Teacher- and child-managed academic activities in preschool and kindergarten and their influence on children's gains in emergent academic skills.

de Haan, Annika K.E. ; Elbers, Ed ; Leseman, Paul P.M. 等

The aim of this study was to assess whether children's development benefited from teacher--and child-managed academic activities in the preschool and kindergarten classroom. Extensive systematic observations during four half-days in preschool (n = 8) and kindergarten (n = 8) classrooms revealed that classrooms differed in the amount of time spent on teacher-managed academic activities. The time teachers spent on math activities was remarkably low. Teacher-managed activities accelerated children's development, particularly for preschool children (n = 47); they showed larger gains in language, literacy, and math skills if their teacher devoted a relatively large proportion of classroom time to these topics. With regard to kindergarten children (n = 45), only their math skills seemed influenced by their teacher's engagement in academic activities; these children showed larger gains in math skills if their teacher initiated many language and literacy activities. Children's language and literacy development benefited from child-managed language and literacy activities. In contrast, child-managed math activities were not related to children's gains in math skills. The study provides insight into children's daily experiences in the preschool classroom and yields important implications for the professional development of teachers in early childhood education.

Keywords: preschool education, kindergarten, early childhood education, early childhood curriculum, academic achievement

**********

At the start of formal schooling, children raised in low-income or immigrant families often lag behind peers in language, emergent literacy, and math skills (Jordan & Levine, 2009; Korat, 2005; Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005; Smith & Dixon, 1995). Because these emergent academic skills are strong predictors of later school success (for a review, see La Paro & Pianta, 2000), early education programs aiming to accelerate at-risk children's development in these domains have been implemented in most industrialized countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2006). Generally, review studies showed positive short-and long-term effects of these programs, provided that the intensity and duration are sufficient (Barnett, 1998; Burger, 2010; Gorey, 2001; Leseman, 2009; Nelson, Westhues, & MacLeod, 2003; Ramey & Ramey, 2004). In addition to the importance of the intensity and duration of the program, a growing body of evidence indicates that children who received high-quality care or preschool education enter school with better developed language, emergent literacy, and math skills (Burchinal & Cryer, 2003; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000). In studies assessing the relationship between classroom quality and child outcomes, quality is often assessed with measures focusing on the classroom environment and the sensitivity and responsiveness of the teacher. The strength of the association between these aspects of classroom quality and child outcomes in such studies is rather weak (Burchinal et al., as cited in Chien et al., 2010; Early et al., 2010; Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008). A possible explanation for the modest size of the association is that quality as such may not be decisive; the effectiveness of a program also may depend on what activities are done and how they are done (see also Chien et al., 2010; Early et al., 2010). So far, few studies opened "the black box" of a typical preschool day, let alone the contribution of actual classroom activities to children's development. This study provides a description of children's everyday activities in the public preschool and kindergarten system of the Netherlands, and examines the relationship between teacher--and child-managed academic activities and children's gains in language-literacy and math skills.

The scarcity of research on actual classroom activities and their association with child outcomes is rather surprising considering the long-standing debate on the best learning approach for young children. In short, the debate centers on the question of "where along the continuum of 'child-centered' to 'teacher-directed' it is best to define the role of the teacher for optimizing children's [development]" (Winsler & Carlton, 2003, p. 156). Walsh (1989) noted that the growing academic emphasis in preschool and kindergarten, which often goes along with an increase in teacher-directed activities, is driven by pressure on schools to become more effective. The rising expectations of early childhood education as an accelerator of children's development and thus as a means to diminish the education gap is accompanied by higher expectations of teachers and children and results in a stronger emphasis on accountability. Consequently, early childhood teachers, at least in the United States, devote increasingly more time to direct instruction of basic literacy and math skills (Graue, 2008; Gullo & Hughes, 2011a, 2011b; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). There is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the debate (Van Horn, Karlin, Ramey, Aldridge, & Snyder, 2005) and proposals to bridge the controversy have been put forward (Graue, 2008; Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000). Although a focus on academic content has been found to be associated with negative outcomes on social-motivational measures and social-emotional quality in some studies (Hyson, 1991; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1988, 1997; Stipek et al., 1998; Stipek et al., 1995), the question has been raised whether this negative association is really inevitable (Neuman et al., 2000; Stipek et al., 1998). New approaches to introducing academic content in early childhood care and education settings, based in the research tradition of emergent literacy and emergent numeracy, have shown that child-following playful and authentic activities in literacy and numeracy centers in the classroom, granting initiative to children, can be used effectively to introduce children into academic subjects, without decreasing social-emotional quality (Bodrova, 2008; Bus, Leseman, & Neuman, 2012; Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Neuman et al., 2000).

Some studies examined everyday activities of children in the classroom and the teacher's role in shaping these activities (Early et al., 2010; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Guimaraes & McSherry, 2002; Phillips, Gormley, & Lowenstein, 2007, 2009; Tonyan & Howes, 2003). Only in a few studies, however, were classroom activities related to child outcomes. For example, in a study by Chien et al. (2010), observations were used to classify children in one of four profiles: free play, individual instruction, group instruction, or scaffolded learning. Children in the free play profile, in which children have the most free choice time, made the smallest gains in a number of language, literacy, and math outcomes. With regard to teacher activities, several studies revealed large differences between early childhood teachers in providing activities as intended, while working within the same program or with the same concept, and having received the same training (Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006; Early et al., 2005; Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Hedges, 2006; Meyer, Wardrop, Hastings, & Linn, 1993). It is important to note that these teacher differences are related to child outcomes. For instance, Connor et al. (2006) found that when preschool teachers working within the same comprehensive program spent comparatively more time on language and emergent literacy activities, their students gained more in alphabet knowledge, letter-word recognition, and vocabulary. Especially academic activities during which the teacher was in the lead were positively associated with growth in these emergent school skills. To a lesser extent, child-managed academic activities were also associated with growth. In addition, Justice, Mashburn, Pence, and Wiggins (2008) found that children participating in a comprehensive language curriculum, with relatively much attention for language learning activities, showed accelerated growth in expressive language skills in prekindergarten compared to children in a control group. Similarly, Klibanoff et al. (2006) found that the amount of mathrelated talk teachers initiated in the classroom, in which large differences were observed, was strongly related to children's growth in premathematical knowledge and skills. In sum, focusing on the teacher, on what she or he does in the classroom, may shed new light on the issue of quality of early childhood education and may suggest new starting points for the implementation and quality monitoring of early education for low-income and immigrant children.

This Study

Together, the studies reviewed above indicate that children may benefit from language, literacy, and math activities carried out in the preschool and kindergarten classroom. This study focuses on children's everyday activities in the preschool and kindergarten classroom and the contribution of teacher--and child-managed academic activities on children's academic school readiness. Preprimary school education in the Netherlands consists of two interconnected systems, spanning the age range of 2 years, 6 months to 6 years. Children are admitted to preschools from age 2 years, 6 months. There is a small, income-dependent fee, and about 60% of the eligible children participates for 2 to 4 half-days per week (about 2 1/2 hours per day). Children from low-income families and from immigrant families are especially encouraged to participate. However, preschool is voluntary; parents can also chose to enroll their children at child care centers, with a less clear educational component than in preschool. At age 4, the vast majority of children, more than 98%, start in the kindergarten departments of primary school for 5 days per week (about 5 hours per day). There is no fee and attendance is compulsory from age 5 onwards. Preschools and kindergartens implement a basic developmental, child-following approach, with ample room for free play, fine and gross motor activities, and creative and expressive work. Although it is largely unknown how strong and how effective the academic emphasis is (Doolaard & Leseman, 2008), there is no tradition of didactic teaching or teacher-directed drill and practice of school skills. In view of the controversies regarding early childhood education, two main questions are addressed: Are teacher differences in academic focus related to young children's school readiness? And, second, can child-managed academic activities also contribute to school readiness?

METHOD

Participants

In total, 92 children were involved in the present study: 47 (27 boys, 57%) attending one of eight participating preschools and 45 (22 boys, 49%) attending one of eight participating kindergarten classrooms, all located in a middle-sized city in the western part of the Netherlands. The mean age of preschool children at the first measurement occasion was 3.00 years (SD = .30). Eleven preschool children were of native Dutch origin (23%), 15 children had parents of Moroccan origin (32%), five children had parents of Turkish origin (11%), and 10 children had parents with another cultural background (21%). In addition, six children had parents from mixed cultural backgrounds (13%). Parents' educational level ranged from 1 (no education) to 7 (university degree), the mean was 3.41 (SD = 1.73). The mean age of the kindergarten children was 4.36 years (SD = .24) at the first measurement occasion. Fourteen kindergarten children were of native Dutch origin (31%), 14 children had parents of Moroccan origin (31%), three children had parents of Turkish origin (7%), and seven children had parents with another cultural background (16%). Furthermore, seven children had one native Dutch parent and one parent with another cultural background (16%). The mean level of parental education was 3.24 (SD = 2.11) and ranged from 1 (no education) to 7 (university degree).

Parents of children who recently enrolled in preschool or kindergarten (within the last 6 months) were informed by a letter and brochure about the study and asked for their active informed consent, resulting in participation of the majority of eligible children (84% of preschoolers and 79% of kindergarten children).

Assessments and Measures

Child assessment. All children were tested twice, first shortly after entrance in preschool or kindergarten and then again one year later. At both measurement occasions, testing was divided over two sessions of approximately 30 minutes. Children were tested individually by trained research assistants, using laptop computers, in a quiet room at the preschool or kindergarten.

The Dutch version of the Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS; Tymms, 2001), a computerized adaptive assessment of a wide range of school readiness skills, was used to assess emergent language and literacy and math skills. Previous research with the PIPS in the Netherlands showed the PIPS to be a culturally fair test, with a good predictive validity and high reliability (Van der Hoeven-van Doornum, 2005).

* Language and emergent literacy skills: Language and emergent literacy skills consisted of six subtasks: receptive vocabulary, writing, ideas about reading, letter identification, reading words, and reading sentences. The maximum number of items is 107; due to the adaptive character of the task (i.e., after a certain number of errors the subtest at hand is automatically ended and the program continues to the next subtest), not all items were administered with all children. At both measurement occasions, some missing scores, all missing at random, were imputed separately for the preschool and kindergarten cohort using regression analyses. The percentage of missing scores ranged between 2.2 and 14.9. (1)

* Emergent math skills: Emergent math skills consisted of seven subtasks: ideas about math, counting, informal sums, digit identification, shapes, adding and subtracting, and advanced sums. The maximum number of items is 69, but again due to the adaptive character of the task not all items were administered with all children. Some missing scores were imputed separately for the preschool and kindergarten cohort using regression analyses. With regard to math skills, the percentage of missing scores ranged between 2.2 and 17.0. (1)

Classroom observations. Observations of six randomly selected children in each of the 16 classrooms were conducted to gain a comprehensive insight into children's everyday activities in preschool and kindergarten classrooms. These observation data enabled us to quantify opportunities for engagement in a number of activities deemed relevant for school readiness development. In each of the 16 groups, the target children were observed during 5 half-days of 2 l/2 to 3 hours, which were scheduled within 2 weeks during spring. The first half-day served to familiarize the children and the teacher with the presence of the observer and was therefore not included in the analyses. Teachers were instructed to carry out their usual schedule during the observations.

A cyclic-interval-coding approach was used to observe the target children. These cycles started with a 10-second observation period of an individual child. After these 10 seconds, the activity the observed child was engaged in during that interval was coded on a number of dimensions. After coding all dimensions for a particular interval, the observer started observing the next child for 10 seconds. These cycles of observing and coding were repeated from the start until the end of the morning or afternoon. The time for coding was not restricted, but assistants were strongly urged to code as fast as possible. The coding scheme was programmed in E-prime (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002) and installed on portable laptop computers. This procedure resulted in preschools in a mean of 209 intervals (SD = 32.24) in the mornings and 128 (SD = 19.56) observed and coded intervals in the afternoons, which lasted about 1 hour less than the mornings. In kindergartens, where children spent about 1 hour longer in the morning and 30 minutes longer in the afternoon than in preschool, a mean of 349 intervals (SD = 57.46) were coded in the morning and a mean of 209 intervals (SD = 40.63) were observed and coded in the afternoon.

Three trained research assistants and the first author conducted the observations. To assess inter-rater reliability, assistants coded written realistic classroom situations that were also programmed in E-prime (Schneider et al., 2002). The coding procedure of the hypothetical situations was identical to the coding procedure in real-time classroom situations. Assistants spent approximately 60 minutes coding hypothetical situations, during which they coded on average 35 situations. The inter-rater reliability for the activity aspect of the hypothetical situations was good with all coders' Cohen's kappa over .80.

Activity. After every 10-second observation interval, the activity the child was engaged in during that interval was coded. If two activities were observed during one interval, the activity the child was engaged in longest was coded. The activity coding scale was adapted from Howes and Smith (1995) and, after pilot research, designed in such a way that virtually all play and educational activities carried out in preschool and kindergarten classrooms could be uniquely coded in mutually exclusive categories. Typical examples of activities were making music and singing, creative and craft activities, and free play. Activities with an academic focus also were included, such as book reading, solving geometrical shapes puzzles, working with seriation material, and so on. In addition, the categories outdoor play (mainly gross-motor activities, but not further differentiated), eating a snack and drinking, not being engaged in any activity (waiting, transition to the next activity), and "other" category were included (the complete coding scheme is available from the first author upon request). In addition to the type of activity, the researchers also coded the social context of the activity. The social context enabled examination of who initiated or was mainly in charge of a particular activity (the teachers or the observed children). Composite aggregated scores at the classroom level, combining the type of activity with the initiator (or main agent) of that activity, were computed representing the mean percentages of time observed for teacher-managed language and literacy activities, teacher-managed math activities, child-managed language and literacy activities, and child-managed math activities, respectively, based on four half-days observation and six target children per classroom. Several observation categories were taken together in these broader categories. The aggregated classroom scores were used as factor in subsequent ANOVAs.

* Teacher-managed language and literacy activities: Teacher-managed sharing time and teacher-managed language and literacy activities, such as book reading, storytelling, language games (examples are thinking of words or names starting with a certain letter and guessing a word after the teacher's description of certain characterizing features of that word), rhyming, and introducing and explaining new words, were coded as teacher-managed language and literacy activities.

* Teacher-managed math activities: This category consisted of activities, managed by the teacher, involving counting, ranking, talking about (birth) dates, calendar use, naming shapes, ordering, comparing, and estimating quantities.

* Child-managed language and literacy activities: Two types of child-managed activities were aggregated into this category: looking at or reading books and emergent literacy activities (e.g., writing names, playing letter games, and functional literacy activities in pretend play, such as pretending to read a menu or writing down an order when playing restaurant). Activities could have been planned or initiated by the teacher; if at the time of observation, the teacher was not directly involved, they were considered child managed.

* Child-managed math activities: This category consisted of several activities initiated or mainly controlled by children involving counting; naming shapes; ordering according to color, size, or shape; pattern completion; and other math-related skills. Most frequently observed were such activities as solving jig-saw puzzles, playing board games involving numbers and dice, and tasks for which patterns needed to be replicated by children, such as making string beads. Again, although the teachers could have stimulated the children to carry out these activities, if the children were mainly in charge they were considered child managed.

RESULTS

Children's Everyday Activities

Observations were conducted in eight preschools and eight kindergarten classrooms. In preschool, the total number of observed intervals ranged from 396 to 783 per classroom (M = 625.88, SD = 124.58). In kindergartens, the number of observed intervals ranged from 732 to 1,299 per classroom (M = 1086.63, SD = 171.35). Table 1 shows an overview of the mean time allocation in preschools and kindergartens in percents of the total observation time. The "other" category includes primarily activities that did not fit in any of the categories of the coding scheme (preschool 8%, kindergarten 13%). In addition, computer work (kindergarten 13 %), gymnastics and dancing (preschool 2%, kindergarten 3%), music and singing activities (preschool 6%, kindergarten 2%), and other fine motor activities (preschool 4%, kindergarten 4%) were aggregated in the "other" category.

To determine the effects of teacher- and child-managed academic activities, the nested structure of the data had to be taken into account. Applying multilevel regression analysis was considered not feasible due to the small number of observations on the classroom level (n = 16; cf. Maas & Hox, 2005). Therefore, alternative, within-subjects repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with the aggregated classroom scores as factor. Main effects of time, although significant in all analyses, were not the main focus of this study and are therefore not reported.

Teacher-Managed Academic Activities

With regard to teacher-managed language-literacy and math activities, a median split based on the number of children was used to create a factor with two levels; preschool and kindergarten classrooms where relatively few versus relatively many observation intervals were coded as teacher-managed activities. Because hardly any interval was coded as teacher-managed math activity in preschools, these activities were not further taken into account in the analyses (the percentage ranged from 0 to 0.76, M = .20, SD = .29). The descriptive statistics of teacher-managed language-literacy and math activities are for both groups shown in Table 2.

To assess whether children in classrooms where relatively many teacher-managed activities were observed showed larger gains in related school readiness skills than children in classrooms where fewer of these activities were carried out, repeated measures ANOVAs were performed with the level of teacher-managed activities (based on the median split) as between-subjects factor. For the group scoring low and the group scoring high on teacher-managed language and literacy activities, the descriptive statistics of the outcome measure are shown in Table 3. The repeated measures ANOVAs showed that preschool children in classrooms with a relatively high proportion of teacher-managed language and literacy activities showed larger gains in literacy skills than children in preschools where fewer of these activities were carried out, F(1, 44) = 3.69, [[eta].sup.2] = .08, p = .06. With regard to children in kindergarten, the analysis showed that their language and literacy development was not accelerated by participating in a kindergarten classroom where the teacher initiated relatively many literacy activities, F(1, 43) = .16, [[eta].sup.2] = .00, p = .69.

As mentioned before, the occurrence of teacher-managed math activities in preschools was so scarce that it did not allow for a distinction in preschool classrooms where comparatively many versus few of these activities were carried out. In kindergarten, however, children whose teachers initiated and directed relatively many math activities showed larger gains than children in classes with fewer teacher-managed math activities (see Table 4 for descriptive statistics). However, this small effect was not significant, F(1, 43) = 2.45, [[eta].sup.2] = .05, p =. 13.

Given the fact that math and language skills are highly intertwined, the researchers also assessed whether children's math skills were benefited by teacher-managed language and literacy activities. The analyses showed that preschool children in classrooms with a comparatively high proportion of teacher-managed language and literacy activities showed larger gains in math skills than children in preschools where fewer of these activities were observed, F(1, 45) = 9.01, [[eta].sup.2] = .17, p = .00. In contrast to language and literacy development, children in kindergarten showed larger gains in math skills when they were in classrooms where relatively many teacher-managed language and literacy activities were carried out, F(1, 43) = 3.91, [[eta].sup.2] = .08, p = .05 (see Table 5 for descriptive statistics).

Child-Managed Language-Literacy and Math Activities

In addition to teacher-managed language-literacy and math activities, the effect of child-managed language-literacy and math activities on school readiness development was also examined. Again, the observed preschools and kindergartens were split in two groups; preschool and kindergarten classrooms where children were observed to initiate or manage relatively few versus relatively many of these activities (see Table 6 for descriptive statistics).

With regard to language and literacy skills, the proportion of child-managed language and literacy activities in the classroom revealed a medium effect on language and literacy development: preschool and kindergarten children attending classrooms with a relatively high degree of child-managed language and literacy activities showed larger gains in language and literacy development than children in classrooms that were relatively low in these activities, although not statistically significant at p = .05; preschools: F(1,44) = 2.71, [[eta].sup.2] = .06, p =. 11; kindergartens: F(1, 43) = 3.34, [[eta].sup.2] = .07, p = .08 (see Table 7 for descriptive statistics). For children in preschool and kindergarten, frequent engagement in child-managed math activities was not associated with larger gains in math skills: preschool: F(1, 45) = 1.52, [[eta].sup.2] = .03, p = .22; kindergarten: F(1, 43) = 0.10, [[eta].sup.2] = .00, p = .76 (see Table 8 for descriptive statistics).

DISCUSSION

This study examined children's everyday activities in Dutch preschool and kindergarten classrooms. Subsequently, the amount of teacher- and child-managed language-literacy and math activities was related to children's gains in related domains of school readiness skills over a 1-year period. With regard to teacher-managed academic activities, there are two main findings. First, the occurrence of teacher-managed academic activities was quite low. Especially math activities were rarely initiated by teachers. Second, despite their relative low occurrence, our findings showed that teacher-managed activities have the potential to benefit children's development. Preschool children's language-literacy and math development was positively associated with the amount of teacher-managed language and literacy activities in the classroom. Kindergarten children showed larger gains in math skills in classrooms where teachers initiated relatively many language-literacy and math activities. In contrast, an effect of teacher-managed language and literacy activities on kindergarten children's language and literacy development was not found.

The low occurrence of teacher-managed math activities is not surprising, given previous research showing that young children's teachers tend to focus more on language and literacy than on math activities (Graham, Nash, & Paul, 1997; Howes et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2007, 2009). Although we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the teachers in this study incorporated math activities in subtle ways in other activities of their program that were not detected by the observers, the presently studied preschool and kindergarten classrooms seem to be lacking a clear focus on math. The relative position of math activities in the present sample seems even less favorable compared to findings in other studies involving U.S. preschools that revealed a more balanced focus on language, literacy, and math in early childhood education settings (Chien et al., 2010; Connor et al., 2006; Early et al., 2010; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Howes et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2007, 2009; Tonyan & Howes, 2003). Moreover, also similar to other studies, if teacher-managed math activities were coded in the observed classrooms, they were hardly requiring higher order mathematical thinking (Graham et al., 1997; Tudge & Doucet, 2004), but rather involved counting or shape naming.

In comparison with math activities, teacher-managed language and literacy activities were more common; however, in preschool, on average, these activities still belonged to the least prominent ones. Similar to other studies, observations in this study further revealed that in preschool and kindergarten, much time was spent on such transition activities as gathering material to start an activity, tidying up after an activity, and awaiting one's turn when choosing an activity on a plan board (Connor et al., 2006; Early et al., 2005; Elicker & Mathur, 1997). Although part of the transition and waiting activities might have contributed to children's development (e.g., the informal sorting of play materials during tidying up might have promoted emergent math skills), the researchers think that, on average, too much time is lost. According to informal impressions (not specifically coded), most of the transition time boils down to waiting time and does not contribute at all to the developmental domains under investigation in this study. As reported in other studies, much time was also spent on daily care routines, such as eating snacks and drinking (Chien et al., 2010; Early et al., 2005; Early et al., 2010; Elicker & Mathur, 1997). Furthermore, a remarkable predominant activity in terms of time spending in both preschools and kindergartens in our sample was outdoor play (17 to 18% of the total time), leaving less time for academic activities. Although outdoor play provides many opportunities for promoting children's development, informal observations revealed that teachers rarely took advantage of these opportunities.

The contribution of teacher-managed language and literacy activities to preschool and kindergarten children's math development might seem counterintuitive at first. However, an improvement in language skills probably leads to better math skills as well, because improved language skills may help the child to better understand mathematical concepts. Furthermore, teacher-managed language and literacy activities are presumably interspersed with count words, comparison words, and other mathematical concepts as well. Klibanoff et al. (2006) for instance, describe in their study on math talk that teachers' references to mathematical concepts frequently occurred outside the context of planned mathematical instruction--for example, during creative activities and book reading. In addition, Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen et al. (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & van den Boogaard, 2008; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, van den Boogaard, & Doig, 2009) found that picture books written without the intention to teach children about mathematics evoke mathematics-related thinking in kindergarten children; about one half of children's spontaneous utterances in reaction to the picture books were mathematics related.

There is a contradictory and unexpected finding in the results. On the one hand, there is an association between teacher-managed language and literacy activities and children's development of mathematical skills. On the other hand, these teacher-managed activities do not appear to promote children's language and literacy development, at least in the kindergarten group. A possible explanation is that the nature of teacher-managed language and literacy activities is relatively global and, as a result, less specifically adapted to individual children's needs for language learning. Taken together, these factors might have made it more difficult to isolate effects of teacher-managed language and literacy activities on kindergarten children's development in these skills. In addition, another observation study (de Haan, Elbers, & Leseman, 2011) revealed differences between preschools and kindergartens that might have had an impact on the children's language and literacy development; partly due to the higher teacher to child ratio in preschool, kindergarten children had less interaction with their teacher than preschool children. Overall, preschool children might rely more on their teacher as a source of development, which might explain the positive association between teacher-managed language and literacy activities and preschool children's development in language and literacy skills. Still, the result is puzzling, given the fact that language and literacy activities in kindergarten and preschool did affect children's mathematical skills. Doing qualitative analyses of interactions between teachers and children, while comparing the interactions in preschool and kindergarten classes, might shed light on these unexpected results in the future.

With regard to child-managed activities, such activities as picture book reading (leafing through the pages, looking at pictures) and copying words with letter stamps and similar activities involving print were found to be related to children's gains in these skills. In contrast, childmanaged math activities were not associated with children's development in math. A possible explanation for these mixed findings is that the most frequently observed child-managed math activities, jigsaw puzzle solving and pattern completion activities, are less obviously related to the outcome measure than the child-managed language and literacy activities were related to that particular outcome measure. Virtually all observed teacher-managed math activities, of which the researchers did find an effect on kindergarten children's math skills, were concerned with basic emergent math skills such as counting, naming shapes, and comparing quantities, what might explain their contribution to children's development in math skills as assessed with the outcome measure (cf. Klibanoff et al., 2006).

Although this study provides insight into the role of academic activities in preschools and kindergartens with a predominant developmental approach and into how these activities may contribute to children's school readiness, the possibility that activities other than those taken into account in these analyses contributed to children's language-literacy and math development cannot be excluded. A future observation study, in which more fine-grained activity categories will be used, should further disentangle the contribution of different activities to children's development. To complement these quantitative results, future qualitative studies should detail the content of the activities and, even more important, the instruction and interaction quality of the activities. Furthermore, this sample was quite small, limiting statistical generalization. Future studies should include not only a larger sample size, but also ideally samples from different geographical areas and ethnic communities to examine the generality of the findings of the current study. Despite these limitations, the researchers conclude that teacher-managed academic activities are infrequent, overall, in the preschools and kindergartens involved in this study. Nevertheless, if present, these activities can have a considerable effect on children's school readiness development, especially for the youngest children.

A large range was found regarding the time teachers spent on academic activities in the preschool and kindergarten classrooms in this study (preschool: 1%-16%; kindergarten: 11%27%), indicating that some teachers were apparently quite able to invest a considerable amount of time in academic content, whereas other teachers, working in the same system with the same pedagogical approach, hardly provided any academic content during the 4 half-days of observation. Similar findings regarding teacher differences were reported in previous studies (Connor et al., 2006; Early et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 1993). This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that academic content in early childhood education programs is important for children's school readiness development, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bus et al., 2012). Therefore, teachers should be urged to reconsider their daily schedules, to incorporate academic content activities in their program, and to minimize the loss of time due to mere waiting, transitions between activities, and lack of interesting activities. Improving classroom management skills and exchange of best practices among teachers might propel this process. Furthermore, teachers should become aware of all opportunities to stimulate children's development. In this study, some teachers proved to be quite successful in incorporating stimulating activities during transition time. For example, they asked children to arrange themselves in a row from the smallest to the tallest child before going outside for play. Furthermore, teachers should be encouraged to overcome their often reported discomfort in carrying out math-related activities (Ginsburg, Lee, & Boyd, 2008). Although the teachers in this study, on average, spent very little classroom time on math activities, there was a small marginally significant effect on kindergarten children's math development. More math activities might lead to larger gains in children's math skills (Guarino, Hamilton, Lockwood, Rathbun, & Hausken, 2006).

An important final point to highlight is that nearly all teacher-managed activities were carried out in whole-group settings. It is likely that a whole-group setting limits interaction opportunities and may therefore be less effective in stimulating development; the teacher has to divide his or her attention between many children and usually one child at a time is allowed to make a contribution to the ongoing activity (Powell, Burchinal, File, & Kontos, 2008). Research findings support this claim by showing that children in whole-group settings are twice as likely to be passively listening or merely watching than talking and acting. Furthermore, the effect of small-group instruction on skill development is reported to be 10 times greater than instruction in whole-group settings (Connor et al., 2006). In sum, these studies suggest that teacher-managed academic activities carried out in small-group settings might be more effective in accelerating children's development than similar activities in whole-group settings. Nevertheless, teachers rarely seem to initiate teacher-led, small-group activities and children spend much time in less effective whole-group settings (see also Chien et al., 2010; Elicker & Mathur, 1997). An important condition for effective early childhood education is the optimal allocation of time, with an alternation of teacher-managed academic activities and child-managed educational and play activities while loss of time is restricted to a minimum. It is important to stress that rather than arguing in favor of a highly academic skills-oriented or rote learning approach, the researchers recommend embedding academic content in a mixture of meaningful teacher-managed academic and child-managed play activities.

REFERENCES

Barnett, S. (1998). Long-term cognitive and academic effects of early childhood education on children in poverty. Preventive Medicine, 27, 204-207.

Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today's dilemma of early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16, 357-369.

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

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

Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 140-165.

Bus, A. G., Leseman, P. P. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Methods for preventing early academic difficulties. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus, S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M., ... Barbarin, O. A. (2010). Children's classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development, 81, 1534-1549.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and children's emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 665-689.

de Haan, A. K. E., Elbers, E., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2011, April). Interethnic interaction in Dutch targeted and mixed preschool education programs: Effects on children's language growth. In P. P. M. Leseman (Chair), Interaction in the preschool classroom: Opportunities, stimulation and effects on children's development. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 465-481.

Doolaard, S., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2008). Versterking van het fundament. Groningen, the Netherlands: GION.

Early, D. M., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, E, Clifford, R., ... Ritchie, S. (2005). Prekindergarten in eleven states: NCEDL's multi-state study of pre-kindergarten and study of state-wide earl)' education programs (SWEEP). Chapel Hill, NC: National Center for Early Development & Learning.

Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D. M. C., Crawford, G. M., ... Pianta, R. C. (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, 177-193.

Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Earl), Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 459-480.

Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 3-22.

Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: A meta-analytic affirmation of the short- and long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarter(v, 16, 9-30.

Graham, T. A., Nash, C., & Paul, K. (1997). Young children's exposure to mathematics: The child care context. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25, 31-38.

Graue, E. (2008). Teaching and learning in a post-DAP world. Early Education and Development, 19, 441-447.

Guarino, C. M., Hamilton, L. S., Lockwood, J. R., Rathbun, A. H., & Hausken, E. G. (2006). Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergartners. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Guimaraes, S., & McSherry, K. (2002). The curriculum experiences of pre-school children in Northern Ireland: Classroom practices in terms of child-initiated play and adult-directed activities. International Journal of Early Years Education, 10, 85-94.

Gullo, D. E, & Hughes, K. (2011a). Reclaiming kindergarten: Part I. Questions about theory and practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 323-328.

Gullo, D. F., & Hughes, K. (2011 b). Reclaiming kindergarten: Part II: Questions about policy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 393-397.

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

Howes, C., & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behavior, children's play activities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in child care. Earl)' Childhood Research Quarterly,, 10, 381-404.

Hyson, M. C. (1991). The characteristics and origins of the academic preschool. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1991, (53), 21-29.

Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 60-68.

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51-68.

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental evaluation of a preschool language curriculum: Influence on children's expressive language skills. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 51,983-1001.

Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool children's mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher "math talk." Developmental Psychology, 42, 59-69.

Korat, O. (2005). Contextual and non-contextual knowledge in emergent literacy development: A comparison between children from low SES and middle SES communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 220-238.

La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting children's competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70, 443-484.

Leseman, P. P. M. (2009). The impact of high quality education and care on the development of young children: Review of the literature. In Tackling social and cultural inequalities through early childhood education and care in Europe.

Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/ thematic_reports/098EN.pdf Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 86-92.

Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 169-196.

Meyer, L. A., Wardrop, J. L., Hastings, C. N., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Effects of ability and settings on kindergartners' reading performance. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 142-160.

Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention & Treatment, 6, Article 31.

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). Starting strong H: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author.

Phillips, D., Gormley, W. T., & Lowenstein, A. (2007, March). Classroom quality and time allocation in Tulsa's early childhood programs. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.

Phillips, D., Gormley, W. T., & Lowenstein, A. (2009). Inside the pre-kindergarten door: Classroom climate and instructional time allocation in Tulsa's pre-K programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 213-228.

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.

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 471-491.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1988). Education for young children living in poverty: Child-initiated learning or teacher-directed instruction? Elementary School Journal, 89, 212-224.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.

Smith, S. S., & Dixon, R. G. (1995). Literacy concepts of low-and middle-class four-year-olds entering preschool. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 243-253.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Milburn, S., & Salmon, J. M. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41-66.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children's achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209-223.

Tonyan, H. A., & Howes, C. (2003). Exploring patterns in time children spend in a variety of child care activities: Associations with environmental quality, ethnicity, and gender. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 121-142.

Tudge, J. R. H., & Doucet, F. (2004). Early mathematical experiences: Observing young black and white children's everyday activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 21-39.

Tymms, P. (2001). The development of a computer-adaptive assessment in the early years. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(3), 20-30.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & van den Boogaard, S. (2008). Picture books as an impetus for kindergartners' mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 341-373.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., van den Boogaard, S., & Doig, B. (2009). Picture books stimulate the learning of mathematics. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(2), 30-39.

Van der Hoeven-van Doornum, A. (2005). Development on scale, instruction at measure. Obis, a system of value added indicators in primary education. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: ITS.

Van Horn, M. L., Karlin, E. O., Ramey, S. L., Aldridge, J., & Snyder, S. W. (2005). Effects of developmentally appropriate practices on children's development: A review of research and discussion of methodological and analytical issues. Elementary School Journal, 105, 325-351.

Walsh, D. J. (1989). Changes in kindergarten: Why here? Why now? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 377-391. Winsler, A., & Carlton, M. P. (2003). Observations of children's task activities and social interactions in relation to teacher perceptions in a child-centered preschool: Are we leaving too much to chance? Early Education and Development, 14, 155-178.

NOTE

(1.) There are various reasons for missing scores. At the first measurement occasion, scores were mainly missing due to unwillingness of children to cooperate or repeated absence of children when the testing session was scheduled. At the second measurement occasion, scores were mainly missing due to relocation of the child's family.

DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2013.851750

Submitted December 5,2011; accepted November 29, 2012.

Address correspondence to Annika K. E. de Haan, Department of Special Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands. E-mail: a.k.e.dehaan@uu.nl

Annika K. E. de Haan, Ed Elbers, and Paul P. M. Leseman

Department of Special Education, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands TABLE 1 Time Allocation in Percentages of the Observed Intervals in Preschools and Kindergartens Preschool M % (SD) Range % Teacher-managed literacy activities 7.22 (5.85) 0.93-16.29 Teacher-managed math activities 0.20 (0.29) 0.00-0.76 Child-managed literacy activities 2.11 (1.33) 0.75-4.36 Child-managed math activities 2.02 (2.33) 0.00-7.03 Creative activities 8.60 (6.05) 0.55-18.69 Free play 15.38 (6.21) 10.12-28.22 Snack time 11.42 (2.72) 5.81-14.80 Outside play 15.68 (9.92) 5.05-27.46 Other activity 20.57 (9.76) 9.58-39.44 No activity/transition 16.21 (7.02) 6.10-24.44 Kindergarten M % (SD) Range % Teacher-managed literacy activities 14.96 (5.54) 8.06-26.71 Teacher-managed math activities 1.67 (1.10) 0.00-2.83 Child-managed literacy activities 1.59(l 0.00-4.37 Child-managed math activities 4.82 (6.03) 1.03-19.32 Creative activities 6.47 (3.51) 0.00-11.09 Free play 6.73 (3.23) 2.22-12.16 Snack time 5.35 (0.77) 3.90-6.45 Outside play 17.60 (7.24) 7.66-26.79 Other activity 22.43 (8.00) 10.24-32.27 No activity/transition 18.05 (8.66) 6.93-31.37 TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics of Preschools and Kindergartens Low in Teacher-Managed Language-Literacy and Math Activities Versus Preschools and Kindergartens High in These Activities (n Is the Number of Children) n M % (SD) Range Preschool Literacy Low 22 3.23 (2.17) 0.93-6.31 activities High 24 13.87 (2.12) 12.37-16.29 Kindergarten Math Low 22 0.99 (0.75) 0.00-1.96 activities High 23 2.80 (0.03) 2.77-2.83 Literacy Low 20 11.53 (2.50) 8.06-13.56 activities High 25 18.38 (5.54) 13.98-26.71 TABLE 3 Children's Development in Language-Literacy Skills in Classrooms Low in Teacher-Managed Language and Literacy Activities Versus in Classrooms High in These Activities Children's literacy skills Teacher Time 1 literacy activities n M SD Preschool Low 22 5.36 5.10 High 24 6.22 6.64 Kindergarten Low 20 28.40 11.53 High 25 18.59 10.95 Children's literacy skills Teacher Time 2 T2-T1 literacy activities M SD M Preschool Low 16.49 8.98 11.13 High 23.66 15.34 17.44 Kindergarten Low 49.65 17.05 21.25 High 38.46 14.37 19.87 TABLE 4 Kindergarten Children's Development in Math Skills in Classrooms Low in Teacher-Managed Math Activities Versus in Classrooms High in These Activities Children's math skills Time 1 Teacher math activities n M SD Kindergarten Low 22 23.07 8.20 High 23 16.52 8.59 Children's math skills Time 2 T2-T1 Teacher math activities M SD M Kindergarten Low 36.27 6.24 13.20 High 32.18 6.96 15.66 TABLE 5 Children's Development in Math Skills in Classrooms Low in Teacher- Managed Language and Literacy Activities Versus in Classrooms High in These Activities Children's math skills Teacher Time 1 literacy activities n M SD Preschool Low 23 5.09 4.25 High 24 4.20 4.77 Kindergarten Low 20 24.10 8.29 High 25 16.22 7.96 Children's math skills Teacher Time 2 T2-T1 literacy activities M SD M Preschool Low 11.19 6.16 6.10 High 14.61 7.96 10.41 Kindergarten Low 36.85 6.45 12.75 High 32.05 6.54 15.83 TABLE 6 Descriptive Statistics of Preschools and Kindergartens Low in Child- Managed Language-Literacy and Math Activities Versus Preschools and Kindergartens High in These Activities (n Is the Number of Children) n M % (SD) Range % Preschool Math Low 23 0.46 (0.62) 0.00-1.31 activities High 24 3.59 (2.40) 1.50-7.03 Literacy Low 24 1.14 (0.46) 0.75-1.79 activities High 22 3.08 (l.17) 1.92-4.36 Kindergarten Math Low 21 1.75 (0.52) 1.03-2.33 activities High 24 7.89 (7.70) 2.61-19.32 Literacy Low 26 0.36 (0.41) 0.00-0.75 activities High 19 2.82 (l.33) 1.31-4.37 TABLE 7 Children's Development in Language-Literacy Skills in Classrooms Low in Child-Managed Language and Literacy Activities Versus in Classrooms High in These Activities Children's literacy skills Child Time 1 Time 2 T2-T1 literacy activities n M SD M SD M Preschool Low 24 5.29 4.70 17.09 11.44 11.80 High 22 6.38 7.05 23.65 14.13 17.27 Kindergarten Low 26 19.99 10.46 37.91 12.72 17.92 High 19 27.00 13.33 51.00 18.18 24.00 TABLE 8 Children's Development in Math Skills in Classrooms Low in Child- Managed Math Activities Versus in Classrooms High in These Activities Children's math skills Time 1 Time 2 T2-T1 Child math activities n M SD M SD M Preschool Low 23 4.82 3.56 12.14 5.79 7.32 High 24 4.47 5.31 13.70 8.50 9.23 Kindergarten Low 21 21.48 9.59 35.67 6.73 14.19 High 24 18.19 8.22 32.88 6.86 14.69