during assessment to
= child is very positive, exhibiting laughter and/or prolonged
gig-
le, broad smiles, or clapping), takes pleasure in accomplishment
0 = child makes negative comment or negative expression when
ompleting task, 3 = child appears happy after completing task;
may
how excited body movements), and intense sad/worried emotion
reverse coded (0 = child does not appear apprehensive, sad or
orried during assessment to 3 = child is upset, cries, or whim-
ers during testing or assessment ended due to child distress).
This
cale had adequate internal reliability of ̨ = .66. The less
anxious
omposite is the average of the following three items:
anxious/self-
onfidence – reverse coded (0 = child appeared self-confident
and
ssured, 3 = appeared overly anxious), won’t try difficult tasks –
everse coded (0 = noticeably increased effort for difficult tasks,
= would not try difficult tasks at all), and confident (0 = child
hows hesitation or reluctance on easy items, gives up easily
[e.g.

I can’t do this”], 3 = child shows confidence by comments such
as
I know this one;” child is eager, energetic). The internal
reliability
or the less anxious composite was also acceptable, ̨ = .69.
Finally,
he regulated composite was composed of 8 items (well-
regulated,
akes care in responding, and all of the following reverse-coded:
ncooperative, overly active, distracted, defiant, non-compliant,
ntense angry emotions). Examples of these items include well-
egulated (0 = child becomes very sad, frustrated or silly, and
has
ifficulty regaining self-control, 2 = child becomes briefly sad,
frus-
rated, or silly, but quickly calms without help from adult
assessor,
= child highly regulated; never becomes sad, frustrated, or
silly)
nd non-compliant – reverse coded (0 = child hears requests and
esponds appropriately; 2 = child ignores examiner but responds
to
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209 203
prompt when assessor repeats request/directive; 3 = child
appears
not to hear instruction, even when assessor repeats request).
This
composite had a good internal reliability, ̨ = .82.
Data collectors assessing children also were required to
complete a rigorous training program to learn the complex

administration rules for the PPVT, Woodcock–Johnson, and
other
measures used in the full assessment battery. Training for the
asses-
sor behavior ratings included videotape clips and group
consensus
discussions. Assessors could not begin fieldwork until they
passed
an assessment with an age-appropriate child with 100%
accuracy
on all technical aspects of the procedures, and achieved 90%
relia-
bility within one point on each of the behavioral ratings with
the
gold standard trainer on the assessor-ratings items.
Different teams of data collectors were trained on each measure.
As described above, the CLASS and EAS measures were
conducted
on the same day by the same observer. The ECERS observations
were conducted on a second day 2–4 months later by a different
team of observers. Child assessments were occasionally
conducted
in the child care setting by the same observer who collected the
ECERS observation data (fewer than 15% of cases), but there
were
no systematic differences between children’s assessment scores
for
those assessed in school and those who attended preschool but
were assessed by home-visiting data collectors.
5. Results
Means, standard deviations, and percentages of all analysis
vari-
ables as used at the child- and classroom-levels are presented in

Tables 1 and 2. The classroom quality measures are each posi-
tively correlated with each other (CLASS Emotional Support
and
Instructional Support r = .48; CLASS Emotional Support and
ECERS
Academic r = .28; CLASS Instructional Support and ECERS
Academic
r = .34; all ps < .01). The assessor ratings of children’s
assessment
behaviors were also significantly intercorrelated (regulated with
happy r = .24, regulated with less anxious r = .44, and happy
with
less anxious r = .50; all ps < .01).
The first step in data analysis was to examine patterns of
activity
settings, as measured by the EAS. When these data are
aggregated at
the child level, they indicate the proportion of time that each
child
was observed engaged in each activity setting. Most classrooms
included multiple target children observed. Although activity
set-
tings were coded based on observation of individual children,
we
expected that these variables could be considered measures of
the
classroom-level engagement in different settings throughout the
day. Activity setting is conceptualized as the engagement mode
typically specified by the adult in charge-the type of classroom
for-
mat that the entire group of children is expected to be involved
in.
To confirm the validity of using activity-setting data aggregated
at the classroom level rather than the individual-child level as

they were originally recorded, intraclass correlations were com-
puted to assess the similarity of child-level aggregates of
activity
settings within classroom groupings. Intraclass correlations
were
computed in all classrooms with three or more children. These
are
presented in the third column of Table 1 along with the
classroom-
level means and standard deviations for each of the activity-
setting
variables. Virtually all of the intraclass correlations are high
(.65 and
above) with the exception of meals/snacks which was .41,
suggest-
ing that classrooms may provide more child-level flexibility for
the
provision of food based on children’s needs. Overall these intra-
class correlations suggested little child-level variability in
activity
settings within classrooms. Therefore, because activity setting
is
reasonably conceptualized as a group variable, the following
anal-
yses regarding activity settings use classroom-level aggregates
of
time spent in each activity setting.
204 A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27
(2012) 198– 209
Table 1

Descriptive statistics for classroom-level measures overall and
by daily routine profile.
Total ICC Structured balanced High free choice X2 /F
%/M(SD) N %/M(SD) N %/M(SD)
EAS activity settingsa 89 36
Basics .16(.09) .75 .18(.09) .11(.05) 14.17*
Meals .13(.08) .41 .13(.09) .13(.05) .01
Whole group .17(.14) .74 .19(.14) .10(.09) 12.13*
Small group .11(.11) .70 .13(.12) .04(.07) 17.09*
Free choice .40(.17) .65 .32(.11) .61(.09) 179.94*
Outside time .24(.16) .88 .19(.12) .36(.18) 39.37*
Primary curriculum 49 33 11.92*
None 4.9 6 3.0
Creative curriculum 34.1 26.5 45.5
High/scope 31.7 36.7 24.2
DLM express 11.0 18.4 0
Other 18.3 12.2 27.3
CLASS 88 36
Emotional support 5.98(.53) 6.01(.49) 5.90(.62) .98
Instructional support 2.15(.61) 2.16(.62) 2.15(.62) .01
ECERS Academic 3.60(.85) 76 3.61(.80) 30 3.51(.95) .28
a Means and standard deviations represent proportion of the full
observed day spent in each activity setting. Proportions for EAS
activity settings do not sum to 1.00

b o desc
w rved.
w
u
r
c
b
d
n
5
a
w
f
r
(
T
D
N
a
ecause outside time was always double-coded with another
activity setting code t
ithin individual classrooms in which 3 or more children per
classroom were obse
* p < .05.
The intra-class correlations were computed in the classrooms
ith 3 or more target children observed in order to support the
se of data gathered at the child level and aggregated at the
class-
oom level to indicate a classroom-level phenomenon. Intra-class
orrelations computed for all classrooms, regardless of the num-

er of children observed yielded similar results. Further analysis
escribed in this paper includes all classrooms, regardless of the
umber of children observed.
.1. Latent class analysis of activity settings
The most prevalent classroom activity setting was free-choice
ctivities, followed by time spent outside (which often
overlapped
ith the free choice category), basics (activities like transitioning
rom one activity setting to another, waiting in line or for mate-
ials, toileting, and the like), whole-group activities, and meals
see Table 1). Most classrooms spent nearly three quarters of
their
able 2
escriptive statistics for all child level variables.
M(SD)/%
EAS child engagement
Read to .04(.04)
Letter-sound .03(.04)
Oral language development .10(.11)
Writing .01(.03)
Math/number .08(.09)
Science .13(.10)
Aesthetics .16(.12)
Gross motor .12(.11)
Fantasy play .12(.10)
EAS teacher instructional interactions
Didactic .30(.18)

Scaffolding .14(.13)
Child school readiness outcomes
PPVT-3 standard score 81.08(18.62)
Woodcock–Johnson applied problems 92.65(15.24)
Assessor ratings: Happy 2.96 (.47)
Assessor ratings: Less anxious 2.98 (.49)
Assessor ratings: Regulated 3.26 (.56)
Control variables
Child age in months at assessment 52.6(5.7)
Home language is not English 49%
PPVT-standard score baseline 82.3(17.9)
ote: The EAS code for outside time is not mutually exclusive
with the other codes
nd therefore EAS proportions do not sum to 1.00.
ribe the nature of outside time. ICC = Child-level Intraclass
Correlations for children
day or more in a combination of free-choice, basics/transition,
and
whole-group activity settings. A series of latent class analyses
was
conducted in MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 2006) to test whether
the
data supported distinct patterns of daily routine profiles. Latent
class analysis allows the existing data to guide the grouping of
indi-
vidual cases into “classes” in which members of each class are
most
similar to each other in their values on the variables in question,
and most dissimilar in comparison to members of other classes
(McCutcheon, 1987). The variables used in this analysis are the
EAS
activity settings variables (basics, meals, free choice, whole

group,
small group, outside time) aggregated at the classroom level.
A 2-class model was supported by the data, whereas a 3-
class model was not (indicated by a non-significant LRT; 2-
class
model: Loglikelihood = 558.072, Lo-Mendel-Rubin Adjusted
LRT
p = .02, SS-BIC = −1084.49; 3-class model: Loglikelihood =
574.25,
Lo-Mendel-Rubin Adjusted LRT p = .25, SS-BIC = −1105.18).
When
the profiles for 2- and 3-class models were examined for
concep-
tual coherence, the 2-class model seemed to identify one daily
schedule profile that could be labeled “High Free Choice” with
an
average of 61% of the day spent in free-choice activity settings
and
36% of the day spent outside, and a second profile that was
more
“Structured-Balanced” with relatively higher proportions of the
day
spent in teacher-directed settings (19% in whole group and 13%
in
small group, compared to 10% and 4%, respectively in the
High-
Free-Choice profile). This more balanced daily schedule profile
still
included a significant proportion of the day in free-choice
activities
(32%; which is equivalent to the amount of time spent by this
group
of classrooms in teacher-directed settings [whole and small
group
combined]). (The rejected 3-class model similarly identified the

High-Free-Choice profile, and divided cases from the
Structured-
Balanced group into one group with relatively higher proportion
of
time spent in meals and one with less time in meals.)
Comparisons of mean values for each of the activity-setting
vari-
ables used in the latent class analysis revealed that classrooms
in
the Structured-Balanced profile spent more time in whole group
and small group activity settings than classrooms in the High-
Free-
Choice profile. Additionally, Structured-Balanced classrooms
spent
more time in “basics,” which includes activities like
transitioning
from one activity setting to another, waiting in line or for
materials,
toileting, and the like. In contrast, classrooms in the High-Free-
Choice profile spent more time in free-choice activity settings
and
more time engaged in outdoor activities than classrooms in the
A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood Resea
0%
10%
20%

30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Small GroupWhole GroupMealsBasics Outside TimeFree Choice
S
d
(
5
(
w
t
t
e
a
H
p
p
H
p
c
s
w
i
b
c

C
C
D
S
t
a
b
p
a
r
t
t
c
d
c
e
a
a
b
(
c
e
d
Structured Balanced High Free Choice
Fig. 1. Percentage of time in each activity setting by daily
routine profile.
tructured-Balanced profile. Classrooms in the two profiles did
not
iffer significantly in terms of the amount of time spent in meals
see Table 1 and Fig. 1).
.2. Daily routine profiles and program-level correlates

Program type was associated with the daily routine profiles
X2 = 8.45, p = .02). Within each program type, Structured-
Balanced
as the modal group, which is not surprising given that over 70%
of
he programs in the sample fit the Structured-Balanced daily rou-
ine profile. Examining the distribution of program types within
ach daily routine profile reveals that family child care programs
nd private center-based programs were more likely to display
the
igh-Free-Choice daily routine profile than public center-based
rograms. Family child care programs and private center-based
rograms accounted for 28% and 53% of the classrooms in the
igh-Free-Choice group, respectively. These frequencies are dis-
roportionately high given that family child care and private
enter-based programs accounted for 20% and 38% of the entire
ample, respectively. In contrast, public center-based programs
ere underrepresented in the High-Free-Choice group, account-
ng for only 22% of the classrooms identified as High Free
Choice,
ut 42% of the entire sample.
Teacher-reported primary curriculum was significantly asso-
iated with their classroom’s daily routine profile. Creative
urriculum was more nearly evenly distributed in High-Free-
hoice and Structured-Balanced classrooms, but High/Scope and
LM Express were more likely to be reported by teachers who
had
tructured/Balanced classrooms (see Table 1). When the program
ype (public, private, family child care) was taken into account
long with curriculum use, we found a significant association
etween curriculum and activity profile for public center-based
rograms only, such that the distribution of curricula within each
ctivity profile varied (X2[3] = 10.22, p < .01). Within public

class-
ooms, Structured-Balanced classrooms were more likely to use
he High/Scope curriculum or the DLM Express curriculum
whereas
he High-Free-Choice classrooms had a more equal distribution
of
urriculum use but no instances of DLM Express. There were no
ifferences in curriculum use by daily activity profile in private
enter-based classrooms or family child care homes (X2 < 1.0 for
ach).
The three measures of classroom quality did not differ as
function of daily routine profile. Mean comparisons of CLASS
nd ECERS composite scores yielded no significant differences
etween Structured-Balanced and High-Free-Choice classrooms
see Table 1). Each of these analyses was also conducted while
ontrolling for program type. There were no meaningful differ-
nces in the results, suggesting that after accounting for
structural
ifferences, daily routine profiles are not significantly related to
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209 205
these measures of process quality (results available from the
authors).
5.3. Predicting children’s opportunities for learning and
teachers’
instructional strategies
The analyses above addressed program- and classroom-level
correlates of the two daily routine profiles we identified. In this
next set of analyses, we sought to identify the possible
association
of each of these profiles with individual children’s engage-

ment in activities of varying academic content and instructional
interactions with their teachers. For these analyses, multi-level
regressions were conducted using MPlus, accounting for the
nest-
ing of individual children within classrooms, and the use of
both
child-level and classroom-level predictors of child-level
dependent
variables. Two-level regressions predicted each of the following
outcomes: time in academic activities (being read to,
letter/sound
activities, oral language development, writing, math, science,
aes-
thetics [art/dance/music], gross-motor play, and fantasy play),
and time experiencing different types of teacher engagement
(didactic instruction and scaffolding). A dummy variable
indicat-
ing Structured-Balanced activity class (with the High-Free-
Choice
class as the contrast group) was the predictor variable. Regres-
sions controlled for program type (classroom-level dummy
codes
representing public center and private center, with family child
care as the contrast group) in order to account for variations in
activity profiles that were associated with structural differences
in
program types. Process quality (CLASS Emotional Support,
CLASS
Instructional Support, and ECERS Academic) was also
included as
a control variable in order to determine the unique association
between activity profiles and children’s time engaged in
learning
activities, regardless of process quality. Finally, children’s age
in
months at observation was used as a child-level covariate.

Results of these regressions are presented in Table 3. After con-
trolling for variation in classrooms’ process quality, children in
Structured-Balanced programs spent more of their day being
read
to, and engaged in letter/sound, math, and art and music activi-
ties (aesthetics). Time in oral-language and science activities
was
not predicted by activity routine profile, and there was not
enough
variance in children’s time in writing activities to run the
regression
model. More time in gross motor and fantasy play was
associated
with being in a High-Free-Choice program.
Regression results for children’s experiences of didactic and
scaffolded interactions with their teachers are presented in
Table 4.
After controlling for program type and process quality
variables,
being in a Structured-Balanced classroom was associated with
more scaffolding but not associated with the amount of didactic
interactions children experienced.
5.4. Classroom routines and children’s school readiness skills
The final set of analyses addressed the question of whether
being
in a classroom that has a Structured-Balanced or High-Free-
Choice
daily routine profile is associated with children’s school-
readiness
skills in language, reasoning, and socio-emotional domains.
These
multi-level regressions incorporate child-level controls of home

language to account for potential differences in early school
readi-
ness for children from language-minority homes, child age at
observation, and a baseline (beginning of the observed school
year)
measure of receptive English vocabulary (PPVT) to account for
chil-
dren’s developmental starting point. Early language skills can
be
considered a proxy for baseline skills in many school readiness
domains, as children with stronger language in the preschool
years
tend to have better social skills and fewer behavioral problems
that
could stem from communication frustrations (Cohen & Mendez,
2009; Kaiser, Cai, Hancock, & Foster, 2002).
206 A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27
(2012) 198– 209
Table 3
Results from multi-level regression models predicting child
engagement in academic and developmental activities.
Read to Letter/sound Oral language
development
Math Science Aesthetics Gross motor Fantasy play
Intercept −.093 (.049) .049 (.060) .035* (.153) .067 (.081)
.305* (.108) .381* (.143) .285* (.136) .502* (.101)
Child age .000 (.001) −.001 (.001) −.003 (.002) .000 (.001)

−.001 (.001) −.001 (.002) .000 (.001) .000 (.001)
Program type
Public center .004 (.014) −.013 (.014) −.020 (.022) −.013 (.016)
−.026 (.024) .004 (.039) .002 (.026) −.027 (.028)
Private Center −.018 (.012) −.021 (.013) −.018 (.023) −.042*
(.017) .021 (.025) .026 (.042) .022 (.024) −.024 (.032)
Program quality
CLASS-emotion .024* (.008) .001 (.013) −.044* (.022) .016
(.013) −.042* (.018) −.046* (.023) −.035 (.020) −.059* (.015)
CLASS-instructional −.017* (.008) .016* (.009) .107* (.018)
.062* (.014) .057* (.015) .071* (.028) .014 (.014) .043* (.014)
ECERS-academic .003 (.005) −.007 (.005) −.021* (.010) −.010
(.007) −.001 (.010) −.021 (.018) .005 (.012) −.013 (.010)
Daily activity structure
Structured-balanced .021* (.008) .024* (.008) .027 (.018) .027*
(.014) −.019 (.019) .059* (.025) −.051* (.025) −.089* (.021)
SRMR
Value for within .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .005 .002
Value for between .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .002 .002
N dard e
C Stand
a
t
A
S
a
a
h
s
p
s
6

i
c
a
b
2
s
T
R
a
N
C
ote: Values in table are regression estimates (B) and values in
parentheses are stan
hild Care. The contrast group for Structured-Balanced is High
Free Choice. SRMR =
* p < .05.
Classroom-level control variables in the model are the same
s in the previous regressions: dummy variables for program
ype, CLASS Emotional and Instructional Climate scores, and
ECERS
cademic Environment score. A dummy variable indicating the
tructured-Balanced daily routine profile is the predictor vari-
ble. Results are presented in Table 5. Being in a classroom with
Structured-Balanced daily routine profile was associated with
igher end-of-year PPVT scores after controlling for baseline
PPVT
cores and the other child and classroom characteristics. Activity
rofile did not have an independent association with the other
chool-readiness variables.
. Discussion

The current outcomes-based educational climate emphasiz-
ng teacher-directed and academically oriented instruction is
ounterbalanced by supporters of early educational approaches
rguing that children do their best learning in all domains in
play-
ased settings (e.g. Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Zigler & Bishop-
Josef,
006) and free-play opportunities should not be reduced for the
ake of teacher-directed academic activities. Indeed, advocacy
able 4
esults from multi-level regression models predicting teacher
engagement: didactic
nd scaffolding.
Didactic Scaffolding
Intercept B .146* .340
(SE) .158 .161
Age B .002 −.004
(SE) .002 .002
Public center B −.038 ,026
(SE) .047 .025
Private center B −.031 .014
(SE) .046 .024
CLASS-emotion B −.021 −.058*
(SE) .026 .024
CLASS-instructional B .161* .159*

(SE) .029 .017
ECERS-academic B −.044* −.012
(SE) .019 .011
Structured-balanced B .026 .043*
(SE) .037 .019
SRMR (Standardized Root mean Residual)
Value for within .001 .000
Value for between .000 .000
ote: N = 183. The contrast group for Public Center and Private
Center is Family Child
are. The contrast group for Structured-Balanced is High Free
Choice.
* p < .05.
rrors (SE). N = 183. The contrast group for Public Center and
Private Center is Family
ardized Root Mean Residual.
organizations concerned about what seems to be the disappear-
ance of play in early childhood programs have also organized
around this topic (see for example the Alliance for Childhood’s
recent report Crisis in the Kindergarten, Miller & Almon,
2009). Fur-
thermore, the developmental research community has responded
to the increased focus in schooling on standardized testing by
calling for more attention to teaching the “whole child” –
empha-
sizing critical thinking skills, problem solving, and providing
more
open-ended learning opportunities to enhance all the inter-
related

domains of children’s development including cognitive,
physical,
social, and emotional learning (e.g. Diamond, 2010).
Our findings provide some descriptive data relevant to this con-
versation. First, the two activity profiles we identified suggest
that
there are a significant number of early learning settings in
which
free play may be balanced along with time in more structured
activ-
ity settings. These activity profiles can be found in different
types of
programs, but public school settings and particularly those
imple-
menting the very structured DLM Express curriculum are
especially
likely to incorporate this type of daily routine. On the other
hand,
programs engaging in high levels of free choice also exist,
particu-
larly in private preschool classrooms. We did not identify a
group
of program dominated by highly rigid, teacher-directed activity
patterns. This finding alone might be reassuring to those who
fear that early education programs are moving too far away
from
their traditional focus on hands-on child-directed activities.
Even
among the classrooms with a Structured-Balanced daily routine
profile, children spent on average 32% of their day in free-
choice
settings.
One advantage of the Emergent Academics Snapshot measure is
the ability to consider the real time that is represented by its

mea-
surement. On average, the children in this study spent 40% of
their
day in one activity setting-free-choice-which has implications
for
their opportunities for various types of experiences and
instruction
measured in this study. An average EAS observation lasts
approx-
imately 4 h (all of a half-day program, or all morning in a full-
day
program). Thus, the overall value of 40% of the day in Free
Choice
is equivalent to 96 min, or 1.6 h. Time spent in teacher-directed
activity settings (small-group and whole-group) on average was
28% of children’s day, representing about 67 min. The
difference in
the amount of time classrooms in the two activity profiles spent
in Free Choice is about 70 min (an average of 146.4 min in the
Structured-Balanced classrooms and 76.8 min in the High-Free-
Choice classrooms). The other striking difference in time
between
the two profiles is in teacher-directed small-group time which
dif-
fers by about 22 min (31.2 min in Structured-Balanced
classrooms,
and 9.6 min in High-Free-Choice classrooms).
A.S. Fuligni et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27
(2012) 198– 209 207
Table 5

Results from multi-level regression models predicting child
school readiness outcomes.
PPVT Applied
problems
Assessor
ratings: happy
Assessor ratings:
less anxious
Assessor ratings:
regulated
Intercept B 41.77* 55.83* 2.01* 2.19* 1.98*
(SE) 19.15 19.48 .691 .527 .87
Home language B 2.69 −.947 .010 −.011 −.l62
(SE) 2.59 3.42 .109 .098 .134
Age B .047 −.438 .004 .010 .012
(SE) .249 .233 .009 .006 .009
Baseline PPVT B .713* .523* .002 .009* .009*
(SE) .076 .104 .003 .003 .004
Public center B 1.56 −2.80 .061 −.044 .069
(SE) 4.28 3.32 .147 .122 .205
Private center B 1.56 −2.59 .020 −.074 .014
(SE) 4.28 4.10 .155 .130 .205
CLASS-emotional B −2.69 3.49 .068 −.079 .008
(SE) 2.82 3.18 .123 .078 .130

CLASS-instructional B −.977 .374 −.101 .104 .105
(SE) 2.50 3.02 .076 .070 .096
ECERS-academic B −2.07 −.506 .079 −.047 −.057
(SE) 1.55 2.08 .068 .054 .086
Structured-balanced B 6.51* 6.99 .027 .042 .169
(SE) 2.86 4.53 .124 .106 .149
SRMR (Standardized Root mean Residual)
Value for within .001 .000 .001 .001 .000
Value for between .010 .001 .006 .005 .000
Note: N = 183. The contrast group for Public Center and Private
Center is Family Child Care. The contrast group for Structured-
Balanced is High Free Choice. The contrast group
f
p
a
m
c
l
g
o
p
a
p
p
a
p
w
c
a
v

e
c
a
p
o
d
i
c
r
t
a
e
W
e
a
s
s
s
or home language is not English.
* p < .05.
When exploring possible program characteristics that might
redict the High-Free-Choice or Structured-Balanced pattern of
ctivity profiles, we found that the Structured-Balanced profile
was
ost common for all program types. This finding challenges the
ommonly held belief that family child care programs are always
ess structured than center-based programs. Among the three
pro-
ram types sampled, public programs had the highest proportion
f classrooms that fit the Structured-Balanced profile, however,
rivate center-based programs were equally likely to have either
ctivity profile. One interpretation of this finding is that public
rograms are under the most pressure to produce measureable

rogress in children’s school readiness outcomes, especially in
the
reas of language and literacy. Another interpretation is that
public
rograms are most closely aligned with the K-12 education
system,
hich traditionally emphasizes teacher-directed instruction over
hild-directed learning.
Together, the findings of this study suggest that analyzing
ctivity settings and daily routines is useful because it pro-
ides additional information about children’s experiences in
early
ducation programs that is not captured by structural program
haracteristics or traditional measures of process quality. The
two
ctivity-settings profiles did not exhibit differences in measures
of
rocess quality, yet were associated with differences in
children’s
pportunities for learning and their language scores. Therefore
tra-
itional observational measures of process quality may be
missing
mportant information relevant to children’s learning in early
edu-
ation settings. Researchers who study activity settings and daily
outines in order to understand child development have argued
hat activity settings and daily routines are meaningful units of
nalysis because they are perceptible instantiations of the larger
cological and cultural system (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1993;
eisner, 2002). When applied to the context of preschool learning
nvironments, this suggests that early childhood teachers bal-

nce ecological resources and constraints, as well as personal
and
ocietal values and beliefs as they organize activity settings into
ustainable daily classroom routines.
The two identified patterns of daily routines were related to
ome differences in children’s opportunities for learning,
teachers’
instructional strategies, and the development of children’s lan-
guage skills. After controlling for structural program
characteristics
(program type) and process quality, we found that daily
classroom
routines predict children’s opportunities for engagement in
activi-
ties of various academic content and different kinds of
instructional
interactions with teachers. Regression analyses revealed that
chil-
dren in Structured-Balanced classrooms experience significantly
more scaffolded interactions with their teachers than children in
classrooms that fit the High-Free-Choice routine profile.
Children
in Structured-Balanced classrooms also engaged in more
language
and literacy, math, and art activities than those in High-Free-
Choice
classrooms. In contrast, children in High-Free-Choice
classrooms
experienced more opportunities for fantasy play and gross motor
activity than children in Structured-Balanced classrooms.
Finally, in regression models controlling for children’s baseline
characteristics, we found that few child outcomes were

associated
with classroom characteristics. Children in Structured-Balanced
classrooms had higher vocabulary scores than children in High-
Free-Choice classrooms. This outcome is not surprising and
seems
to follow logically from the finding that these children
experience
more language-related activities and scaffolded interactions
with
their teachers. On the other hand, there was no significant effect
of daily routine profile on math reasoning despite the fact that
children in Structured-Balanced classrooms engage in more
math-
related activities than children in High-Free-Choice classrooms.
Children’s social–emotional behaviors also did not differ as a
func-
tion of daily routine profile, which suggests that neither routine
is
more likely to support or suppress children’s development in the
social–emotional domain.
Our findings are consistent with those of Chien et al. (2010),
who
identified a “free play” profile in a child-centered latent class
anal-
ysis that incorporated activity settings, children’s pre-academic
engagement, and teacher engagement. The children in that group
spent a large amount of time in free-choice activity settings and
engaging in gross-motor activities. Considerably less time was
devoted to academic activities. It is important to highlight the
dif-
ferences between the Chien et al. “free play” group of children
and the “High-Free-Choice” group of classrooms identified
here.

2 Resea
I
o
h
s
w
f
t
t
t
t
s
c
p
q
s
p
E
c
a
w
v
b
c
t
s
t
e
b
p

p
r
h
a
T
a
a
C
r
i
e
6
w
a
t
C
d
g
o
r
y
b
t
p
a
d
o
c
T
h
y
n Chien et al.’s child-level analysis, the combination of high

levels
f free-choice with children’s engagement in gross-motor
activities
elped define this group of children. In our classroom-level
analy-
is, the High Free-Choice group of classrooms was defined
wholly
ith respect to time spent in activity settings (an abundance of
ree-choice time and relatively little whole-group, small-group,
and
ransition time). Children’s engagement in academic activities
and
eachers’ instructional strategies were then explored with respect
o the daily routine profiles. Each of these approaches uniquely
con-
ributes to our understanding of how time spent in different
activity
ettings is an important aspect of children’s experiences in early
hildhood classrooms.
Mashburn et al. (2008) found in a large study of public
re-kindergarten programs that general structural measures of
uality and global environmental quality did not predict
children’s
chool readiness outcomes, but that the important features of
re-kindergarten classrooms for children’s learning were CLASS
motional and Instructional Support scores. Our findings add to
this
onclusion by showing that even after controlling for significant
ssociations with CLASS scores, the activity profile was
associated
ith more scaffolded teacher–child interactions and higher child
ocabulary scores. Overall, our findings imply that a structured-
alanced daily activity routine provides greater opportunities for

hildren to engage in academic activities and teacher interactions
hat may promote language skills. Future research using a larger
ample could test pathways that are suggested by these findings,
esting the notion that teacher–child interactions and the time
ngaged in academic activities are mediators of the association
etween daily activity routines and children’s outcomes.
It is reasonable to consider that rather than making an inde-
endent contribution, activity routine profiles might interact with
rocess quality to affect children’s experiences. In our study, we
did
un additional regression models with interaction terms to test
this
ypothesis, but none of these were significant predictors or
added
ny strength to the models (results available from the authors).
herefore, in this sample, the profiles seem to have an
independent
ssociation. However, it is important to note that these programs
re of low to moderate quality overall, particularly in terms of
the
LASS Instructional Support measure. It is possible that in class-
ooms exhibiting higher instructional quality, daily routines may
nteract with measures of classroom quality to affect children’s
xperiences.
.1. Limitations
It will be important to consider the effects of sampling bias as
e explore implications of these findings. The sample of
programs
nd classrooms represented here was not designed to be represen-
ative of all programs serving low-income children in Los
Angeles
ounty. Instead, the sample was originally designed to provide a

iverse set of program types (in year 1), and the sample of pro-
rams in year 2 represents the places where the original sample
f children wound up at age 4. The programs added in year 2 rep-
esent some study children entering programs for the first time in
ear 2, and others transitioning from family child care into
center-
ased care or from one center-based setting to another, so that
he sample of programs observed in year 2 includes a larger pro-
ortion of center-based classrooms, particularly public
preschools
nd prekindergarten classrooms. Therefore, these data represent a
iverse sample of programs but are not statistically
representative
f the universe of programs serving low-income 3- and 4-year-
old
hildren. Generalizing these findings should be done cautiously.
hese findings can serve as a point of comparison to studies that
ave focused solely on public center-based programs serving 4-
ear-old only.
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209
An additional limitation in this study is the fact that the daily
activity profiles are based on a single day of program observa-
tion. Future research would benefit from measuring daily
activity
profiles across multiple typical days.
6.2. Implications
This study describes and advances our understanding of the
daily experiences of low-income 3- and 4-year-old children
attend-
ing a diverse set of early learning settings. It adds to findings
from

other recent studies examining time use in early learning
settings
by incorporating a more diverse set of early learning program
types,
and by considering patterns of time in activity settings
separately
from other observed classroom experiences (Chien et al., 2010;
Howes et al., 2008). In addition to several others described in
the
introduction, our study highlights the need for ongoing consid-
eration of children’s actual experiences throughout their day in
early learning settings. Future research should use larger
samples
of programs to explore interactions between the daily routine
pro-
files we identified (High-Free-Choice and Structured-Balanced)
and
measures of classroom quality to further explain the
associations
between time in different instructional groupings, program qual-
ity, and children’s learning. It is possible that these associations
are
non-linear. Perhaps there is a threshold above which free-choice
time negatively impacts the quality of children’s experiences;
an overabundance of free-choice time precludes engagement in
teacher-directed activity settings, which may provide important
opportunities for learning.
Although the daily routine profiles we identified were associ-
ated with a small number of program characteristics, they
appear
to measure something different from general measures of
program
quality. Additionally, our data show that structural program
char-
acteristics alone do not necessarily capture the nature of

children’s
actual experiences in classrooms. Considering the way young
chil-
dren’s preschool days are structured in addition to classic
measures
of structural and global quality may add value to investigations
of
children’s experiences in diverse types of early learning
programs.
The two patterns of daily classroom routine that we identified
are
helpful in identifying differences in the opportunities children
have
to engage in various academic activities and to receive different
forms of instruction. This information may be particularly
relevant
for informing critical or intentional teaching practice. Results
of
this study might push early childhood educators to reflect on the
extent to which the daily routines that they implement in their
classrooms support children’s opportunities for learning, and to
be
more intentional in their allocation of children’s time to various
activity settings and activities.
References
Barbarin, O., & Wasik, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of child
development and early
education: Research to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B. & Schulman, K. L.
(2005). The state of
preschool: 2005 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ:
National Institute
for Education Research, Rutgers University.

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (2007). Play and early literacy: A
Vygotskian approach. In
K. A. Roskos, & J. F. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early
childhood: Research
from multiple perspectives. (2nd ed., pp. 185–200). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally
appropriate practice in
early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children.
Brown, C. P. (2007). Unpacking standards in early childhood
education. Teachers
College Record, 109(3), 635–668.
Burns, M. S., Midgette, K., Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E.
(2003). Pre-kindergarten bench-
marks for language and literacy: Progress made and challenges
to be met. Retrieved
from http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=61
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S. & Barnett, W. (2010). Meta-
analysis of the effects
of early education interventions on cognitive and social
development. Teachers
College Record, 112(3), 579–620.
http://nieer.org/docs/index.php%3FDocID=61
Resea

C
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
K
K

K
L
L
arta, J. & Greenwood, C. (1985). Eco-behavioral assessment: A
methodology for
expanding the evaluation of early intervention programs. Topics
in Early Child-
hood Special Education, 5, 88–104.
hien, N., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Ritchie, S.,
Bryant, D., et al. (2010). Chil-
dren’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in pre-
kindergarten.
Child Development, 81, 1534–1549.
ohen, J. & Mendez, J. (2009). Emotion regulation, language
ability, and the stability
of preschool children’s peer play behavior. Early Education
and Development,
20(6), 1016–1037.
iamond, A. (2010). The evidence base for improving school
outcomes by address-
ing the whole child and addressing skills and attitudes, not just
content. Early
Education and Development, 21(5), 780–793.
unn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary
test-revised. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Services.

arly, D., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F.,
Clifford, R., et al.
(2005). NCEDL’s Multi-state Study of Pre-kindergarten &
Study of State-wide
Early Education Programs (SWEEP). NCEDL Working Paper.
The University of
North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, NCEDL.
Retrieved from
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/NCEDL/pdfs/SWEEP MS summary
final.pdf
arly, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D.
C., Crawford, G. M.,
et al. (2010). How do pre-Kindergarteners spend their time?
Gender, ethnicity,
and income as predictors of experiences in pre-kindergarten
classrooms. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 177–193.
arver, J. M., Lonigan, C. J. & Eppe, S. (2009). Effective early
literacy skill development
for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An
experimental study
of two methods. Child Development, 80(3), 703–719.
allimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (1993). Activity settings of early
literacy: Home
and school factors in children’s emergent literacy. In E. A.
Forman, N. Minick,
& C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural
dynamics in chil-
dren’s development. (3rd ed., pp. 315–335). New York, NY:
Oxford University
Press.
arces, E., Thomas, D. & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects

of head start. The
American Economic Review, 92(4), 999–1012.
ormley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D. & Dawson, B. (2005). The
effects of univer-
sal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental
Psychology, 41(6), 872–
884.
reenwood, C. & Carta, J. (1987). An eco-behavioral analysis of
instruction within
special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–12.
arms, T., Cryer, D. & Clifford, R. M. (2007). Family child care
environment rating scale
– Revised. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
arms, T., Clifford, R. M. & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood
environment rating scale
(Rev. ed. (ECERS-R)). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
elburn, S. W. (Ed.) (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in
child care centers.
Technical report. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,
University of Colorado
at Denver.
owes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D. M.,
Clifford, R. M., et al. (2008).
Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-
kindergarten pro-
grams. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50.
agan, S. & Kauerz, K. (2007). Reaching for the whole:
Integration and alignment
in early education policy. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L.

Snow (Eds.), School
readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of
accountability (pp. 11–30).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
aiser, A., Cai, X., Hancock, T. & Foster, E. (2002). Teacher-
reported behavior prob-
lems and language delays in boys and girls enrolled in Head
Start. Behavioral
Disorders, 28(1), 23–39.
ontos, S., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Wisseh, S. & Galinsky, E.
(2002). An eco-
behavioral approach to examining the contextual effects of early
childhood
classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 239–258.
andis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for cate-
gorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
aParo, K., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. & Stuhlman, M. (2001).
Early elemen-
tary classroom quality observation system. Charlottesville, VA:
University of
Virginia.
rch Quarterly 27 (2012) 198– 209 209
LaParo, K., Pianta, R. C. & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The
classroom assessment scoring
system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary
School Journal,
104(5), 409–426.
Lonigan, C. J., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Phillips, B. M.,
McDowell, K. & Farver, J. M. (2005).
Literacy Express: A preschool curriculum. Tallahassee, FL:

Literacy Express.
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B. M. & Clancy-
Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting
the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy
skills: A randomized
evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two
professional development
models. Reading and Writing, 24(3), 305–337.
Mashburn, A. J, Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T.,
Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D.,
et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten
and children’s
development of academic, language, and social skills. Child
Development, 79,
732–749.
McCutcheon, A. C. (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Miller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why
children need to play in
school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide
(version 4). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Neuman, S. B. & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of state pre-
kindergarten standards.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(2), 125–145.
Perlman, M., Zellman, G. L. & Le, V. N. (2004). Examining the
psychometric proper-
ties of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised

(ECERS-R). Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 398–412.
Phillips, D. A. & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality child
care: Review of research.
In D. A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does
research tell us? Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Pianta, R., Cox, M., & Snow, K. (Eds.). (2007). School
readiness and the transition to
kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R.,
Early, D., et al. (2005). Fea-
tures of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers:
Do they predict
observed classroom quality and child–teacher interactions?
Applied Develop-
mental Science, 9, 144–159.
Piasta, S. B. & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy
skills: A meta-analysis
of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
Powell, D. R., Burchinal, M. R., File, N. & Kontos, S. (2008).
An eco-behavioral analysis
of children’s engagement in urban public school preschool
classrooms. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 108–123.
Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M. & Weiser, B. (2001).
Emerging academics snap-

shot. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.
Roberts, T. & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool
English lan-
guage learner’s oral proficiency in English, instructional
experience and
literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
29(3), 283–311.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.08.001
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L. & Frelow, V. S. (2003). Creating
the conditions for success
with early learning standards: Results from a national study of
state-level stan-
dards for children’s learning prior to kindergarten. Early
Childhood Research and
Practice, 5(2), 1–25.
Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T. & Richardson, B.
(2007). Preliminary
construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self-
regulation Assess-
ment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 22(2),
173–187. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.002
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B. (2003). Assessing
quality in the early years:
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Extension (ECERS-
E): Four curricular
subscales. Stoke on Trent. England: Trentham Books.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S. & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock–Johnson III tests of
achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Weisner, T. (2002). Ecocultural understanding of children’s
developmental path-
ways. Human Development, 45(4), 275–281.
Zigler, E. F. & Bishop-Josef, S. (2006). The cognitive child
versus the whole child:
Lessons from 40 years of Head Start. In D. G. Singer, R. M.
Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-
Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances
children’s cognitive
and social–emotional growth. (pp. 15–35). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/NCEDL/pdfs/SWEEP_MS_summary_fin
al.pdfActivity settings and daily routines in preschool
classrooms: Diverse experiences in early learning settings for
low-incom...1 Conceptualizing quality in early learning
programs2 Research on children's experiences in early learning
programs3 The current study4 Method4.1 Sample4.2 Procedure
and measures4.2.1 Snapshot observations-Emergent Academics
Snapshot scale (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser,
2001)4.2.2 Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) –
Pre-K version (LaParo, Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2001;
LaParo, Pianta...4.2.3 Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale – Revised (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998)
and Early Childhood Env...4.2.4 Child school readiness
outcomes5 Results5.1 Latent class analysis of activity
settings5.2 Daily routine profiles and program-level
correlates5.3 Predicting children's opportunities for learning
and teachers’ instructional strategies5.4 Classroom routines and
children's school readiness skills6 Discussion6.1 Limitations6.2
ImplicationsReferences

AiASabcaARR2AKPTC.docx

More Related Content

Similar to AiASabcaARR2AKPTC.docx (20)

More from galerussel59292 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AiASabcaARR2AKPTC.docx